al-Qaeda's Plans For Summer "Fun" and al-Qeada's Car Bomb Guide on the Internet

Cross Posted from Wake up America

ABC reports that al-Qeada has our summer fun activities lined up for us, we just haven't been told eactly what those plans are yet, its a surprise!!!!

Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned

A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.

Nice. Just dandy. This is getting ridiculous.

Why do I say that?

Well, lets see, we had the failed attempts to blow up cars in London, the ramming into the Glasgow airport with the spectacular fireshow added in.

We see the UK has 7 people under arrest, yes, Islamic extremists,in connection with the above aforementioned terror plot and they are hunting for more and Yemen had a suicide bomber kill 7 or 8 people.

We also see that there are warnings to London that more bombings are on the way.

Could it be the failed attempts in the UK had anything to do with this? (Hat tip to The American Israeli Patriot)

Al-Qaeda's car bomb guide

London terror analysis: Online manual on car bombs instructs terrorists 'not to park illegally'

The three botched terror attacks launched in Britain in the past 72 hours bear all the hallmarks of first-time British-born jihadis attempting to emulate al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Multiple car bombs designed to slaughter hundreds of civilians and strikes against critical infrastructure are daily events in Baghdad, and al-Qaeda in Iraq has decided to put its experience in mass murder on the internet for the benefit of its members around the world, in the form of an online training course on bomb attacks.

The bombing manual, available in Arabic on a jihadi website, contains a number of key pieces of advice for car bombers. It instructs terrorists not to park their vehicles illegally, and advises the car bomber to leave the scene quietly, if he plans to detonate the vehicle from a distance, in what al-Qaeda terms "non-martyrdom operations."

[...]

The manual details precise locations inside the vehicle where explosives should be placed, and recommends various targerts such as "cinemas" and "stadiums."

Other forms of explosives, the guide says, should be aimed at "groupings demonstrations, celebrations or festivals."

The guide calls on terrorists to "monitor and identify the route of the enemy, how they leave a cinema or a stadium at the end of a game," and also gives instructions on how to carry out suicide car bombings.

"Drive the car on the road passing the crowd. If a car passes near these places, it could draw the attention of the enemy, and the car could be inspected," the guide said. It went on to explain in detail how suicide car bombers can fool security guards, and suggests a correct speed to drive a vehicle packed with explosives into a target.

Go read the rest, it is enlightening.

Jules Crittenden points out that many successful attacks were often precceeded by failed attempts, they learn from their mistakes, too bad we don't, as witnessed by Brainless at Breakfast.

A series of bungled and seemingly inept attacks — to include the Fort Dix and
JFK Int’l plots along with the failed British fire-bomb attempts — doesn’t mean
they aren’t capable of not screwing it up, or that the kinds of things we’ve
seen can’t be highly effective, or that they are even the main events. Successful attacks are often preceded
by failures. The growing trend of what appear to be
al-Qaeda-inspired local amateurs itself represents a disturbing
evolution. Those British fire bombs are now being viewed as
inefficent weapons, ineffectively deployed. But 9/11, the major catastrophe of
our time, was carried out with inefficient weapons that could have proven
ineffective under any number of alternative scenarios.

All of which gets
us back to the old truth we all know now, even if we don’t really think it will
ever apply to us. London, Glasgow, JFK and Dix are just reminders. Glasgow and
the pine barrens of New Jersey? Fort Dix is in the middle of nowhere. It can
happen anywhere, at any time. Which is why you need to be alert, and need to
have already thought about what you’re going to do. Whether you can or even get
a chance to is what you find out later.

Good suggestion Jules and in that same vein, now would be the time to remind
people of the 7 signs of terrorist activity.

There is a file showing
the 7 signs to watch for terror activity, it is a word file and everyone should read it.

1. Surveillance

If there is a specific target that terrorists have chosen, that target area will be most likely be observed during the planning phase of the operation. They do this in order to determine the strengths, weaknesses, and number of personnel that may respond to an incident. Routes to and from the target are usually established during the surveillance phase. Therefore, it is important to take note of such things as someone recording or monitoring activities, drawing diagrams or annotating on maps, the use of vision-enhancing devices, having in one's possession floor plans or blue prints of places such as high-tech firms, financial institutions, or Government / military facilities. Any of these surveillance-type acts MAY be an indicator that something just is not right. Nothing is too menial and should not be discarded as such.

2. Elicitation

The second sign or signal is elicitation. What this means is anyone attempting to gain information about a place, person, or operation. An example is someone attempting to gain knowledge about a critical infrastructure like a power plant, water reservoir, or a maritime port. Terrorists may attempt to research bridge and tunnel usage, make unusual inquiries concerning shipments, or inquire as to how a military base operates. They may also attempt to place "key" people in sensitive work locations.

3. Tests of Security

Tests of Security are another area in which terrorists would attempt to gather data. This is usually conducted by driving by the target, moving into sensitive areas and observing security or law enforcement response. They would be interested in the time in which it takes to respond to an incident or the routes taken to a specific location. They may also try to penetrate physical security barriers or procedures in order to assess strengths and Weaknesses. They often gain legitimate employment at key locations in order to monitor day-to-day activities. In any event, they may try to gain this knowledge in order to make their mission or scheme more effective.

4. Acquiring Supplies

Another area to be cognizant of is anyone acquiring supplies. It may be a case where someone is purchasing or stealing explosives, weapons, or ammunition. It could also be someone storing harmful chemicals or chemical equipment. Terrorists would also find it useful to have in their possession law enforcement equipment and identification, military uniforms and decals, as well as flight passes, badges or even flight manuals. If they can't find the opportunity to steal these types of things, they may try to photocopy ID's, attempt to make passports or other forms of identification by counterfeiting. Possessing any of these would make it easier for one to gain entrance into secured or usually prohibited areas.

5. Suspicious People Who Don't Belong

A fifth pre-incident indicator is observing suspicious people who just "don't belong." This does not mean we should profile individuals but what it does mean is that we should profile behaviors. This includes suspicious border crossings and stowaways aboard a ship or people jumping ship in a port. It may mean having someone in a workplace, building, neighborhood, or business establishment that does not fit in because of their demeanor, their language usage or unusual questions they are asking. You, as an officer, may respond to a complaint that may appear to be a routine investigation but results in something much bigger in scope.

6. Dry Runs

Another sign to watch for is "dry runs." Before execution of the final operation or plan, a practice session will be run to work out the flaws and unanticipated problems. A dry run may very well be the heart of a planning stage of a terrorist act. If you find someone monitoring a police radio frequency and recording emergency response times, you may very well be observing a "dry run." Another element of this activity could include mapping out routes and determining the timing of traffic lights and flow. It is during this stage that it is actually our best chance to intercept and stop an attack. Multiple dry runs are normally conducted at or near the target area.

7. Deploying Assets / Getting Into Position

The seventh and final sign or signal to look for is someone deploying assets or getting into position. This is a person's last chance to alert authorities before the terrorist act occurs.

It is also important to remember that pre-incident indicators may come months or even years apart. Therefore, it is extremely important to document every fragment of information, no matter how insignificant it may appear, and forward this information.

The aforementioned suspicious activities should be immediately reported to the MTA Police Department, Interagency Counterterrorism Task Force at (646) 252-1050.

[Update] Strategy Page brings us one more reason why al-Qeada is desperate for a "spectacular" attack against us.

Seems the only place al-Qaeda is succeeding is OUR media... shocker huh?

Three semi related articles:
Opinion Journal, NYT and Times of London.

Others discussing this:
Outside the Beltway, Michelle Malkin, The Moderate Voice, The Jawa Report, Hot Air, Blue Crab Boulevard, Gina Cobb, Power Line, Gateway Pundit.

Sphere: Related Content

The Moonbat Poem

I ran across this many moons ago and have since lost the original link to it. It is NOT my own work so if anyone knows to whom it belongs, please let me know and I will make amends. The links herein at times take us to the place...sometimes not.

Thanks.

Enjoy:

The Merry Moonbat, Episode III

Met again my Moonbat friend while headed to the store

He spotted me and made a face as I approached the door.

“Ho, Moonie-bat,” I called to him, “how are you this fine day?”

“I’m fasting,” he told me with pride, “I skipped my lunch today.”

“Ah,” I nodded, smiled, and said, “That Troops Home Fast’, I guess.”

The Moonie-bat then raised his chin, nodded, and said, “Yes.”

“Well good for you,” said I, in jest, “I really must admire

Those who’ll bravely ‘sacrifice’ to harm those under fire.”

“Bravo, Moonbat – you’re doing well – you’re letting all folks know

How silly all your protests are, and just how far you’ll go.

You’re showing them exactly how committed to your cause

You Moonbats are – you’ll even take a gastronomic pause!”

The Moonbat frowned – he didn’t like my ‘compliment,’ it seemed,

And then with renewed vigor, he veritably beamed,

“You know your game is over, you warmongering buffoon,

I read it, somewhere - you must know your warring ways are doomed.

“Iraq’s a pure disaster, and you know it, brutish friend,
Halliburton’s headed out, and civil war’s at hand
Nothing’s been accomplished, and now there’s Israel,

You realize it’s all Bushie’s fault – and you can’t help but fail.

“Iraq’s a bigger threat to us than any time before,
All because of Bushie and his ill-justified war
Now Iraqis have a cause to come and hit us here

All because you warmongers spread violence and fear.

“So if your cause was getting rid of an impending threat
You’ve clearly failed, because it’s growing even stronger yet.
The only way to win it now is more troops and more cash.

Maybe Bush could have himself some rich warmonger bash.”

“Don’t you think Bin Laden’s celebrating at our loss?

Don’t you think he’s glad we’ve paid a monumental cost?

To help a country that we know was doing great before

Saddam was nice compared to what they’ve gotten with this war.”

“You know,” I said, “you Moonbats really need a newer tune.

For centuries, you’ve sung the same anthem to gloom and doom

Two hundred thirty years ago, we shouldn’t leave the King

Sixty years ago it was a ‘European thing.’

Forty years ago it was a quagmire, you folks claimed

And now you all are playing the same tired, coward’s game

You all say, at each new point, you just don’t like THIS war

But you’ve all said it just that way a hundred times before.

You all claim to care about the weakest of the world

But don’t you think they benefit when freedom is unfurled?

Don’t you think that when a country stands for liberty

It has an obligation, a responsibility

To stand strong and defend it, whome’er the foe may be
By standing up for freedom there, it’s saved for you and me

Don’t you think that it is good to take out terrorists?

Dictators and lunatics and crazy egotists?

And how do we negotiate with those that mean us harm?
How do we lie down with those who kill, and maim, and bomb?

How do we just stand and watch a maniac build stocks

Of weapons that would devastate scores of our city blocks?

If we say we’re representing freedom, life, and hope

How can we abandon those who clearly cannot hope

To rise above the cruelty, strife, and famine they endure

From some demented nutcase, when there’s only one real cure.

The enemy has no restraint when seeing its cause through

And yet at home, we’re faced with weak-kneed Moonie-bats like you

Who gladly embrace cut and run, and say that we should go

But you lamented leaving in that Gulf War I, you know.

Bush I listened, to that Moonbat-touted, ‘get out’ talk

All that “Leave Iraq” — he did – we had our Heroes walk

We left that one, and back we are, to finish up the task

And then you all quick-changed your tune

“Why did we leave?” you asked

Of course, now, you’re all yelling that we just should up and quit

That’s always what you Moonbats say,

Your nerves aren’t worth my spit

“It’s ‘Bush lied, they died’ if we fight; it’s ‘Should have’ if we don’t

It’s interference if we’ll act; it’s blindness if we won’t.

We’re winning this war, Moonie-bat – there’s no doubt in my mind.

The enemy that worries me’s a slightly different kind

I know that we’ll win out over Bin Laden and his kin

The one that really worries me’s the enemy within.

Progressives (re-tooled Socialists) and far-left Democrats

Are doing damage far worse than Bin Laden’s slimy rats

Altruism doesn’t work – it only hurts the strong

And any land that made it policy would fall ere long

Hiding ostrich heads in sand will only have one end

It only means that you won’t see attacks that they will send.

Cut-and-run has never led to peace or dignity

I don’t know why one would choose a road so cowardly.

In the end, you Moonie-bats are weak-kneed hypocrites

You whine, and gripe, and criticize, and have your temper fits

You hide behind that flag you burn, and say your cause is true

Well, truth is, we’d be better off – sans Moonie-bats like you.”

My Moonbat friend was speechless, then he sadly shook his head.“

You still won’t learn. You still don’t get it – pity,” he then said.

And so again, we parted ways, more opposites than kin,

For winners never quit, you see – and quitters never win.

Sphere: Related Content

Ripping into a Robotic Lapdog, just for Snooper!!!

Cross Posted from Wake up America.

I have often said that Democrats are the party of one brain, separately they simply cannot think for themselves and encourage the concept of simply repeating each others arguments, even when those arguments have been debunked, proven as lies and shown to be simple rhetoric.

The reason they can do this, is because their followerers allow it.

Yes, it is that simple.

Their followers, especially the far far left liberal Democrats will keep repeating tired old lines whether they are true or not, simply because they understand that it is not logic that rules their party, but it comes down to, whoever screams the loudest, gets heard and repeated.

Thanks to Snooper over at Take Our Country Back and his new blog Freedom Ain't Free because he emailed me to show me this idiocy and asked me to post about it. (This one is for you Snooper)

With that said, I strongly urge every democrat to follow the advice of the Our Karl Rove blog, it will make it all that much more simple for conservatives to kick ass in 2008.

Now, lets break down this stupidity point by point.

(Everything in RED is from the Our Karl Rove site)

From Our Karl Rove Blog:

Democrats,

First, let's get on the same page:

* This administration (and most Republicans -- especially those running for office) will only see the recent terror plot at JFK airport as a partisan political opportunity. Before accusing me of being cynical, remember that this administration simply believes that politics is its business. Governing is for others. If this doesn't immediately ring true, feel free to flip through any speech the Bush administration has made about Iraq, and think back about how we got into Iraq in the first place.

I would agree here 100%, but not for the reasons this fool is thinking. I would encourage strongly that we DO remember how we got into Iraq.

Taking Bush out of the equation, let us just look at the Democrats own comments about Saddam Hussein and Iraq before Bush even became President, which I showed in full in a post back in February called "Democratic lies vs Realty":

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Perhaps the "genius" over at Our Karl Rove didn't really want you to look tooooooooo closely at how we "got into Iraq in the first place", after all.

He should have heeded the old saying "watch what you wish for, you might just get it".

Now, how about what the DEMOCRATS had to say after Bush was elected President and before we took Iraq:

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec . 5, 2001

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23. 2003

Well , well, well.... The lies being told today are being told by politicians that hope we are forgetful and too stupid to look the "facts" up for ourselves huh?

The last few paragraphs from that previous post ask two questions:

Hillary's words are especially telling:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,2002

Gave aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qaeda.

This brings us to yet another huge lie we continue to hear from the left.

The lie? That WMD's were the only reason we invaded Iraq.

The reality?

Bush gave a nationally televised speech at 8:30 p.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, White House, 9/11/01], speaking for about five minutes. [US News, 9/14/01] In what would later be called the Bush Doctrine, he stated, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” [Washington Post, 1/27/02]

As Hillary pointed out in October of 2002, Saddam Hussein did, indeed sponsor terror by giving aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists and in her own words, to al-Qeada terrorists.

One has to wonder a couple of things here.

Do the Democratic politicians think their base is soooo stupid that they will allow them to lie and try to rewrite history?

The second question is, are they right in assuming that?

Our Karl Rove Blog just answered and gave us proof that, yes, the Democratic politicians ARE right in assuming that.

We already showed you above what Hillary Clinton had to say about Saddam Hussein sponsoring terrorism, so now lets show you what John Kerry had to say in 1997 (for those that are unable to add or remember dates, this was before Bush was elected as President).

This was originally showed to you in a Trip Down Memory Lane in February:

Now, during the past 2 weeks, Saddam again has raised his obstinately uncooperative profile. We all know of his announcement that he will no longer permit United States citizens to participate in the U.N. inspection team searching Iraq for violations of the U.N. requirement that Iraq not build or store weapons of mass destruction. And he has made good on his announcement. The UNSCOM inspection team, that is, the United Nations Special Commission team, has been refused access to its inspection targets throughout the week and once again today because it has Americans as team members. While it is not certain, it is not unreasonable to assume that Saddam's action may have been precipitated by the fear that the U.N. inspectors were getting uncomfortably close to discovering some caches of reprehensible weapons of mass destruction, or facilities to manufacture them, that many have long feared he is doing everything in his power to build, hide, and hoard.

[...]

We should all be encouraged by the reactions of many of our allies, who are evincing the same objections to Iraq's course that are prevalent here in the United States. There is an inescapable reality that, after all of the effort of recent years, Saddam Hussein remains the international outlaw he was when he invaded Kuwait. For most of a decade he has set himself outside international law, and he has sought to avoid the efforts of the international community to insist that his nation comport itself with reasonable standards of behavior and, specifically, not equip itself with implements of mass destruction which it has shown the willingness to use in previous conflicts.

Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility.

[...]

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent--and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.

The suspended reconnaissance flights should be resumed beginning tomorrow, and it is my understanding they will be. Should Saddam be so foolish as to take any action intended to endanger those aircraft or interrupt their mission, then we should, and I am confident we will, be prepared to take the necessary actions to either eliminate that threat before it can be realized, or take actions of retribution.

When it meets tomorrow to receive the negotiators' report and to determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants.

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior.

This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.

Of course, Mr. President, the greatest care must be taken to reduce collateral damage to the maximum extent possible, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein cynically and cold-heartedly has made that a difficult challenge by ringing most high-value military targets with civilians.

As the Security Council confronts this, I believe it is important for it to keep prominently in mind the main objective we all should have, which is maintaining an effective, thorough, competent inspection process that will locate and unveil any covert prohibited weapons activity underway in Iraq. If an inspection process acceptable to the United States and the rest of the Security Council can be rapidly reinstituted, it might be possible to vitiate military action.

Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take action. But I think there is strong reason to believe that the multilateral resolve will persist.

Read the WHOLE speech John Kerry gave because it is a great example of what was believed before Bush ever took office, as well as the intelligence that was handed down to Bush from the Clinton administration.

I am not blaming Clinton for anything here. I am pointing out that Bush inherited a problem, just as Clinton did, as well as intelligence, that showed the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

The next point he makes is this:

Using this foiled terrorist plot as a political tool, this administration (and most Republicans) will look to take some kind of credit for intercepting the plan. "Staying tough," "Not backing down," and "Continuing to be on the offense" are the most likely memes that will be transmitted by all who support the so-called "Bush Doctrine."

He actually just does exactly what he accuses the Republicans of possibly doing. Using the JFK plot as a political tool.

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot!!!!

For the record, "Staying Tough", "Continuing to be on the offensive" and "Not backing down" is exactly the reason we foiled the JFK plot as well as exactly the reason the UK foiled the plot involving planes and flights from there to the US, as well as a number of other attempts to cause this country damage.

Without any of those catchy phrases, backed up by action, Our Karl Rove mentions, any one of those plots would have not been detected and would have gone off without a hitch as the 9/11 attacks did.

This next paragraph made me laugh so loud and so hard I had to go have a smoke before I could respond and you will see why.

This is a critical time (and a political opportunity) for Democrats to convey a clear, strong message that this event is yet another indication that the Bush Doctrine is failing.

So, in what passes as this mans mind, foiling the plot shows the Bush Doctrine is failing?

ummmmmmmmmmm, so what would it have been called had the plot not been foiled and they actually DID blow the gas lines under JFK?

Success for the Bush Doctrine?

Ok, laughing again now...

I think I have the "giggggles" under control now, so lets continue before I start again.

Next this brilliant Democrats gives us some scenerios with his suggestions as to how to respond in said scenarios and any democrat reading this....PLEASE, PLEEEEEEEAAASSSEEEE, take his advice and do it, I am begging you!!!!!

From Our Karl Rove:

Let's get right into the immediate if/then scenarios:

1. If this administration has the inclination and gall to somehow tie the busting up of the JFK airport plot to "staying tough" on the Iraq War, then here is a strategic response:

"Stopping terrorist plots is the most critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies. They are all to be commended for their leadership in undermining this terrifying plot. This demonstrates how critical it is to our national security that these agencies are well-managed.

However, it is the job of our President to reduce or eliminate terrorism. This means, it its simplest terms, that we need to start playing offense, not only defense.

In the business of terrorism, defense means breaking up existing plots. Contrary to this administration's belief, "offense" does not mean taking over Iraq. No, playing offense means making sure there aren't terrorist plots in the first place. Our foreign policies need to focus on the elimination of violent hatred towards America so terrorist plots are not planned in the first place."

There is so much, so wrong in these three paragraphs, I almost do not know where to start, so I will start with the first one:

"Stopping terrorist plots is the most critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and local law enforcement agencies. They are all to be commended for their leadership in undermining this terrifying plot. This demonstrates how critical it is to our national security that these agencies are well-managed.

Critical job for the Department of Homeland Security, yes, the agency that BUSH set up.

From Wiki:

On September 20, 2001, in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the establishment of an Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to coordinate "homeland security" efforts, to be headed by Governor Tom Ridge with the title of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. The name is reminiscent of the British WW2-era Department of Home Security. The official announcement stated:

The mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge took up his duties as OHS director on October 8, 2001.

So, he commends the DHS, FBI and local authorities for their "leadership", neglecting to tell his readers that it was Bush that gave them the tools to be able to do this job.

FBI and local law enforcement agencies which BUSH tore down the walls that prevented them from communicating so that they could do their jobs

NEXT two paragraphs:

However, it is the job of our President to reduce or eliminate terrorism. This means, it its simplest terms, that we need to start playing offense, not only defense.

In the business of terrorism, defense means breaking up existing plots. Contrary to this administration's belief, "offense" does not mean taking over Iraq. No, playing offense means making sure there aren't terrorist plots in the first place. Our foreign policies need to focus on the elimination of violent hatred towards America so terrorist plots are not planned in the first place."

Heh, this is as easy as taking candy from a baby.

Contrary to this persons belief, offense does indeed mean going after states that sponsor terrorism and as we showed you above, the Clinton administration already provided ample proof that Saddam Hussein in Iraq, was, indeed sponsoring terrorism.

From a piece I wrote in December of 2006, called "Lies from the Left" we showed you some of the documentation of Saddam "sponsoring terror":

There is plenty of proof showing Saddam Hussein and Iraq did indeed "harbor" and "support" terrorism, and further "proof" that he also aided members of al-Qaeda. These are called facts, provable fact, those pesky little things members on the left hate. (Hat Tip to Gateway Pundit for the link)

Those same members on the left, when faced with the actual proof, would rather act like children, put there fingers in their ears and sing la la la la la la la, so as to not have to admit those facts are there. Well they are there and denying it simply makes you look foolish and uneducated.

Have they found WMD's in Iraq yet? NO. Have they searched more than 10% of the suspected sites yet? NO. Has this administration made mistakes in Iraq? YES. Does that negate the facts that Saddam Hussein was a monster and provided aid, money, medical attention and sponsored terror. NO.

Below I will list excerpts from the page linked to above.

Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.

The linked page above also has pictures of those checks to pay for the "terrorism".

"Nations that harbor or support terrorism". Iraq continually provided safe harbor for terrorists.

Beyond cash and diplomatic help, Saddam Hussein was the Conrad Hilton of the terrorist world. He provided a place for terrorists to kick back, relax, and reflect after killing people for a living.

After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.

Abbas' Baghdad sojourn was not an isolated incident. Saddam Hussein granted avowed international terrorists refuge in Baathist Iraq. Terror mastermind Abu Nidal also enjoyed his hospitality.

Nidal lived comfortably in Iraq between 1999 and August 2002. As the Associated Press reported on August 21, 2002, Nidal’s Beirut office said he entered Iraq “with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.” 13 Prior to his relocation, he ran the eponymous Abu Nidal Organization — a Palestinian terror network behind attacks in 20 countries, at least 407 confirmed murders, and some 788 other terror-related injuries. Among other savage acts, Nidal’s group used guns and grenades to attack a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo da Vinci airport on December 27, 1985. Another cell in Austria simultaneously assaulted Vienna’s airport, killing 19 people.

Among the five Americans that Abu Nidal murdered that day was John Buonocore III, a 20-year-old Fairleigh Dickinson College student who had studied in Rome that fall semester. Buonocore was shot in the back while checking in for his flight home. He had hoped to return to Wilmington, Delaware to help his father celebrate his 50th birthday.

We then move on to debunk the lefts outright lies or lack of eduaction with the question:

But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad you asked!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin, pictured below in a U.S. State Department "Wanted" poster.

This Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared terrorist remains wanted by the FBI for his role in the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center attack. President Bill Clinton's Justice Department indicted Yasin for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded in the parking garage beneath the Twin Towers, killing six and injuring 1,042 people in New York.

Soon after the smoke cleared, Yasin returned to Iraq. Coalition forces have discovered documents that show he enjoyed housing and a monthly government salary.

The site I linked to above also goes on to show further proof, showing how Abu Musab al Zarqawi ran to Iraq and received medical attention, then again we already know, as facts, that Abu Musab al Zarqawi was there.....it is where we killed him.

For many more examples of Saddam's sponsoring of terrorism, click here and follow all the links, the checks to suicide bombers families, the documentation, everything is there and it is soooo easy to find, yet people like Our Karl Rove Blog writer "Jon" is either too lazy to look or simply figures if he ignores it, his readers will too.

On to Jon's second scenario, even more amusing than the first:

2. If this administration has enough self control to not conflate Iraq with this terrorist plot, then you need the discipline and thought leadership to do exactly the opposite:

That one line proves everything we have said about Bush Derangement Syndrome.

It doesn't matter if Bush, Republicans and the administration are right or not, Democrats are being told that right or wrong, Democrats must disagree and take the opposite stance, National Security doesn't matter....OPPOSING the Administration is what matters.

Next.

We simply cannot afford to continue to play defense with people trying to destroy American cities and lives. We need a new foreign policy that is focused on eliminating people's violent hatred of America so that they no longer want to hatch horrible plots against us. We simply cannot expect that people from foreign lands will want what's best for America if we continue to appear violent and dangerously militant while having the most powerful armed forces in the world.

Like everyone else, I am so relieved that our federal, state, and local agencies were able to work together to stop this terrorist plot. But there will be more. Make no mistake, it is our President's responsibility to stop people from plotting against us... and not just run interceptions."

VERY very amusing here since it is the far left liberal democrats that do everything in their power to prevent the president from doing exactly that very thing.

They oppose the Military Commissions act, they oppose the NSA program, they oppose every tool that out DHS, FBI and local law enforcement agencies need to protect America against these types of plots.

The Democratic politicians also encourange the enemies hatred of America by showing their own hatred of America as well as playing footsie with our enemies every chance they get, one quick example being Pelosi's lovefest with al-Assad in Syria as well as Baghdad Reids public declaration about the U.S. having lost in Iraq, while our troops are there winning every single battle they engage in, and they tell us this in their letters, emails, faxes, phone calls and blogs!!!!

They wish to tie Bush's hands and feet together, then ask him to accomplish the goal of running around the track.

HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO? Anyone home?

Consider this a Conservative public service announcement.

This one was for you Snooper!!!

.

Sphere: Related Content

Tony Blair Nails It On The Head

Cross Posted from Wake up America

The Guardian has a piece out where Tony Blair speaks his mind and his words, if listened to, are a good example of what is wrong with the way we are fighting "radical Extreme Islamics".

Jumping to one specific paragraph here so I can explain my statement above.

Pelosi, Reid, far left liberals LISTEN UP, this is a lesson you folks refuse to learn.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

Thats it in a nutshell folks.

How many times do you see a liberal blog accuse the conservatives of lumping all Muslims in with extremists?

The opposite is the truth actually.

I have often, as well as seen other conservatives often, separate the two, because they are separate.

A few examples:
A Heartfelt Thank You to the Muslim Delegation
Moderate Muslims Take a Stand....Again
Moderate Muslim's Speak Up Again

Why do conservatives separate the two? Because they are two different species from each other, Moderate Muslims wish to live in peace and practice their religion, Extremists wish to force everyone to practice their religion or DIE.

It is the liberals playing thier political games that misrepresent how conservatives separate the two and instead of helping us fight extremists. They claim that by going after those extremists we are being "racist" or hate "all" Muslims.

This must stop because there is an enemy out there and denying it does not mean they do not want you dead.

More from Blair:

The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Blair held out the example of the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan - criticised by Islamists as an example of the heavy-handed imperial West oppressing Muslims - to highlight unfounded claims of grievance. He asked how it is possible to claim that Afghanistan's Muslims are being oppressed when the Taliban 'used to execute teachers for teaching girls in schools'.

Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'

Blair, who normally chooses his language carefully when he talks about Islamists, also takes a swipe at critics who accused him of undermining civil liberties. 'When I'm trying to change the law in order to make it easier to deport people who engage in terrorism - the idea that that's an assault on hundreds of years of British civil liberties is completely absurd. Some of what is written on this is loopy-loo in its extremism.'

He could be speaking about America because there is no difference between the accusations of the left from the UK and the accusations from the left here in the U.S.

Perhaps the left should do as the right consistently does and start separating the Moderates who wish to live in peace from the radical extremists that want us dead.

Maybe then we could stop the extremists at the same time as we open our arms and welcome the moderates.

If Americans, as one, do not start taking this threat from extremists seriously and stop worrying about being "politically correct" and start worrying about protecting ourselves as a nation, then the next attack on American soil, WILL be our own fault for encouraging the extremists instead of standing up against them.

The Moderate Muslims have shown the courage to stand up against the radicals that have hijacked their religion, when is America's left going to show that same courage and backbone instead of burying their heads in the sand and claiming there is no threat?

There IS a threat. They want you dead. They want me dead. They want our children dead.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

The horror stories are there for anyone to see:

Man Sexually Assaulted in Pakistan After Refusing to Convert to Islam

Joseph Francis, the National Director of CLAAS, explained: “When he entered the drawing room, he found it filled with unknown people. They began to beat him severely. They threatened him with dire consequences if he did not accept Islam. After his refusal, they committed sodomy with him one by one for the whole night.”

Or these words from The Ayatollah about Sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is
harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives".
(Arabic Source)

Michael Yon's latest most chilling report from Iraq:

Caption:

Soldiers from 5th IA said al Qaeda had cut the heads off the children. Had al Qaeda murdered the children in front of their parents? Maybe it had been the other way around: maybe they had murdered the parents in front of the children. Maybe they had forced the father to dig the graves of his children.

Read his whole detailed piece in full to see the type of monsters we are dealing with all over the world.

Even Moderate Muslims are telling liberals to stop denying reality:

Radical Islam is a grim reality, despite liberal pretensions to the contrary. Today, FSM Contributing Editor M. Zuhdi Jasser continues his passionate appeal for combating global terror, pointing out the dangerous folly of ignoring the root causes of this growing ideological cancer.

This Muslim also points out that you cannot be politically correct AND fight the Global War on Terror and he makes no bones in telling President Bush this same thing.

Mr. President, as a devout Muslim, I can tell you that the only way the United States can make progress in this war is to have your administration give anti-Islamist Muslims acknowledgement for the centrality of their ideas in this war of ideologies. We can defeat political Islam only if we engage it and marginalize Islamists while positively engaging spiritual Islam. It is time for the administration to set the parameters defining the ideology we are fighting and be critical of organizations which facilitate it. The words of encouragement and admonition to Muslim organizations to lead the charge against radicalism are too vague. The reality is that the priorities, ideologies, and minority politics of the current agenda of the Islamic organizations the administration has courted and which attended last Wednesday’s press conference are far from being on the right page in this conflict.

For example, the central role of the informant has become a cornerstone of our security. The primary informant in the arrest related to the JFK Plot demonstrated this. The Circuit City informant demonstrated the same with his tip leading to the arrests of the Fort Dix Six just weeks ago. The informants and so many others have stepped up in connection with other foiled plots despite the pressures against them from Islamists and the MSM. MSM often feed into conspiracy theories about informants, by legitimizing the victimization of Muslims for being “coerced” as informants. The Denver Post made just such a claim as recently as May 18, 2007. Their report claimed that, “Arab-Americans and Muslims are concerned about FBI efforts to recruit them as informants and other tactics designed to prevent terrorism.” This story was, to no one’s surprise, picked up and widely distributed by the Islamist organizations, e.g. CAIR.

Nothing illustrates the insidious dangers of political Islam (Islamism) more than this type of philosophy regarding informants. Rather than being celebrated as heroes, they are ignored, or subliminally treated as ‘traitors to the tribe’. Sadly, the latest message coming from Islamists is still far from endorsing the heroism of the informant but rather issuing frightening warnings that they may become defendants in a national lawsuit. Just this week, the lawyer for the flying imams, Omar Mohammedi, tried to prevent media access to the trial in his case against US Airways and the “John Does”. This again demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Islamists using the media when they need to be victims but denying freedom of press when they want to camouflage their agenda. The reality is that the informants are our 21st century heroes. Are Muslim organizations working feverishly to create a culture in the mosques and in our organizations of weeding out the bad apples? Or is the allegiance to political Islam greater and more intimidating? These are the questions the President should be asking instead of reiterating the same tired platitudes.

He then speaks to the denial based crowd, yes that means YOU, LIBERALS:

Denial and obfuscation feed the infinite time loop. Conspiracy theories feed the loop. Tribalism with an arrogance masking a collective inferiority complex feeds the loop. Hatred feeds it even more. Put all this together, and the nutritional source must be political Islam. It has no boundaries and seeks governmental domination. Political Islam has no moral courage for it is not based in universal truths of the one God of Abraham separated from the political affairs of this world. It is an ideology which accepts no responsibility for the plight of Muslims while blaming all others. Nations based upon individual freedom and liberty over collectivism and tribalism pose existential threats to the existence of the Islamists. This conflict can no longer be ignored.

[...]

Create a pervasive conspiracy mentality. Magnify victimization of the Muslim minority. Try litigation against those who work to defeat political Islam, even if it fails since it will ultimately intimidate. Divide America across religious lines; this will exploit American guilt while allowing political Islam to thrive. Sue the John Does who report suspicious activity. Base it on a claim of racism. Ignore the terror plots broken up by heroes who are or were John Does. It’s all about the theocratic tribe and the long term goals of political Islam and an Islamic state. Use the rules of pluralistic democracy to intimidate those who counter Islamism. Never allow the debate to begin between Muslim anti-Islamists and Islamists.

Read the whole piece and if you are one of those that he speaks of, SHAME ON YOU because you are the ones fascilitating the horrible killings in the name of Allah.

Would you dare call HIM a Muslim hater? A racist?

As long as people like John Edwards denies that there is a Global War on Terror going on, he and others that live in denial like him are encouraging more recruitment and more killing instead of having the courage to stand up and fight it with every breath in their bodies.

Extremism is all around us, as witnessed by honor killings in London as well as here in America.

These examples go on and on and on and yet we still see comments like the ones John Edwards made, "There is no Global War on Terror" or comments about how Jihad extremists are not as much of a threat as the "conservatives" make it out to be.

Denial is a dangerous thing and the Liberals cannot see past their Bush Hatred to see what is right in front of their face.

I quoted Dr. Sanity's blog yesterday which speaks to this denial:

Dr Sanity manages to nail it right on the head and declares those that live in complete denial, INSANE.

I wish I could tell you that the political left in this country was out of its friggin' mind...but I can't, because it is increasingly clear that if you could put all the combined synapses of all the the above bloggers together you would not get a single logical or coherent thought about the war that is being waged against the West by the religion of peace.

These bloggers and many of their readers are on a mission to go where no human has gone before. They are beyond mere denial and delusion; beyond psychosis even. I regularly treat schizophrenics who have more respect for reality.

Then for the best part:

Sadly, they suffer from a totally debilitating disorder: Severe Acquired Leftist Anencephalic Dementia (SALAD). Their minds are simply not there any more! The cognitive dissonance of believing so many bizarre and contradictory fantasies; the mental contortions and fits necessary for them to retain their ideological myths has caused their minds to softly and silently vanish away (that's what happens when the snark is a boojum, you see).

Why do the liberal left of our country keep defending and encouraging these murderers?

More importantly, how can they deny what is right in front of their face?

Stop in at Right Truth, today is her series of Sunday Reading List and there is always something for everyone there.

Sphere: Related Content

The Continuing Saga of the Haditha Marines.

WAR ON TERROR

Marine officer under fire gets support on 2 frontsGeneral backs up Haditha commander – and so does talk-host Michael Savage

Posted: June 28, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

















Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani

A Marine officer on trial for failing to investigate alleged war crimes in Haditha is getting support on two fronts.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani did, in fact, brief his higher-ups on the pitched battle that pitted U.S. Marines against terrorists in the Iraqi village Nov. 19, 2005, said Maj. Gen. Richard Huck in a military version of a preliminary hearing in the case.
Chessani was brought up on military charges after Time magazine accused Marines of "massacring" civilians in the firefight in Haditha. Later, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., publicly accused Marine officers of a "cover-up."

Officials with the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., are representing Chessani, and spokesman Brian Rooney told WND Chessani now is awaiting a ruling from a hearing officer on his case.

"We're done with the evidence part of the hearing and we're waiting for the hearing officers to render his recommendation," Rooney told WND. "We were able to put all the events of Nov. 19 into context with the before, during and after of what the town of Haditha was like."
He said the area was known for its violence because of the high number of Marines who already had been attacked and killed there.

"They also had intelligence reports just before Nov. 19 that they were going to be attacked within 48 hours," he said.

On that day, Rooney said, Marines came under an attack that included both gunfire and explosives. One Marine in a Humvee was killed and two more were injured, and the resulting house-to-house battle between the outnumbered 4-man Marine "fire team" and the insurgents resulted in 24 Iraqi deaths, including 15 civilians.

After the attack, two insurgents were tracked by aerial drones. One of those insurgents was followed to another part of town, where he took part in another battle with Marines, the testimony said.

"This was a real battle, there wasn't some phantom menace," Rooney said. "There were real terrorists in that town.'

He said the second suspect monitored by the Marines fled from the first confrontation, and went into a home. A short time later he came out, with different clothing and carrying a baby.
Rooney said the testimony also included confirmation from Huck that he was briefed immediately on the firefights and bombings that left some civilians dead along with the insurgents. Such civilian deaths sometimes are inevitable, especially in locations such as Haditha, where terrorists had set up bases in a school, a mosque, and a hospital to be used to attack U.S. forces, testimony said.

"We were able to show that the Marines reacted the way they were trained, the way they were supposed to react," Rooney said.

Eight Marines were originally accused in connection with the battle. Charges filed against Capt. Randy Stone have already been dismissed. Prosecutors said the government did not meet the burden of probable cause in his case.

Another defendant, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, also has had his Article 32 hearing, the military's version of a preliminary hearing, at which the judge noted the prosecution's arguments didn't seem to be supported by the evidence, even though he has not made a formal determination.
Rooney said such conclusions could have a huge impact on his client's case, as well as others that may come in the future. The officers were accused of failing to investigate and report of a "war crime," but if the determination that there was no war crime would stand, then no one could be facing charges for not investigating the "non-crime."

The tragedy, Rooney said, is that Chessani has been sidelined from his work in the war against terror by the allegations, at a time when his leadership could be used well in the battle.

"The terrorists are laughing in their caves," Rooney said. "The enemy knows our rules of engagement as well as we do. They know how to use propaganda better than we do. The whole trial is the result of propaganda."

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm from Ann Arbor, Mich., is defending Chessani and believes he is being sacrificed for the sake of "placating anti-war critics."
Richard Thompson, president of the center said, "Because of them [terrorists] one of the most effective Marine combat commanders in Iraq has been eliminated by his own government."

The Thomas More Law Center said Chessani is described by fellow officers as a focused, hands-on commander who followed the Law of War and was sympathetic to the plight of innocent Iraqis. He is a committed Christian with a wife and five children, and has served his nation honorably for more than 19 years with tours of duty in Panama, the first Persian Gulf War and three tours in Iraq.

Cases still are pending against Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich; Sgt. Sanick P Dela Cruz; Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum; 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson and Capt. Lucas McConnell.
Thomas More Law Center officials are still raising funds for their battles on Chessani's behalf. They say the reasonable costs of the case – to date – have reached about $325,000 and almost $200,000 has been donated for the cause. A big bump in support came when radio talk-show host Michael Savage added his voice to those concerned about justice.
On his website, he's linked a Charlotte Conservative News report detailing how the "Time" article was based on information from known insurgents.

There, writer Michael Kraft said the Time sources "were known insurgent propagandists and it was [that report] that created the Haditha massacre hoax."
Rooney said not only had Savage personally contributed money but had his audience, adding significantly to the resources available.

Savage told his listening audience Monday he would devote whatever time and resources are necessary to clearing Chessani and then pursuing those who have "persecuted" him. He pledged Tuesday to hold a fund-raiser for the Chessani family once he is cleared.

"We have come a long way from the scandalous remarks of Congressman John Murtha and the yellow journalism of Tim McGirk and Time Magazine," said the law center's recent update on the case. "The truth of November 19, 2005, is finally coming out. The support of people like yourselves has in no small way allowed this to occur. We at the Thomas More Law Center have been able to put forward such a robust case because of prayers and contributions you have given to us for Lt. Col. Chessani."

Remember the names Jack "The Toad" Murtha and the leftwing liberal reporter for Time magazine, Tim McGirk.

More here: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/24/164012.shtml?s=lh and
here: http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/time-corrects-its-mistakes-about-haditha .

Sphere: Related Content