Hizballah’s Body Handler Photographed in 1996

EU Referendum has an update on the Hizballah “rescue worker” in the green helmet, the guy who paraded around with children’s bodies for hours at Qana, posing them for photographers.

Turns out that Green Helmet Guy must be the official Hizballah body handler; he has a history of turning up at attack sites and putting on ghoulish shows. EU Referendum found a photo from 1996, apparently showing the same person displaying another dead child to photographers: Who Is This Man?
from LGF

Let’s see, a genocidal army lauhches at attack from a polulated area so the return fire kills innocents so they can make the Israeli people look like butchers.

And remember, this is then same time Iran is working on nucs.

Sounds like a distraction and a set up to me.

Oh, and to make the day extra special, soldiers from North Korea and South Korea exchanged fire along their border late Monday, but no one was hurt, a South Korean military official said Tuesday.

nice…….

ABC’s Gibson Uniquely Highlights Declining Number of Troops Dying in Iraq

Posted by Brent Baker

One week after ABC anchor Charles Gibson made a special point about how bad the situation in Iraq remained while media attention focused on the Israel-Hezbollah war, specifically noting how “more U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq these past two weeks than Israeli soldiers have died in their conflict,” Gibson on Monday night — uniquely on the broadcast network evening newscasts — highlighted some good news: How U.S. military deaths are falling in Iraq. Gibson read this short item on the July 31 World News: “One item to mention from Iraq tonight. The U.S. military death toll in Iraq fell in July, for the third-straight month, despite the rising sectarian violence. As of yesterday, 44 U.S. forces had been killed in July. And that’s the third-lowest monthly death toll in two years.” An accompanying on-screen chart showed the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq declining from 76 in April to 69 in May to 61 in June and 44 in July.
from Newsbusters

I am very suprised that one MSM outlet printed this, and since you might not hear it again, I’ll repeat. The fact is that …….

Things are Improving in IRAQ!

Not all Democrats are liberals, but all liberals are Democrats..

…and not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

From the desk of Fjordman

Historian David Littman is a representative to the United Nations (Geneva) of the Association for World Education. He has spent years tracking the rise of Islamic influence at the UN. According to him, “In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations.” “As a result, non-diplomatic terms such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘defamation of Islam’ have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari’a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam.”

On August 5, 1990, the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. According to the official English version, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a.” The CDHRI has since then become “a quotable source at the United Nations.”

David Littman warns that “The new rules of conduct being imposed by the OIC [the Organization of the Islamic Conference], and acceded to by other states, give those who claim to represent Islam an exceptional status at the United Nations that has no legal basis and no precedent.” “Will a prohibition of discussion about certain political aspects of Islam become generally accepted at the United Nations and beyond, contradicting ‘the right to freedom of opinion and expression’ promised by Article XIX of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Unless farsighted states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, make it their business to assert and reassert the need for freedom of speech, this precious liberty is at risk of being eroded throughout the system of international organizations.”

Fifty-seven Muslim governments are pressing to include a “ban on the mocking of religions” in a new U.N. human rights body by pushing a resolution under the agenda item “Racism” condemning what they called the “Defamation of Islam.” In a clear reference to the Muhammad cartoons controversy, the proposal stated that “defamation of religions and prophets is inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression.”

The United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights Louise Arbour involved herself in the discussion during the tensions caused by the Danish cartoons. In a letter to the 56 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), she stated: “I understand your concerns and would like to emphasize that I regret any statement or act that could express a lack of respect for other people’s religion.” In a complaint to the High Commissioner, the 56 Islamic governments asked Louise Arbour to raise the matter with the Danish government “to help contain this encroachment on Islam, so the situation won’t get out of control.” Two UN experts, on religious freedom and on racism and xenophobia, were said to be working on the case.

Danish toy maker Lego was later upset with the United Nations, after the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights published an “anti-discrimination” poster that used a Lego building block as an illustration of racism. At the same time, David Littman documents the relative UN inaction regarding hateful material used in public schools in Islamic countries. An example is an extract from a book approved by al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, widely viewed as maybe the most important centre of learning for a billion Sunni Muslims. Pious justifications are offered to Egyptian Grade 11 students concerning the reasons for beheading infidels:

“When you meet them in order to fight [them], do not be seized by compassion [toward them], but strike the[ir] necks powerfully […] Striking the neck means fighting, because killing a person is often done by striking off his head […] This expression contains a harshness and emphasis that are not found in the word ‘kill’, because it describes killing in the ugliest manner, ‘i.e. cutting the neck and making the organ – the head of the body – fly off [the body]’.”

This is now commonplace in Iraq, where more than one hundred foreign hostages have been ritually beheaded. It is also used by Muslim Jihadists against, among others, teachers in the troubled southern provinces of Thailand, since they are viewed as infidel representatives of the predominantly Buddhist state. As scholar Andrew Bostom demonstrates, the Islamic practice of beheading originates from Islamic core teachings, such as the Koran sura 47, verse 4, which says: “When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks.” Muhammad and his followers also beheaded some 600 to 900 men from the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza outside of Medina, enslaving their women and children.

While Islamic nations are trying to get the UN to outlaw criticism of Islam on an international basis, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan assures Americans that the plan of leaving the UN in charge of the Internet is nothing to worry about, it is only to make the Internet more efficient. “One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to ‘take over,’ police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet’s global reach,” according to Annan.

Even as they were passing six resolutions condemning Israel, the United Nations General Assembly failed to define terrorism because the Organization of the Islamic Conference demanded exceptions for terror gangs like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the head-hacking Al Qaeda holy warriors in Iraq. Still, Secretary General Kofi Annan praised the OIC, an organization consisting of some of the world’s worst human rights abusers, stating that “Over the years, and especially the past decade, the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have worked to promote tolerance, equality, development and the peaceful resolution of conflict.”

In contrast, Kofi Annan’s deputy assailed the United States for withholding support from the United Nations, encouraging its harshest detractors. Mr Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington’s tolerance of what he called “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping.” “Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Fox News,” he said. UN Ambassador from the United States John Bolton strongly rebuked the remarks, calling the speech by Annan’s deputy a “very grave mistake.”

Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have repeatedly called for the annihilation of fellow UN member Israel. Announcing the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran’s goal of “wiping Israel off the map.” The day before, the UN’s Disarmament Commission, the organization that is supposed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, elected Iran’s Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi as one of its three vice-chairs. Iran denounced the election of Israel to that same commission, calling the Jewish state a threat to peace in
the Middle East.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said no UN Security Council resolution could make Iran give up its nuclear program. “The Iranian nation “won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions” he said, hours before an expected finding that Tehran has failed to meet a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment. The Islamic Republic of Iran has murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens and is the source of grotesque human rights abuses. It is also the long-time sponsor of Islamic terrorist organizations abroad and has openly threatened to wipe out another country with nuclear weapons. Despite all of this, the country is still a full member of the United Nations, technically treated the same was as Switzerland.

The old UN Human Rights Commission was a body so discredited that it was eventually disbanded. UN critic Anne Bayefsky warned, however, that the new design “promises an institution more contemptible than its predecessor.” The election of some of the world’s worst violators of free expression – Algeria, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia – to be members of the UN’s new Human Rights Council was called a “scandal” by organization Reporters Without Borders:
from the Brussel Journal

And this is the same United Nations that Hezbolah hid behind as they attacked civilians in Israel. This is the same United Nations that constantly backs up as Iran pushes it’s nukes forward. This is the same United Nations that the left worships and expects to keep peace in the Middle East.

As the recent bombing in Lebanon has shown, using civilians as cover is a cowardly pathetic act.  Not surprising that a terrorist group would conduct themselves in this manner but disgusting nonetheless.  One thing the left is forgetting about is that their precious Geneva Conventions state the same thing:

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. 

Vital Perspective also points out that Yoram Dinstein, a noted Internation law expert, states exactly that from his book "The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict"

Should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent placing innocent civilians at risk. 

Common sense you would think, but as we all know the left and the MSM doesn't have a whole lot of that.  Hell, look at the Lebanese PM thanking Hezbollah for their efforts:

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuoad Siniora expressed his 'gratitude' to Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah for "sacrificing their lives for the country."

During a press conference held in wake of the Qana village incident in which 55 Lebanese were killed, Siniora asked: "Is Israel's mission to wipe out the Lebanese? It seems they want to kill all of us. One of those killed today is a baby just one day old. With its aggression, Israel is encouraging extremism."

"Israel won't obtain a thing through the war," he added. "Does it believe that through war it will obtain goals? They won't obtain a thing, and the opposite is the truth. The entire Lebanese nation is united against the Israeli aggression," Siniora said.

Siniora emphasized that Lebanon won't take part in negotiations between Israel and Hizbullah "until the Israeli war machine stops spilling the blood of innocents."

He further stated that once Israel pulls back he will abide by the UN Resolution which disarms Hezbollah.  From his tone and words does anyone really believe this?  He is basically on his knee's thanking the terrorists and the world believes he will disarm them….sure thing.

Ed Morrissey notes that Siniora is obviously complicit with Hezbollah:

We already know that Lebanon has ultimate responsibility for acts carried out by militias it tolerates on its land, but the assumption was that Saniora didn't disband Hezbollah out of inability. Statements such as these make it appear that Saniora didn't want to disband Hezbollah under any circumstances. That makes Saniora more overtly responsible for the act of war, and it frees Israel to target Lebanese military assets on a much broader basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy requests Syria to come back in to save them.  He has the nerve to thank Hezbollah when the only sacrifices Hezbollah has made is killing innocent civilians, doesn't matter who he tries to blame.  The Geneva Convention states they are responsible, and so does anyone with a bit of common sense.  You attack from a apartment building then you better expect to be aggressed back.

“An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget – just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits.”
John F. Kennedy.

By Robert Farrow

Sometimes politics is a game of deception. One of the clearest examples of this is how the Democrats use of the politics of division. The Democrats, who love to paint the Republicans as exclusive and divisive, love to play in the very destructive and dividing game of race baiting and class baiting.

One of the favorite and most successful Democratic lies is that the Republicans policies then benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Well, common sense would tell a reader having policies that are anti-business would increase unemployment and thus, in the end, hurt the poor too. But apparently, common sense is not that common. But think about it, who owned the business that gives you a paycheck and allows you to feed your kids, pay your hose payment, and buy your car? Middle class and rich people, that’s who. So how does it help the middle class and poor to make it more difficult for business owners to make a profit and hire more staff?

High taxes are also a recent addition to the Democratic agenda, a fact that is conveniently ignored by Democratic pundits. One might be surprised to hear one of the great figured in the Democratic Party, John F. Kennedy, argue against high taxes.

The ‘Secret’ JFK Tax Cuts

Democrats and the Kennedys are once again proving to be hypocrite fools suffering from the famous case of liberal amnesia. The controversy this time stems from John F. Kennedy in advertisements that support President Bush’s new tax cut plan. Senator Ted Kennedy is fuming over JFK’s name and image being used to support tax cuts, something he vehemently opposes. These ads in question compare the massive tax cuts of JFK to those of Reagan and Bush, and rightfully so. This ordeal is only a small part of the larger problem; that modern day Democrats and socialists have hijacked the good name of John F. Kennedy. One of JFK’s key economic plans included massive, across-the-board tax cuts, similar to those of Reagan. Much like the 1920’s and 1980’s, it was these tax cuts that led to the Golden Kennedy-Johnson years.

Pro-tax lobbyists claim that Kennedy’s tax cuts were significantly different than the tax cuts of Reagan, and the proposed tax cuts of Bush. They claim that Kennedy’s tax cuts benefited low-income families, while Republican tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. On the contrary, they are quite similar. To an extent, Kennedy’s tax cuts benefited the upper and upper middle classes even more. By the time Kennedy took office, the top income tax rate had reached 94%. Kennedy originally asked for it to be reduced to 65%, but Congress slashed this down to 70%. During a speech, JFK stated, “the current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth …reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk taking.” Without a question, it is mostly the middle and upper classes that undertake risky purchases and investment. As expected, the tax revenue from the top 1%, the top 5%, and top 20% surged as a result of income growth from the tax cuts. Tax revenue from the rich increased from almost 12% in 1963, to 15% by 1966.

The tax cuts from Republicans are no different and produced the same results. Harding and Coolidge cut the top tax rate from 73% in 1921 to 25% by 1925, and the tax share from the rich soared from 44% to 78%. Reagan picked up where Kennedy left off, slashing the highest tax rate from 70% down to 50% as part of his Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. His plan cut taxes across-the-board by 25% – this was not a tax cut solely for the rich. The top tax rate was further lowered to 28% in 1986. What resulted was the largest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States, and record lows for inflation and unemployment. Income tax revenue soared 16.3% from 1982 to 1989. Kennedy’s own words concur this: “It is a paradoxical truth, that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates”.

Apparently, it’s fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald Reagan, and now George W. Bush. To say that JFK’s tax cut was any different is a blatant lie. In a way, Kennedy’s tax cut could have benefited the rich even more. Any tax cut from rates as high as over 90% will have a much larger impact than a tax cut on tax rates from 20 through 50%.
Bush only plans to reduce the top income tax rate from 39.6 to 33%. Kennedy cut taxes for the rich by one-third. Bush’s income tax cut is only a one-sixth reduction. Additionally, Bush’s tax cut would return less than 7 cents on each dollar earned, whereas Kennedy’s tax cut returned 26 cents on each dollar. These are facts conveniently left out by Ted Kennedy and other Democrats – that Kennedy too drastically cut taxes for the rich, and that Reagan’s tax cuts were across-the-board and caused tax revenue to increase. The evil Republicans’ tax cuts even propose an end to the marriage penalty tax and the tax on Social Security benefits!
Part of Ted Kennedy’s argument is that Kennedy’s tax cut returned less money to those earning above $300,000. Well, of course. During the 1960’s, the size of the upper class was considerably lower. From population growth and upward mobility caused by the tax cuts of Kennedy and Reagan, the number of people earning as much is larger. Ted also fails to take into account the rising value of the dollar. A current income of $300,000 translates to $50,000 forty years ago. Neither did Kennedy curb federal spending or the national debt, possibly the most trivial and over-exaggerated economic concerns.

The only fundamental difference lies in the end to double taxation on dividends. Business income is already taxed through a corporate tax. When shareholders are paid this income as dividends, and taxed again, this double taxation discourages investment in the stock market, and for businesses to pay dividends to shareholders. And unlike forty years ago, the numbers and types of people invested in the stock market have skyrocketed. Regardless, the parallels shown in the pro-Bush tax cut advertisements are real. All three Presidents have passed massive tax cut legislation, including the infamous “tax cuts for the rich”.
Ted Kennedy and his comrades in the Democratic Party have exploited the legacy of Kennedy. Being the relatives of one of the most popular Presidents, it is fairly easy to fool the public into believing them. However, their sole claim to any legitimacy is shattered by the fact that the very same tax cuts they are vocal opponents of, were not only passed, but also defended by Kennedy. The Kennedys and Democrats will go to great lengths to suppress this, as if they have the sole rights to an ex-President’s public record, video footage, and words. It’s extremely strong partisanship. Kennedy is a Democrat. They hate the fact that he cut taxes, so they conveniently hide that detail whenever they attack tax cuts. Kennedy is like Teflon when it comes to tax cuts.

Why do schools and the liberal media rarely, if ever, mention JFK’s tax cuts, but readily focus on, and denounce the tax cuts of Reagan? Why do they only mention the boom of the 60’s and its social programs, but never mention the positive aspects of the Reagan years? Could it be that the socialists only intend taxes to continually increase, and that any tax cut, that in any way helps the largest taxpayers, is only a “tax cut for the rich”? This thinking is what led to the 90 % tax rates that a member of their own party cut.

The advertisements in dispute are fully justified. One only needs to examine the true economic policy and beliefs of JFK. History is on the side of tax cuts – the same side of Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. If JFK had been alive today, it is likely he would have switched to the Republican Party. Actual quote from Kennedy: “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget – just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits.” Yep, JFK was a supply-sider, one of those greedy, rich, white, [insert liberal buzzword here] politicians who likes to cut taxes.
John F. Kennedy – the last, and one of the few, good Democrats.

the link is here .

In reality both parties have diametrically opposing strategies for helping the poor. The Democrats like social programs, which do help the poor on the short term, but wind up increasing dependency on the long term. The Republican solution is tax cuts for a stronger economy so the poor are more likely to find work and become the middle class, and thus no longer be poor.

Sadly, the Republicans do an awful job conveying this message, and thus give the Democrats an excellent opening to label the Republicans as the Party of the Rich. The Democrats also like to claim that tax cuts in the end have little benefit for the poor. But there is ample proof who is right and who is wrong in this debate. Also, some widely held beliefs about taxes turn out to be quite incorrect.

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.The tax cuts of the 1920sTax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.The Kennedy tax cutsPresident Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).According to President John F. Kennedy:Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.The Reagan tax cutsThanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.The tax cuts of the 1920sThe share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.The Kennedy tax cutsJust as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.The Reagan tax cutsThe share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.Harmful Spending & ComplexityLower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.
the link is here .

So everybody in the end, (except for the government of course) is hurt with higher taxes. For further proof one only needs to look at the tax rates, GNP, and unemployment rate of socialist Europe. To no surprise to me, the high tax rates of Europe have lead to a GNP less then half ours and an unemployment rate double ours. How does this help the poor? The truth is that like their views on race, crime, and defense, the economic views of the Democrats wind up hurting those they claim to love.

But who cares if your policies hurt the entire country if it helps you politically?

This is what the Democratic Party has warped into.

by Curt

UPDATES BELOW REGARDING THE BOMBING IN LEBANON

Many on the left have been saying that the fact that Hezbollah fires its missiles from populated civilian areas is just untrue. They blame Israel for the deaths of the Lebanese civilians since they just do not believe that terrorists would use innocent women and children for cover.

Australias Herald-Sun has obtained photo’s smuggled out of Beirut that prove Israel right. Photo’s of Hezbollah fighters dressed in civilian clothes firing from anti-aircraft guns smack dab in the middle of a residential neighborhood:

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.

Even more damning:

The images include one of a group of men and youths preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun metres from an apartment block with sheets hanging out on a balcony to dry.

Others show a militant with AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes.

Another depicts the remnants of a Hezbollah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block blown up in an Israeli air attack.

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut and did not wish to be named said he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.

“Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said.

“Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.

“It was carnage. Two innocent people died in that incident, but it was so lucky it was not more.”

They are doing what they do best, killing innocent people. Their own people this time but it obviously matters not to them since they continue to do it. They must believe Israel will back off…..hopefully they will not get their wish. This fight is for not only the survival of Israel but its another front on the war on terror.

The NYT’s has a similiar story:

The refugees from southern Lebanon spilled out of packed cars into the dark street here Thursday evening, gulping bottles of water and squinting in the glare of the headlights to find family members and friends. Many had not eaten in days. Most had not had clean drinking water for some time. There were wounded swathed in makeshift dressings, and a baby just 16 days old.

But for some of the Christians who had made it out in this convoy, it was not just privations they wanted to talk about, but their ordeal at the hands of Hezbollah – a contrast to the Shiites, who make up a vast majority of the population in southern Lebanon and broadly support the militia.

“Hezbollah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”

“Please,” he added, “write that in your newspaper.”

[…]Many Christians from Ramesh and Ain Ebel considered Hezbollah’s fighting methods as much of an outrage as the Israeli strikes. Mr. Amar said Hezbollah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.

One woman, who would not give her name because she had a government job and feared retribution, said Hezbollah fighters had killed a man who was trying to leave Bint Jbail.

“This is what’s happening, but no one wants to say it” for fear of Hezbollah, she said.

But still the left persists in their defense of appeasing terrorists such as these, blaming it all on Israel.

UPDATE 07/30/06 1000hrs PST

So we all wake up to the fact that more civilians have died in Lebanon due to Hezbollah’s continuing use of hiding behind them:

Israeli missiles hit several buildings in a southern Lebanon village as people slept Sunday, killing at least 56, most of them children, in the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed “great sorrow” for the airstrikes but blamed Hezbollah guerrillas for using the area to launch rockets at Israel, and said he would not halt the army’s operation.

[…]Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.

“One must understand the Hezbollah is using their own civilian population as human shields,” said Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir. “The Israeli defense forces dropped leaflets and warned the civilian population to leave the place because the Hezbollah turned it into a war zone.”

The interesting thing here is that Hezbollah sends hundreds of rockets into civilian neighborhoods inside Israel everyday. Where is the denunciation of these attacks? Why is it only the Israeli’s get denounced?

It’s sad that children have died but if Hezbollah would start fighting like men instead of cowards hiding behind these children then this loss would never had happened.

It’s also sad that the only ones being blamed for the loss of innocent lives is Israel, instead of terrorists……incredible.
see all the pictures at Flopping Aces .

And Hezbollah has been in Lebanon for over a decade. Lebanon had the time to kick them out if they wanted.
They have even been elected in the Lebanese government. Lebanon must share some of the guilt for this situation.

Words take on new meanings as Israel struggles to survive.

By Victor Davis Hanson

A “ceasefire” would occur should Hezbollah give back kidnapped Israelis and stop launching missiles; it would never follow a unilateral cessation of Israeli bombing. In fact, we will hear international calls for one only when Hezbollah’s rockets are about exhausted.

“Civilians” in Lebanon have munitions in their basements and deliberately wish to draw fire; in Israel they are in bunkers to avoid it. Israel uses precision weapons to avoid hitting them; Hezbollah sends random missiles into Israel to ensure they are struck.

“Collateral damage” refers mostly to casualties among Hezbollah’s human shields; it can never be used to describe civilian deaths inside Israel, because everything there is by intent a target.

“Cycle of Violence” is used to denigrate those who are attacked, but are not supposed to win.

“Deliberate” reflects the accuracy of Israeli bombs hitting their targets; it never refers to Hezbollah rockets that are meant to destroy anything they can.

“Deplore” is usually evoked against Israel by those who themselves have slaughtered noncombatants or allowed them to perish — such as the Russians in Grozny, the Syrians in Hama, or the U.N. in Rwanda and Dafur.

“Disproportionate” means that the Hezbollah aggressors whose primitive rockets can’t kill very many Israeli civilians are losing, while the Israelis’ sophisticated response is deadly against the combatants themselves. See “excessive.”

Anytime you hear the adjective “excessive,” Hezbollah is losing. Anytime you don’t, it isn’t.

“Eyewitnesses” usually aren’t, and their testimony is cited only against Israel.

“Grave concern” is used by Europeans and Arabs who privately concede there is no future for Lebanon unless Hezbollah is destroyed — and it should preferably be done by the “Zionists” who can then be easily blamed for doing it.

“Innocent” often refers to Lebanese who aid the stockpiling of rockets or live next to those who do. It rarely refers to Israelis under attack.

The “militants” of Hezbollah don’t wear uniforms, and their prime targets are not those Israelis who do.

“Multinational,” as in “multinational force,” usually means “third-world mercenaries who sympathize with Hezbollah.” See “peacekeepers.”

“Peacekeepers” keep no peace, but always side with the less Western of the belligerents.

“Quarter-ton” is used to describe what in other, non-Israeli militaries are known as “500-pound” bombs.

“Shocked” is used, first, by diplomats who really are not; and, second, only evoked against the response of Israel, never the attack of Hezbollah.

“United Nations Action” refers to an action that Russia or China would not veto. The organization’s operatives usually watch terrorists arm before their eyes. They are almost always guilty of what they accuse others of.

What explains this distortion of language? A lot.

First there is the need for Middle Eastern oil. Take that away, and the war would receive the same scant attention as bloodletting in central Africa.

Then there is the fear of Islamic terrorism. If the Middle East were Buddhist, the world would care about Lebanon as little as it does about occupied Tibet.

And don’t forget the old anti-Semitism. If Russia or France were shelled by neighbors, Putin and Chirac would be threatening nuclear retaliation.

Israel is the symbol of the hated West. Were it a client of China, no one would dare say a word.

Population and size count for a lot: When India threatened Pakistan with nukes for its support of terrorism a few years ago, no one uttered any serious rebuke.

Finally, there is the worry that Israel might upset things in Iraq. If we were not in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to win hearts and minds, we wouldn’t be pressuring Israel behind the scenes.

But most of all, the world deplores the Jewish state because it is strong, and can strike back rather than suffer. In fact, global onlookers would prefer either one of two scenarios for the long-suffering Jews to learn their lesson. The first is absolute symmetry and moral equivalence: when Israel is attacked, it kills only as many as it loses. For each rocket that lands, it drops only one bomb in retaliation — as if any aggressor in the history of warfare has ever ceased its attacks on such insane logic.

The other desideratum is the destruction of Israel itself. Iran promised to wipe Israel off the map, and then gave Hezbollah thousands of missiles to fulfill that pledge. In response, the world snored. If tomorrow more powerful rockets hit Tel Aviv armed with Syrian chemicals or biological agents, or Iranian nukes, the “international” community would urge “restraint” — and keep urging it until Israel disappeared altogether. And the day after its disappearance, the Europeans and Arabs would sigh relief, mumble a few pieties, and then smile, “Life goes on.”

And for them, it would very well.

Seattle security raised after Jewish center shooting By Daisuke Wakabayashi

SEATTLE (Reuters) – Police stepped up security at Seattle synagogues and mosques on Saturday, a day after a Muslim man who said he was angry at Israel shot dead one woman and wounded five others at a Jewish center.

Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, burst into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on Friday afternoon. He surrendered without a struggle and police arrested him on charges of murder and five counts of attempted murder with bail set at $50 million.

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske said authorities are treating the shooting as a hate crime based on conversations with police during the rampage.

“He said that he wanted the United States to leave Iraq, that his people (Muslims) were being mistreated and that the United States was arming Israel,” said Kerlikowske, who thinks Haq acted alone and is not part of any terrorist groups.

“He pointedly blamed the Jewish people for all these problems.”
the link is here .

and now for some rather frighting news, that this man might have had access to nuclear material.

Seattle Attacker Worked at Hanford Nuclear Facility?
Tossed off at the end of this Associated Press story on the Islamic terrorist attack in Seattle is a little tidbit of disturbing information. (Hat tip: dlc.)

Yousef Shehadeb, 46, a member of the Islamic Center of the Tri-Cities, recalled Haq as quiet and something of a loner. Shehadeb said he and Haq’s father, Mian Haq, both work at the Hanford nuclear reservation, as do many members of the area’s Muslim community.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere.

Pleasant dreams.
from LGF

crazy muslim + nuclear material = Bad dreams

Posted by Curt

An interesting document was translated recently from a Iraqi opposition agent in Syria. It was written on Mar 14th, 2003 (arabic calender Mohorram 10) one week before our invasion and it details the fact that many many Iraqi trucks entered Syria and that the information he received was they were full of Iraqi WMD’s:

This may not be the smoking gun but as in a criminal trial you could say that a preponderance of the evidence points to it’s legitimacy.

Word of these documents hit the blogosphere yesterday and guess what? Not one MSM outfit has reported on it.

Surprised?

UPDATE

This ties in neatly with the report of Russians convoying out of Iraq into Syria:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in Moscow to discuss the war in Iraq, met with Russian officials Monday to allay concerns following a Sunday attack on a Russian diplomatic convoy as it attempted to leave the war zone.

The convoy of 25 diplomats, including Russia’s ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, was hit by ground fire near a western Baghdad suburb Sunday. Five diplomats were reported wounded, some seriously, Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said on Russian television.

[…]News reports said the vehicles, some with visible bullet holes, arrived safely in Syria on Monday, but had left at least one wounded official behind in an Iraqi hospital.

“I saw six cars with Iraqi diplomatic number plates including the (Russian) ambassador’s car,” a Reuters cameraman reported from the Tanf border crossing in Syria. “He was driving his car which had two bullet holes in it, one in the glass and one on the driver’s side. The other cars also had bullet holes.”

UPDATE II

Debka, the site that has a somewhat negative reputation for being the enquirer of the intelligence community obviously got this one right when it reported on Feb 14th, 2003:

“In the last two weeks, our military sources discovered that Iraq staged a major removal of its forbidden weapons systems, sending them overland by truck to Lebanon via Syria.”

from Flopping Aces .

Between this document, the WMD’s we did find, and the testimony of Iraqi Generals and the Mossad, I think there is ample proof Iraq had WMD’s.

Those that do not think so I think do not want to think so.

Michelle Malkin broke a story that just confirms for me just how sick and low liberalism really is.

This is unbelievably sick. A left-wing photographer, Jill Greenberg, deliberately makes toddlers cry and turns the pictures into a Los Angeles art exhibit called “End Times” to indulge her Bush Derangement Syndrome. She slaps titles like “Grand Old Party,” “Four More Years,” and “Apocalypse Now” onto photos of the poor children she manipulated and goaded.

The Guardian covers the exhibit here with links to the children’s photos and reports how Greenberg deliberately provoked the children to tears:

When photographer Jill Greenberg decided to take a lollipop away from a small child, she had a broader purpose in mind.
“The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset,” the Los Angeles-based photographer said. “It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation.”

As the 27 two- and three-year-olds featured in her exhibition, End Times, cried and screamed, demanding the return of the lollipop given to them just moments before, Greenberg snapped away.

PopPhoto magazine has an interview with Greenberg, who used her own daughter in the exhibit as well, and speaks of the merits of children vs. monkeys as photo subjects:

When Jill Greenberg conceived the idea of photographing crying children back in 2004, she didn’t anticipate the attention the project would bring to her fledgling art career, or the furor it would raise. Greenberg, who lives in Los Angeles with her husband and two children, is already known as one of the country’s most success commercial photographers, with work for ad clients like Microsoft, Kraft, and Procter & Gamble and magazines like New York and Time. She has emerged as a potent force in fine art with a series of acutely lit portraits of monkeys and apes, which in turn led to her work with children.
Your images have certainly caused an uproar. What do you say to people who call you a child abuser?

I think they’re insane…Maybe getting kids to cry isn’t the nicest thing to do, but I’m not causing anyone permanent psychological damage.

How many kids did you shoot altogether?

Around 35. Some were the children of friends, plus my own daughter; others came from the Ford or Jet Set model agencies. Kid models aren’t very expensive—not as expensive as monkeys, for example.

The lighting is very dramatic. How did you accomplish that?

It’s the same lighting I used for my portraits of monkeys, and I’ve been using it for some recent magazine cover portraits…

Greenberg talks about the larger purpose of her “work:”

I saw this little girl who’d come to a party with her mom, and she was beautiful, so I thought it might be interesting to photograph her. When they came to my studio, the mother brought along her toddler son, and I decided to shoot him too. We took off his shirt because it was dirty. He started crying on his own, and I shot that, and when I got the contact sheets back I thought, “This could go with a caption, ‘Four More Years,’” like he was appalled at George Bush’s reelection…
…That was one of the things that interested me about the project—the strength and beauty of the images as images. I also thought they made a kind of political statement about the current state of anxiety a lot of people are in about the future of the country. Sometimes I just feel like crying about the way things are going.

Other photographers are appalled at Greenberg’s methods. See Thomas Hawk and Jeremiah McNichols. Read and listen carefully. Turns out her methods involved more than a quick provocation. The kids were stripped and she described how frustrating it was to have parents “step out of the studio for a couple minutes” in concerted attempts to make children cry who were not cooperating.

BoingBoing reported on Greenberg’s attempts to harass and intimidate Hawk. More details from Hawk here. McNichols, who shares Greenberg’s political views, condemns her corruption of art:

Perhaps the greatest irony of the work is Greenberg’s overlaying of a political message, one preaching compassion and intelligence at that, to a process that involved the willful manipulation of toddlers to break down their toddler-sized psyches and leave them in a pool of their own tears…
…I believe that the moral dimension of “End Times” cannot be ignored, and that an artist need not profit from societal objections to their work if those objections are sound and widely shared. I further believe that Jill Greenberg’s work should not be viewed through the art-historical lens of edgy, contemporary art, but is instead a cultural hiccup that should be shelved with divisive cultural artifacts like black minstrelry, art involving the physical abuse of animals, and other works that reflect a sensibility so alien that it is better approached not as art, but as the fractured product of a diseased mind or a necrotic culture.

Indeed, this woman makes Deb Frisch look like Mr. Rogers.
from Michelle Malkin.

Now Macmind makes a powerful argument that this sicko might have broken the law.

“Greenberg has defended herself, telling the Los Angeles Times: “I’ve never done anything awful in my life. Pictures of crying children are upsetting, powerful. There is something instinctual that makes you want to protect them … But people are taking the pictures literally, as if they are evidence of awful things happening to these kids.”

Really?

The California Penal Code states:

“Penal Code Section 11165.3. Willful Harming or Injuring. “The willful harming or injuring of a child or the endangering of the person or health of a child,” means a situation in which any person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon, unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the child to be placed in a situation in which his or her person or health is endangered.”

Here is the Los Angeles State Attorney’s office website page for child abuse and sexual assault. The contact form is here. Here are additional contacts:

District Attorney’s Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

Telephone (213) 974-3512
Fax (213) 974-1484

TTY (800) 457-7778
(8:30am – 5:00pm M-F)

In twelve years of law enforcement I saw a lot of things but this beats it, and it’s child abuse and should be at the least investigated. Write them, quote the code and ask them what they are going to do about it. Since her daughter was one of the children she abused, perhaps they Children’s Services should get involved as well.

Demand action be taken.

the link is here .

What more proof do you need that liberalism is a sick mental disorder? They defend terrorists and villify our military. They defend the right of criminals and attack religion. They care more about the life of murders then the unborn. They attack the country that gave them freedom and defend enemies that would be happy to take their life if they could.

Now they make babies and children cry to attack Bush.

These people are sick and disguisting.

by Haider Ajina

Iraqis registers over 300 new Businesses.

The Iraqi ministry of trade announced on Tuesday that 332 new companies of different businesses registered last month.

This information announced in a memo issued by the Ministry of trade. The break down of the newly registered companies was; 310 ltd. Companies, 5 mutual companies, 15 partnership companies, 2 sole proprietorships.

The memo added that in addition 85 companies registered a name change, and 38 companies modified their contracts, 48 companies increase their working capital, 5 companies dissolved, tow foreign companies registered their branches in Iraq. They were of US and Malaysian origin.

The newly registered Iraqi companies will provide the following services; Trade, Travel & tourism, Construction, privatization, security & protection, manufacture, agriculture, live stock, communications, foreign exchange, transportation and other different services’.

My comments,
It is encouraging to see that commerce and industry are proceeding while the capital is dealing with the current violence. The number of newly registered companies is and indication that the violence in certain areas in Baghdad and its surroundings is not stopping Iraqis from enjoying and participating in the free market to which they are transitioning.

The following is my translation of a headline and article from the released by the

Iraqi News Agency on July 27th.

Iraqi defense ministry announcement,

‘The Iraqi defense ministry announced today the arrest of 24 individuals in the last 24 hours. These individuals are accused of being involved in terrorist activities. The announcement also listed the following security operations,

‘In Baghdad Province,
-Found Three explosive devices in Radhwaniah, Mohamed Kasim Rd. and Arab Jeboor.
-Found one bomb in northern Baghdad.

‘In Musul province,
-One arrest of a suspect.
-Found three explosive devised and deactivated them.
-Found one explosive device in Tel-Laafar and deactivated it.

‘In Ramadi Province,
-Arrested Ten suspects.
-Found one explosive device in Alhathemiah and deactivated it.

-In Salahudien, Dialah & Kirkook provinces,
-Arrested five suspects,

‘In central Euphrates and southern Iraq (over 3/8 of the country),
-Arrested 8 suspects’.

My comments,
I translated this daily report to show that almost all the violence in Iraq is concentrated in a limited geographical area and affects only a fraction of the Iraqi population. Notice how the south and central south had no explosive devices to report and only eight arrests. Even in Ramadi & Dialah the former restive province had limited violence.

Bill Press Gets Tricked by ‘Lovenstein IQ’ Hoax

Posted by Greg Sheffield

Former CNN and MSNBC commentator Bill Press has denounced bloggers as people “with no credentials, no sources, no rules, no editors and no accountability.”

On his official site, BillPressShow.com, Bill Press offers a podcast and commentary. He would have been well to ask for “credentials” and “sources” when he reported on the “Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania” and their IQ study that the last six Republican presidents have had an average IQ of 115.5, while the last six Democrats had an average IQ of 156. Press proudly noted that it was with “President Clinton leading the class at 182.”

As for George W. Bush:

You guessed it again: George W. Bush, with his rock bottom IQ of 91: seven points lower than his Daddy.
So now we know. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Social Security, Medicare, Stem Cells, FEMA, the deficit, immigration…

The reason George Bush has screwed up in so many areas the last six years.

He’s not just incompetent. He’s just plain dumb – the dumbest president in the last 50 years.

The only problem with this stunning “new development” is that it is a joke, a five-year-old one. According to Snopes.com:
No, this isn’t a real news report, nor does it describe a real study. There isn’t a “Lovenstein Institute” in Scranton, Pennsylvania (or anywhere else in the USA), nor do any of the people quoted in the story exist, because this is just another spoof that was taken too seriously.
The article quoted above began circulating on the Internet during the summer of 2001. In furtherance of the hoax, later that year pranksters thought to register www.lovenstein.org and erecting a web site around it in an attempt to fool people into thinking there really was such an institute.

The piece is simply a political jibe, made obvious by its ranking all the Democratic presidents of the last several decades as having high (even exceptionally high) IQs — note that Bill Clinton’s IQ is listed as being exactly twice George W. Bush’s — while ranking all the Republican presidents from the same time frame as average to moderate in intelligence, with the current president and his father assigned below-average figures placing them at the very bottom of the list. (President Nixon is the sole exception, presumably because his reputation is still so tarnished that not even a high IQ measurement can yet redeem him in the court of public opinion.)
from Newsbusters.

Time and time again the media gets caught in a lie simply because they want to believe it, regardless if it is true or not. Journalism is dead simply because blind bias and legitimate journalism are mutually exclusive concepts.

No doubt there was some insurance money awarded to Mother Sheehan following Casey’s death, but by all appearances, she has spent far more than that amount, jetting all over the world stirring the pot.

Thus, it is not out-of-turn to ask who is funding her travels and other activities, and whether the income (be it cash or in-kind) has been properly reported to the IRS.

I have seen video of her on several occasions, and this woman does not come off as being exactly the brightest bulb on the tree. Compared to peace activists during the Vietnam era, she sounds almost… let’s be diplomatic and say that her speech patterns and writings bear the mark of someone with an IQ in two digits, albeit someone who is being manipulated by others.

Now it has been revealed that Cindy has purchase a 5 acre tract of land near the Bush vacation home in Crawford, TX. The public deserves to know more about this transaction, namely:

How did Sheehan become aware of the availability of the property?
How was it paid for?
Do zoning ordinances exist in Crawford, and if so do they permit the planned activity at this location?
Finally, I wonder whether the Bush family ought to seek a restraining order prohibiting Sheehan from coming within a certain distance of them, at home or elsewhere. This woman is known to have had private counsel with Hugo Chavez, and undoubtedly other sworn enemies of the USA, not the least of whom is Jesse Jackson. Who’s to say that her Crawford property is not intended to be used in an assassination plot? For example, could Cindy’s handlers convince her that the ultimate protest would be for her to become a suicide-bomber?

Being the traditional masculine sort of person he is, the President would probably dismiss this restraining order idea as unmanly, cowardly, beneath his dignity. Yet as chief executive he does bear the obligation to protect himself from harm.

If President Bush were an entertainer, or even an ordinary citizen, Sheehan’s actions towards him amount to “stalking,” under the laws of some states. I don’t blame him for refusing to acknowledge her, but I do hope that someone at the White House is keeping her under close surveillance.
from blogger 1947.

One has to argue to property was bought for a political puropse, and considering she spends time with enemies of the president and enemies of the country, I would think such speculation is definitely warrented.

By Claudia Rosett

As Israel fights to defend itself against the Iranian-and-Syrian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah, are we really seeing a reckless, damaging and — yes — disproportionate response?

You bet. But not from Israel. It’s coming from the U.N.

Hezbollah deliberately provoked this war on July 12 by kidnapping Israeli soldiers inside Israel’s borders, and has been launching rockets into Israel from a massive arsenal that under U.N. writ Hezbollah is not even supposed to possess. That was not the deal under which Israel, in keeping with U.N. wishes, withdrew entirely from southern Lebanon in 2000. The U.N. promise was that Hezbollah would be defanged and that U.N. peacekeepers would help the Lebanese government reestablish control over Hezbollah-infested terrain inside Lebanon.

Over the past six years, Israel honored its commitment to peace. The U.N. — disproportionately — required in practice no such compliance on the Lebanese side of the border. The “peacekeepers” of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, called UNIFIL, sat passively looking on, costing about $100 million a year and doing nothing to stop Hezbollah from trucking in weapons, digging tunnels, and running the armed protection rackets with which it has kept a grip on swathes of Lebanon, including the southern border with Israel, parts of the Bekaa, and southern Beirut. Before the current fighting, UNIFIL had most recently distinguished itself for a run-of-the-U.N.-mill financial swindle involving a contingent of Ukrainian peacekeeping troops. On that subject, whatever laws might have been violated, the U.N. has — as usual with U.N. scams — refused to release details. Now, UNIFIL peacekeepers have been reduced to casualties of the crossfire, while Secretary-General Kofi Annan urges that we take what the U.N. has done wrong already, and do more of it.

With its false promises, and disproportionate deals for “peace,” the U.N. left Israel exposed to the attack that has now come, and a war that Israel did not seek. Like America when attacked by al Qaeda, Israel has been fighting back. In response, U.N. officials have come close to trampling each other in their stampede to the media microphones — not to admit the U.N.’s own failure to stop Hezbollah, not to apologize for administering a phony peace that incubated this miserable war, but to denounce Israel.
fron National Review

And now there are report that Hezbollah hid behind UN soldiers as they lobbed their rockets at Israel, and did nothing to stop them. And when Israel attacked back and struck the soldiers, the UN blames Israel. Even in Serbia the UN did little to stop the fighting, and NATO had to be called in to stop the genocide.

The UN has not been an effective peacekeeping force since Korea.

by Haider Ajina

The Iraqi Civic Action Network (ICAN) launches national public education initiative to raise awareness of the plan’s 24 points to stem violence in Iraq. The program was initiated in response to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s National Reconciliation Plan which was announced in parliament this week.
Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) students of all levels sit for their final exams in the pilot governorates. In support of these examinations, the MOE dedicated teachers and examination halls for ALP students in addition to providing them with stationery. A special committee was also appointed to correct and supervise the exams. Exam results are out in most governorates with approximately 87 percent of ALP students in the North passing their exams and around 40- 50 percent passing their exams in the Southern governorates.
USAID’s microfinance program advances. One of the Iraqi microfinance institutions established with the support of the USAID-funded IZDIHAR project recently signed an agreement with the U.S. Military, which will provide the funding necessary to cover initial operating expenses until revenue generated from the microfinance business will enable it to fully cover its own costs.
First batch of fish released in Marshlands Restocking Program. To assist in restocking the fish supply, USAID’s ARDI will purchase a total of one million fish fingerlings from private hatcheries in Basrah and Babil to be released in the Basrah and Dhi Qar marshes.

Ministry of Electricity (MoE) staff members trained to produce financial and statistical information that conforms to regional standards and practices.
Last spring, study tours by MoE officials, with support from USAID, determined that methodologies used by the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC) were best suited for implementation in Iraq. The goal is to increase the MoE’s ability to produce accurate information on generation, transmission, and distribution statistics that would assist in forecasting its ability to meet demand.
USAID constructs water distribution systems.
Approximately 30 Kurdish returnee and internally displaced person families inhabit a rural settlement in Diyala Governorate. These families are the first of hundreds of Kurds intending to return once basic social services are available in this area.
Cleaning canals to increase agricultural production.
Irrigation is an important part of agricultural production in Iraq, particularly in the southern and central areas, which are almost entirely dependent on irrigated production. During the Saddam regime, agricultural production has suffered due to poor maintenance on irrigation infrastructure including canals, drains, pumps, and regulators. USAID’s Agriculture Reconstruction and Development for Iraq Program (ARDI) has implemented a series of grants to restore efficient irrigation to farmers’ fields throughout Iraq.
Iraqi Civic Action Network (ICAN) and the Iraqi Election Information Network (EIN) lobby Iraq’s Council of Representatives for increased NGO Government links.
Earlier this month, the National Democratic Institute’s (NDI’s), Civil Society director facilitated a meeting between members of the ICAN and the EIN with the Parliamentary Civil Society Committee chair, deputy chair, and two members.

Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele on Wednesday called President Bush his “homeboy,” reversed course on having the president campaign for him and said he was joking when he described his Republican affiliation as a scarlet letter.

The Maryland lieutenant governor, under fire for his comments, told WBAL radio that his remarks were supposed to be off the record with a handful of reporters. Instead, Steele’s campaign confirmed Tuesday that he was the unnamed Senate candidate who had assailed the Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congress in a story in The Washington Post.

“I’ve been quoted as calling the president my homeboy, you know. And that’s how I feel. … It’s a term of affection and respect for his leadership of our country in a difficult time,” Steele, who is black, said in the radio interview.

The Post quoted the unnamed candidate as saying the GOP-controlled Congress should “just shut up and get something done,” that the Iraq war “didn’t work” and “we didn’t prepare for the peace,” that the response to Hurricane Katrina was “a monumental failure of government,” and that “there’s a palpable frustration right now in the country.” Steele also said he probably wouldn’t want Bush campaigning for him in Maryland and that he considers his party affiliation a scarlet letter. The White House said Wednesday that Bush still is backing Steele in his Senate race.

Asked about the scarlet letter remark, Steele said: “So I was making a joke about the fact that in this political climate, in Maryland, being a Republican is like wearing a scarlet letter. That’s all it is.”
from Newsmax.

I am still going to vote for him, but I am alot less happy to. I am a proud Republican. I still get annoyed over things like immigration. But if you can’t see the difference between us and the party of appeasement, the party of Chamberlain, well then you belong over the other side of the aisle.

And if you talk to a bunch of reporters and really think they will keep it off the record, then I question your judgement.

By liberating Iraq, the U.S. set the stage for the destruction of Hezbollah.

BY JOSH MANCHESTER

Shaken and Stirred
Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT The U.S. invasion of Iraq has so shaken and stirred the Middle East that some exceptionally strange things are happening. More importantly, these things unequivocally favor the U.S. in influencing the outcome of the Israeli-Hezbollah War now taking place in Lebanon. What sorts of strange things? Well, consider an Arab League meeting in Cairo over the weekend, where a fight of sorts broke out. Jed Babbin described it best:

This meeting began with the Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel’s military action, supporting Lebanon’s “right to resist occupation by all legitimate means” . . . The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon’s right to “liberate them by all legitimate means.” . . . The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hizballah. But an historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism.The Saudi foreign minister, al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was ” . . . criticizing the guerilla group’s actions, calling them “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.” Faisal said, “These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them.” . . . The Arab leaders are frightened that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next.”

These regimes would most certainly not be afraid of what Iran may do next if Saddam Hussein still ran Iraq, providing for the Arab world a deterrent against Iran. In fact, this leads to the second strange event of late: Saddam’s own comments, as reported in Deutsche Presse-Agentur, about the war in Lebanon:

Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian leadership “not to go too far in its alliance with Iran,” blaming Tehran for the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam’s defence team claimed Tuesday . . . “I am convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil,” Duleimi quoted Saddam as saying.

This is a man whose prized dictatorship was overrun by U.S. forces, who was captured by U.S. forces, and who as a result is on trial for his life. He blames Tehran primarily for the current flare-up, not some Zionist-U.S. conspiracy in the standard rhetoric of the region. Remarkable.In fact, Saddam is quite astute when he notes that the Arabs are placed between the U.S.-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was the geostrategic pivot of the Middle East. All of the fault lines in the area’s politics converge there. The Sunni-Shia split; the Arab-Persian split; the Ba’athist-Wahhabist split; and the Muslim-Israeli split: each of these ran through Iraq via its ethnic and religious makeup; its geographic location; and its former interests, alliances, and enemies. The “big bang,” as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was meant to reorder the nature of politics in the region. This has been accomplished in a fundamental way. The idea of dividing an enemy force into its constituent parts and then dealing with it piecemeal is at least as old as Caesar’s actions in Gaul. It applies no less to U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Every faction there has been made to reconsider its relationship with every other. Rather than there being a monolithic clash of civilizations, thus far the U.S. is dealing with the area in pieces–in whatever way it sees fit to do so–whether making it tacitly clear to Syria that what happened in Iraq could more easily happen to it, or threatening Iran on behalf of the region and world, or seeking cooperation with the Saudis in hunting down al Qaeda.Far from being a bit of belated triumphalism about the invasion, all of this has immediate and direct consequences. While the success of Iraq’s democracy hangs in the balance from an operational perspective, the strategic advantages created by the invasion of Iraq are working very favorably for the U.S. in the current Israeli-Lebanon crisis in very tangible ways. Were Saddam still in power, the Arab world would not feel nearly as threatened by Hezbollah, the Frankenstein’s monster of Iran’s creation. Instead, they would have sided with the Syrian foreign minister’s strong support for Hezbollah. Saddam himself might even have offered cash rewards to anyone attempting martyrdom against the Jews. Instead, they came to no consensus. The leading Arab League states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, call Hezbollah’s actions “inappropriate and irresponsible.” This lessens the urgency of calls from the international community, whether the G8, U.N., or EU, for a ceasefire. That lessened urgency creates something very precious indeed: a moment in time and space wherein Israel has the most fleeting of opportunities for decisive action against Hezbollah, an avowed foe, a terrorist organization, and a constant threat to the security of its populace. Decisive action is what has traditionally been missing from the wars of the Middle East. Land changes hands, blows are exchanged, and peace eventually is negotiated. But the underlying dynamic never changes because the sides are rarely faced with a decisive defeat, the only condition that can force the most avowed of men to abandon the ideas they hold dear. Israel now has the chance to destroy Hezbollah. Only time can tell what Israel will do with the opportunity it possesses. Opportunities forsaken are opportunities lost forever, as Douglas MacArthur was sometimes rumored to say. But let there be no mistake: this moment would not have been possible without the invasion of Iraq, and the destruction of Hezbollah is very much in the interest of the United States and that of any other nation that abhors terrorism.

Josh Manchester is a TCS Daily contributing

Generals Defend NSA Program

Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency, testified today that it would not be feasible to track al Qaeda’s international communications if it were necessary to obtain a search warrant on a conversation by conversation basis:

But the administration officials called FISA impractical and ineffective for tracking al Qaeda, saying the law would require separate warrants for each U.S.-bound phone call placed by an overseas suspect.
“It would cause a tremendous burden,” said NSA Director Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander.

“You’d be so far behind the target if you were in hot pursuit, with the number of applications that you’d have to make and the time to make those, that you’d never catch up.”

Where, exactly, do the Democrats stand on the NSA international terrorist surveillance program? When they’re done waxing eloquent about civil liberties, do they want to continue intercepting terrorists’ international communications, or not? I suspect that as a practical matter, as with a number of issues, it all depends on which party occupies the White House.
from Powerline.

So somebody tell me why I’m wrong when I say the liberals and the MSM endanger this country.

Posted by Curt

Now that Joseph and Valerie Wilson’s fantasies of having been persecuted by high officials in the administration have been so thoroughly dispelled by Robert Novak (and now that it seems the prosecutor has determined that there was no breach of the relevant laws to begin with), we may return to the more important original question. Was there good reason to suppose that Iraqi envoys visited Niger in search of “yellowcake” uranium ore?

In a series of columns, I have argued that the answer to this is “yes,” and that British intelligence was right to inform Washington to that effect.

He goes on to detail accounts from two individuals, two high placed officials, who had more then intimate knowledge of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Ambassador Rolf Ekeus and Thérèse Delpech, the director for strategic studies at the French Atomic Energy Commission and also a senior research fellow at CERI.

[…]To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein’s chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his “report” to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie’s denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix’s commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had “sought” uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visit—this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001—has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the “anti-war” movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson’s utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed “outing” was inadvertently performed by Wilson’s admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one’s own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the “Plamegate” farce has garnered.

Amazing that this attempt to discredit the President through lies and deception has not received one tenth of the MSM attention as the now discredited “scandal” in the first place. Amazing until you look at who runs the MSM, the same one’s who hoped and prayed that this bag of lies was the truth.

In fact the MSM has gone so far as to almost sanctify them, no one can touch them now.

“there’s this crazy report” about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.
by Curt at Flopping Aces.

And remember, Saddam also had ties to terrorists, and had WMD’s. So what you need to ask yourself is this? Does the ignoring of all this information and intelligence by the media and Democrats for political purposes endanger this country?

I have to say yes.