Eleven million purple fingers in Iraq. It was the headline in every current-events or political news outlet in the English-speaking world and most of the outlets on the rest of the planet. Even normally left-leaning media had to grit their teeth and report the good news.

Well, everyone except the opposition party's website. Their lead story is that they rented a mobile billboard. It's not that the Democratic Party doesn't have a point with its billboard issue: Lamar did sign a contract. But did the whole party fail to notice that it's constant claims that Iraq is an unwinnable war and that Iraqis can't run a democracy are, well, WRONG?

If you dig around the party's website, there is an Iraq section. As of the time I'm writing this, no mention of the election yesterday. Just Howard Dean trying to spin his recent remarks that the Iraq war is unwinnable. Now, according to Dean, the partis merely have small disagreements over "timing." Has the party chairman read anything said by anyone in his party over the past year???

(edit for typos)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Democrats should learn from Sen. Lieberman

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial

December 16, 2005

Because of his vocal support for President Bush and the war in Iraq, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut must be feeling awfully lonely within the ranks of the Democratic Party. But that doesn't make him wrong.

Far from it. In defending the necessity of the war, and in reminding some of his more bitter Democratic colleagues that – whether they like it or not – President Bush is in fact the commander-in-chief and will be for three more years, Lieberman is right on all fronts.

In fact, the senator is so right that he's getting a substantial amount of grief for his position. After all, if he were far off base, he could be dismissed easily. He isn't. So he can't be.

That makes him lonely. Democrats and their on the radical left, in keeping with the season, won't let him play in any reindeer games. Lieberman's critics are even threatening to run another candidate against him in the Democratic primary in Connecticut next year. Liberal groups like MoveOn.org are accusing the senator of committing nothing less than an act of "betrayal" by standing with the president at a time when Democrats are trying to make political hay of the growing unpopularity of the war.

Rubbish. There's no betrayal here. In fact, you could say that Lieberman is doing his party a tremendous service by forcing them to confront and respond to a different point of view – coming not from the fringe, but from a respected member of the party.

This isn't a matter of betrayal, but it is a matter of convenience. As Democrats desperately attempt to demagogue the issue of the war, and President Bush along with it, they would probably prefer it if the president's supporters all fit the popular caricature of the swaggering, wild-eyed, pistol-toting conservative from Texas. What Democrats weren't prepared for was that the ranks of the war supporters would include people of gravitas, people of credibility, people like Joe Lieberman.

And so suddenly, as far as Democratic strategists are concerned, the junior senator from Connecticut is terribly inconvenient. That may be, but he's also terribly consistent. Lieberman supported the first Gulf War in 1991. Seven years later, he and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona drafted the Iraqi Liberation Act which advocated the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Lieberman is exactly where he has always been, which is something you can't say for many Democrats. This is, after all, the party that is trying to stake out every possible position on the war without holding fast to any of them. It's no wonder that Democrats give consistency a back seat to convenience.

The shame of it is that, if only they would stop sniping at one of their own, Democrats could learn from this episode. They could learn how to separate partisan politics from what is in the ultimate best interests of the United States. They could learn to accept, and perhaps even encourage, different points of view. And they could learn to be a stronger, more vibrant, and more relevant party.

They could do all that if only they could kick, once and for all, this childish habit of isolating those with whom they don't agree.

McCain and lawful society win

DAVID IGNATIUS
THE WASHINGTON POST

December 16, 2005

It's not about who our enemies are, it's about who we are. That has been Sen. John McCain's refrain as he campaigned for a ban on cruel interrogation techniques, and his success in convincing the Senate, the House and now President Bush, may mark a small turning point for the country. The United States is beginning to find its way out of the moral thicket into which it stumbled after Sept. 11, 2001.

The strongest argument for the compromise McCain and Bush reached yesterday is, to my mind, a national security one. Bush realized that harsh negative perceptions of America abroad were harming the country. The torture issue had become the most noxious symbol of what the world saw as America's arrogant lawlessness. But to Bush, it was also a symbol of his vow to do whatever it took to make America safe. So the two most stubborn men in America, McCain and Bush, struggled to find language they could both live with.

I credit Bush for realizing that he had to give ground. He needed to do something on the torture issue to protect the country's standing in the world – even something that he rightly believed carried risks for the United States. The man who famously never wants to change course or admit mistakes finally did both. In formally renouncing the anything-goes mentality that followed 9/11, he has begun restoring America's badly tarnished image in the world.

And what of McCain, the man who felt the outrage of torture on his lacerated skin and broken bones in a Vietnamese prison? I think he sealed his place in American history this week, whatever happens to him down the road. He simply would not give up on this issue. He took it to the president personally in a phone call in early November, all but pleading with the White House to change course. Bush responded by instructing his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to begin confidential negotiations, something that wasn't easy for the garrulous McCain.

Some advocates of the torture ban have argued that we're not really giving anything up, because torture never works. If that were true, this wouldn't be a genuine moral choice. But in fact, America will lose some leverage in interrogations. There's no escaping the reality that innocent people may die in future terrorist attacks because we have opted for a moral choice.

To understand what difference the torture ban will make, I spoke this week with British sources about the interrogation techniques used against the Irish Republican Army in the early 1970s. The British were facing a hideous IRA bombing campaign, and to stop the bombers, the British army and police in Northern Ireland tried to squeeze information from their IRA prisoners.

The British recognized what every cop knows – that interrogation is much easier if the prisoner is disoriented. So the British put hoods on their IRA prisoners, just as U.S. interrogators have done in Iraq. The British approved other harsher methods: depriving IRA prisoners of sleep, making them lean against a wall for long periods, using "white noise" that would confuse them.

The clincher for British interrogators was mock execution. The preferred method in the mid-1970s was to take hooded IRA prisoners up in helicopters over the lakes near Belfast and threaten to throw them out if they didn't talk. Sometimes, they actually were thrown out. The prisoners didn't know that the helicopter was only a few yards above the water. I'm told that technique nearly always worked. (So, too, with the "waterboarding" that U.S. interrogators used to break al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed.) The British eventually had to give up their extreme techniques because of public outcry, and I'm told they got less information. But they eventually prevailed against the IRA.

What of the extreme case that should haunt us all, when an al-Qaeda prisoner may know the location of a ticking nuclear bomb?

Here, too, the right answer is the rule of law. Under the new rules, an aggressive interrogator who discovers information that prevents a nuclear attack may still be charged with a crime. But I doubt any judge or jury would ever convict him. That's the essence of a lawful society – that hard decisions are left to courts, not to individuals. McCain got it exactly right when Newsweek asked him about this ultimate test. "You do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

It's a long walk back from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but President Bush took a first step yesterday, prodded by the man who has been his greatest political rival. Their partnership, in itself, is encouraging.

The lunatic leading Iran

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
THE WASHINGTON POST

December 16, 2005

Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp?

Except that there were no such camps, indeed no Holocaust at all, says Ahmadinejad. Nothing but "myth," a "legend" that was "fabricated ... under the name 'Massacre of the Jews.'"

This brought the usual reaction from European and American officials, who, with Churchillian rage and power, called these statements unacceptable. That something serious may accrue to Iran for this – say, expulsion from the U.N. for violating its most basic principle by advocating the outright eradication of a member state – is, of course, out of the question.

To be sure, Holocaust denial and calls for Israel's destruction are commonplace in the Middle East. They can be seen every day on Hezbollah TV, in Syrian media, in Egyptian editorials appearing in semiofficial newspapers. But none of these aspiring mass murderers are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that could do in one afternoon what it took Hitler six years to do – destroy an entire Jewish civilization and extinguish 6 million souls.

Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets that have been modified so they can now reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

But it gets worse. The president of a country about to go nuclear is a confirmed believer in the coming apocalypse. Like Judaism and Christianity, Shiite Islam has its own version of the messianic return – the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. The more devout believers in Iran pray at the Jamkaran Mosque that houses a well from which, some believe, he will emerge.

When Ahmadinejad unexpectedly won the presidential elections, he immediately gave $17 million of government funds to the shrine. Last month, Ahmadinejad said publicly that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.

And as in some versions of fundamentalist Christianity, the second coming will be accompanied by the usual trials and tribulations, death and destruction. Iranian journalist Hossein Bastani reported Ahmadinejad saying in official meetings that the hidden imam will reappear in two years.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near, but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end.

To be sure, there are such madmen among the other monotheisms. The Temple Mount Faithful in Israel would like the al-Aqsa Mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount destroyed to make way for the third Jewish Temple and the messianic era. The difference with Iran, however, is that there are all of about 50 of these nuts in Israel, and none of them is president.

The closest we've come to a messianically inclined leader in America was a secretary of the interior who 24 years ago, when asked about his stewardship of the environment, told Congress, "I don't know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

But James Watt's domain was the forest and his weapon of choice was the chainsaw. He was not in charge of nuclear weapons to be placed on missiles that are paraded through the streets with, literally, Israel's name on them. (They are adorned with banners reading "Israel must be wiped off the map.")

It gets worse. After his speech to the U.N. in September, Ahmadinejad was caught on videotape telling a cleric that during the speech an aura, a halo, appeared around his head right on the podium of the General Assembly. "I felt the atmosphere suddenly change. And for those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. ... It seemed as if a hand was holding them there, and it opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic Republic."

Negotiations to deny this certifiable lunatic genocidal weapons have been going nowhere. Everyone knows they will go nowhere. And no one will do anything about it.

Coincidence or Conspiracy?
The new U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks! Yes! see for yourself...

Coincidence or Conspiracy?
The new U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks! Yes! see for yourself...

All I can say is, very interesting.

---

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Thank you, Misfit, for directly bypassing the advertising!

Woe is Wikipedia - Credibility of online encylopedia in free fall

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

December 17, 2005

The Internet's emergence has made more information more readily available to more people than all past technologies combined. But an unsettling case involving vicious lies presented as fact on Wikipedia, the highly popular online encyclopedia, shows the perils of this new era.

Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has become one of the first stops for people – especially students – seeking basic information. Its 800,000-plus entries were created by anonymous contributors and are subject to ongoing editing by anyone who visits www.wikipedia.org. Founder Jimmy Wales predicts his collaborative information hub someday will be considered more authoritative than Encyclopedia Brittanica.

But Brittanica's entries, of course, are written by scholars, not by folks who consider themselves experts on certain subjects – and not by someone with malign motives. Such an individual, a Nashville man named Brian Chase, set out to tear down John Seigenthaler Sr., the scion of a prominent Tennessee family and a former journalist and aide to Robert F. Kennedy. He posted a Wikipedia entry that linked Seigenthaler to the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and John Kennedy. It went unchallenged for four months until Seigenthaler learned of it and demanded its removal. An Internet sleuth soon revealed Chase was the author.

In response, Wales essentially said, sorry, but these things happen. He instituted minor changes, ordering that new entries could no longer be submitted anonymously. Editing of existing entries by anonymous users is still allowed.

Sorry, but that's not nearly good enough. At the least, every page on Wikipedia should carry a prominent disclaimer saying that the accuracy of entries is not guaranteed and that all information should be checked against other sources.

Identifying authors is another minimal reform. Just why is anonymity crucial? This isn't about whistleblowers. It's about individuals who present themselves as reliable sources of information on a Web site that attracts 15 million or so visitors a month.

Because of its open-source nature, Wikipedia's credibility was never going to surpass Encyclopedia Brittanica. A few more cases like Seigenthaler's and its credibility will rival the Weekly World News. Wake up, Jimmy Wales, and save your brainchild before its reputation – and yours – is shot.

Analysts: Iran leader's comments part of plan

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 18, 2005

TEHRAN, Iran – Remarks by Iran's hard-line president that the Holocaust was a "myth" and Israel should be "wiped off the map" are not just wild comments by a novice leader, but part of a strategy to keep anti-Israel sentiment alive in the Middle East, analysts said yesterday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose comments have drawn international condemnation and raised tensions in an already volatile region, is also trying to revive the radical fervor of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution after eight years of rule by a more moderate government.

"The man is still living in 1979 and believes Iran represents a revolution more than just a state," said Mustafa Alani, director of security studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "He believes (verbally) attacking Israel, which was a key principle of the revolution, will serve Iranian interests in the region more than polite, rational policies."

Ahmadinejad caused an international outcry in October by calling Israel a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."

Leaders around the world also condemned him in recent days for calling the Nazi slaughter of Jews during World War II a "myth." He added that if the Holocaust did happen, then Israel should be moved to Europe or North America, rather than making Palestinians suffer by losing their land to atone for crimes committed by Europeans.

[quote]Analysts: Iran leader's comments part of plan

ASSOCIATED PRESS

December 18, 2005

TEHRAN, Iran – Remarks by Iran's hard-line president that the Holocaust was a "myth" and Israel should be "wiped off the map" are not just wild comments by a novice leader, but part of a strategy to keep anti-Israel sentiment alive in the Middle East, analysts said yesterday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose comments have drawn international condemnation and raised tensions in an already volatile region, is also trying to revive the radical fervor of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution after eight years of rule by a more moderate government.

"The man is still living in 1979 and believes Iran represents a revolution more than just a state," said Mustafa Alani, director of security studies at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "He believes (verbally) attacking Israel, which was a key principle of the revolution, will serve Iranian interests in the region more than polite, rational policies."

Ahmadinejad caused an international outcry in October by calling Israel a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map."

Leaders around the world also condemned him in recent days for calling the Nazi slaughter of Jews during World War II a "myth." He added that if the Holocaust did happen, then Israel should be moved to Europe or North America, rather than making Palestinians suffer by losing their land to atone for crimes committed by Europeans. [/quo

As a jew myself I find the hardline Iranian's attitude revolting.As a human being I also find the hardline Israeli right-wingers an afront, to all thats decent in mankind.I also wish that the USA's politicians would be even handed,when dealing with the middle east,rather then just thinking of the domestic "Jewish vote".Terrorism,whether by crazed Islamic bomber,or by state sanctioned assinations and fighter/bombers missiles is equally dispicable.
Unfortunately holocaust revisionists are creeping out of the woodwork in Europe too.It doesn't stop me believing that a "genuine" two state solution in Israel/Palestine,is the only humanitarian answer.I hope that both Islamic and Judaic fundermentalists are defeated by reason and hunanitarianism.Whether it's Jewish,Islamic or Christian blood that is spilled,it's still a tragedy for thier loved ones,thier communities and the World

---

You gotta love'em.

Coming to you from Britian, where I haven't met anyone who likes Bush. Imagine that, they all must have been brain washed. Right?

I'll be back in the land of Freedom & Democracy on the 28th. That's if I don't get shot by someone in the Dept. of HLS first...

---

Account frozen...

You gotta love'em.

Belongs in the crap thread or the who beleives in santa thread. ;o)

You gotta love'em.

Love what? Irrational partisan rhetoric? Why should anyone love that Barbra Streisand?

Coming to you from Britian, where I haven't met anyone who likes Bush. Imagine that, they all must have been brain washed. Right?

When I spent last summer there, I met a few that did, most didn't care, and a few that hated the guy. They seemed to hate Chirac more. Not that it matters though, they aren't voting for either one. More rationally they should examine why a super-lefty agrees with Dubya. Odd that, eh?

I'll be back in the land of Freedom & Democracy on the 28th. That's if I don't get shot by someone in the Dept. of HLS first...

Don't act like an insane nutjob on a plane and you'll be fine.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Love what? Irrational partisan rhetoric? Why should anyone love that Barbra Streisand?

You're talking about your champion, Dubya, like that...amazing. Come to think of it Barbara would be more coherent and not sound like some programmed Sony robot.

---

Account frozen...

You're talking about your champion, Dubya, like that...amazing. Come to think of it Barbara would be more coherent and not sound like some programmed Sony robot.

My "champion?" I didn't vote for him (Michael Badnarik), and I rarely support any of Dubya's policies.

Of course Babs would come across that way. She's an actress.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You're talking about your champion, Dubya, like that...amazing. Come to think of it Barbara would be more coherent and not sound like some programmed Sony robot.

My "champion?" I didn't vote for him (Michael Badnarik), and I rarely support any of Dubya's policies.

Of course Babs would come across that way. She's an actress.

We had and actor for President once, and a Queen, her name was Nancy. At least his tongue wasn't forked and his thought processes were much clearer, even though he was pre-alzheimers.

---

Account frozen...

Iran's President Bans Western Music

By NASSER KARIMI
Dec 19 1:59 PM US/Eastern

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran's
radio and TV stations, reviving one of the harshest cultural decrees from the
early days of 1979 Islamic Revolution. Songs such as George Michael's
"Careless Whisper," Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California"
have regularly accompanied Iranian broadcasts, as do tunes by saxophonist
Kenny G.

But the official IRAN Persian Daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad,
as head of Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the
enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban Western music.

"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official
Web site.

Ahmadinejad's order means the IRIB must execute the decree and prepare a
report on its implementation within six months, according to the newspaper.

"This is terrible," said Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour, whose music was
played occasionally on state radio and TV. "The decision shows a lack of
knowledge and experience."

Music was outlawed as un-Islamic by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini soon after the
revolution. But as the fervor of the revolution started to fade, light
classical music was allowed on radio and television. Some public concerts
reappeared in the late 1980s.

Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran, and hip-hop
can be heard on Tehran's streets, blaring from car speakers or from music
shops. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely
available in the black market.

Following eight years of reformist-led rule in Iran, Ahmadinejad won office in
August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles promoted by
the revolution.

Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and
pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former
military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, called for the Jewish state
to be "wiped off the map" and described the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."

International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United
States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the
claims.

During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what
he called the Western cultural invasion and promote Islamic values.

The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.

"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is
emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate trite and
violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site explaining its
October ruling.

The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant
powers," an apparent reference to the United States.

==========================================================================

Hmmm...Iranian nutjobs?

Oops...Guess that makes me a "racist".

-Mr. anon

Hmmm...Iranian nutjobs?

Oops...Guess that makes me a "racist".

-Mr. anon

And by posting that article you may have endangered the lives of the Iranian people.