Saturday, December 31, 2005
Former Syrian VP Abdul Halim Khaddam says that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad threatened former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri for opposing Syrian rule in Lebanon - right before Hariri was murdered by a truck bomb.
How sad that the BBC is reporting this.
Hariri 'threatened by Syria head'
A senior Syrian official has said President Bashar al-Assad threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri only months before his death.
Syria's former Vice-President, Abdul Halim Khaddam, said "Hariri received many threats".
The ex-Lebanese premier, who had become a critic of Syria, died in a bomb attack in Beirut in February.
A UN investigation has implicated Syria in the assassination. Syria denies it was involved.
UN investigator Detlev Mehlis said several sources had said they had been told by Hariri that Mr Assad had threatened "to break Lebanon over [his] head", if he did not support the extension of Lebanese President Emil Lahoud's term.
Mr Khaddam told al-Arabiya television: "Assad told me he had delivered some very, very harsh words to Hariri... something like 'I will crush anyone who tries to disobey us'."
Syria is now allied with Iran in pushing terrorism around the world - they are funding Hezbollah, terrorists in Iraq, and now are implicated in blowing up people in Lebanon. The world needs to bring Syria, a rogue state, to the bar of justice at the United Nations.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Those wonderful subhumans known as Palestinians are thrilled that al-Qaeda has attacked the US and Europe, despite the fact that these two places are the last friends the Pallies have in their vain attempt to formulate some sort of state.
Oh, and they want extremist shari'a - or Islamic - law to be the law in their new state.
Just what this world needs - another Islamic nutty country.
65% of Palestinians Applaud Terror Attacks on US and Europe
A poll carried out in the Palestinian Authority shows 65% support for Al Qaeda terror attacks on the United States and European countries - the biggest donors to the PA.
The poll comes at a time when US and European funding of the Palestinian Authority is at an all-time high.
With elections due to be held next month and the Hamas terror group gaining significantly in municipal elections and polls, the survey further illustrates the desire of a majority of PA Arabs to establish an Islamic state, similar to Iran. A whopping 79.9% of Palestinians would like the PA to follow Shari'a - Islamic religious law. Included in the figure are 11.3% of the respondents, who would like to see Shari'a supplemented by the laws of a PA Legislature.
"What is striking is the willingness of Palestinians to turn against even the Western countries upon whom they are so totally dependent in order to progress," said Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Director Itamar Marcus. "The poll underscores what PMW has been documenting for years - the profoundly negative impact hate education has had on PA society…Palestinians are not in direct conflict with the US, and certainly have counted on the Europeans as active allies. And yet an overwhelming majority desire to see Europeans and Americans killed by a religion-based terror organization."
The poll was conducted by FAFO - a Norwegian-based NGO not known for sympathy toward Israel or antipathy toward the PA. FAFO says it conducted the polling among the Palestinian population "in order to assess political feelings after Israel's voluntary withdrawal from Gaza in late-summer 2005." The poll results were reported in the PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida last Friday.
The world can sympathize with these subhumans. But, eventually, the choice will become clear: support them and their al-Qaeda allies, or let Israel destroy them once and for all. They do not deserve a state - they deserve destruction.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Occassionally - and we mean "occassionally" - we find a Downie who has a modicum of common sense. Of course, these finds are few and far between the regular nutjobs of that party, but we do find them.
So, here is one: John Schmidt, who served in the Clinton Administration from 1994 to 1997 as Assistant Attorney General. He says, in a opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune, that the NSA surveillance program instituted by President Bush is not only legal, but is correct.
President had legal authority to OK taps
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
Schmidt puts the lie to the "civil libertarians' and their fake horror at President Bush defending this country from terrorists. How sad that some Republicans in Congress didn't lay out this argument as well as Schmidt did.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Following on the last story, we find that not only are Downies out of touch with the American people, but they are siding with terrorists even in Iran.
A Senate resolution to condemn Iran and their whacko President for his anti-Semitic comments was - get this - opposed by Downies and, facing their opposition, was watered down by Republicans so it could pass.
Why the media does not highlight that the Downtrodden Party is now wholly siding with terrorist elements is beyond us.
Senate Democrats Soften Iran Resolution
WASHINGTON — A Senate resolution condemning the president of Iran for anti-Semitic comments he made earlier this month is riling its Republican sponsors on Capitol Hill. They claim Senate Democrats forced them to strip language from the document expressing support for self-determination and a national referendum in the country.
Senator Santorum, a Republican of Pennsylvania, drafted the resolution after a December 14 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a “myth” and suggested Israel be relocated to Europe, Canada, or Alaska. In its original form, the statement condemned the remarks, demanded an apology, and supported efforts by “the people of Iran to exercise self-determination” and hold a national referendum with oversight by international observers.
When Mr. Santorum moved to introduce the resolution last Friday, Senator Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, registered an unusual objection. According to the Congressional Record, Mr. Wyden told Mr. Santorum on the Senate floor that he was objecting to the resolution because his Democratic colleagues in the Senate had asked him too. Mr. Wyden did not say who asked him to issue the objection.
“While I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the president of Iran,”Mr. Wyden said, “I have been asked by the members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object.”
Senator Wyden wants to oppose this - and that is fine. Perhaps if the American people threw more members of his silly party out of office, and they had 30 members instead of 44, Mr. Wyden would think more thoroughly about siding with terrorists.
We at Joobo asked why national polls on the NSA surveillance story were not being done, or were being ignored. It took a short time before our question was answered: the polls did show that a major majority of Americans agree with the surveillance, and, in a stunning move, 51% of Downies agree with it.
As we like to say: Yikes.
National Security Agency
December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
So, we stand by our belief that Downie politicians are once again siding against the American people and with the terrorists when they oppose the surveillance. The American people want President Bush to do whatever he has to do - civil liberties be damned - to protect this country. Downie opposition - and even calls for his impeachment - once more shows that they should not be allowed anywhere near control of this country for the forseeable future.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Desperation amongst liberals arises...having lost two national elections to President Bush, one congressional election (and, probably, another in 11 months), and the nation's voice, liberals believe that they can impeach President Bush for some unknown crime. After all, even before the NSA surveillance story, liberals were using the "i" word, so they can't be using that.
Here is what we at Joobo wish: Downies should run their entire 2006 campaign - every single seat, from the US Senate on down to the most local election - on the program of "elect us, so we can impeach President Bush."
Here is our prediction: Bush's approval ratings will skyrocket, and Downies will get sacked in the mid-terms. How do we know? Check out what happened in 1998, to the Republicans.
'Impeachment' Talk, Pro and Con, Appears in Media at Last
Suddenly this week, scattered outposts in the media have started mentioning the “I” word, or at least the “IO” phrase: impeach or impeachable offense.
The sudden outbreak of anger or candor has been sparked by the uproar over revelations of a White House approved domestic spying program, with some conservatives joining in the shouting.
Ron Hutcheson, White House correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers (known as “Hutch” to the president), observed that "some legal experts asserted that Bush broke the law on a scale that could warrant his impeachment.” Indeed such talk from legal experts was common in print or on cable news.
Newsweek online noted a “chorus” of impeachment chat, and its Washington reporter, Howard Fineman, declared that Bush opponents are “calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The ‘I-word’ is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.”
When chief Washington Post pollster Richard Morin appeared for an online chat this week, a reader from Naperville, Ill., asked him why the Post hasn't polled on impeachment. "This question makes me mad," Morin replied. When a second participant made the same query, Morin fumed, "Getting madder." A third query brought the response: "Madder still."
Has anyone noticed that since the NSA surveillance story that not ONE poll has come out registering the American public's reaction to it? Is it positive, is it negative? What do people think?
We think we know - the major pollsters polled the American people, and the answer that came back was, "We don't care if President Bush monitors the e-mails and phone calls of terrorists, as long as we remain safe from terrorism." Of course, the nutty left will disagree, but they are a thin minority of America. After Hurricane Katrina, every media outlet (including Fox) polled people and showed that people did not like how the federal government reacted to the disaster, and blamed President Bush for the inaction. In this case there are no polls showing this. But if the polls showed that people did not like what Bush did, that he broke the law, etc., the pollsters would be out with those polls. The fact that the polls are missing is proof positive of why liberals don't like the answers they got in the polls.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
The Euro-peons, who depended on the United States in two world wars, costing us hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention the billions of dollars we gave them free of charge after the Second World War, consider the US not a friend but a rival - a threat, something to be challenged. Why? Who knows - paranoia, some mental disease infecting its leaders (then again, many of Euro-peon citizens suffer from the same disease, called US Derangement Syndrome) - and, who cares?
The latest hilarity from the Peons is too funny to even describe. The US invented the Global Positioning System (GPS) to track anyone and everyone on the planet. No one bitches about GPS - in fact, everyone from governments to the militaries all use it in one way or another.
However, the Euro-peons are distressed, pissed, sickened, that they have to rely on a system invented by the US. So, in what the BBC calls a spirit of "independence" from the US, the Peons have decided to spend at least $4 billion to invent their own - called Galileo. The first part of this new system launches this coming week.
Hmmm...can someone remind me why the Euro-peons weren't so distressed, pissed, and sickened when they put out a hand after WWII and sucked billions of dollars out of US taxpayers? Where was the spirit of "independence" then?
Q&A: Europe's Galileo project
Europe is building its own satellite-navigation system called Galileo. BBC News looks at why such a network is deemed necessary when we already have the US Global Positioning System (GPS).
What is Galileo?
Galileo will be a global network of 30 satellites providing precise timing and location information to users on the ground and in the air. It is costing some 3.4bn euros (£2.3bn; $4bn) of public and private investment and represents the biggest space project yet undertaken in Europe.
Galileo's first demonstrator spacecraft is being launched on 28 December; a second platform will follow in the New Year. They will trial the in-orbit technologies needed to run the system. These include atomic clocks, the heart of any global positioning system.
If all goes according to plan, a full constellation of Galileo satellites will be in operation by the end of 2010.
Why does Europe want Galileo?
On an important level, Galileo is a political project.
Like Airbus and the Ariane rocket programme, the new sat-nav system will assert Europe's independence. It will give EU countries guaranteed access to a service that is currently provided by a foreign (US) power.
Interesting - the cost is "some" $4 billion. Which means, with Peon corruption and waste, the cost should be about $6-7 billion.
But notice that this project will "assert" Europe's "independence."
Here's a note to Peons: next time you need our help (wars, disasters, fucked up economies, etc.), we will tell you to "assert your independence" and then tell you to drop dead.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
AND NOW, SOME MORE OF: THIS DATE IN DOWNTRODDEN PARTY HISTORY!
December 24, 2005: Today, this actual day, Downies across the nation went home to their hovels and held seances over the deceased leaders of their party, such as Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and called for better leaders, including some with IQs in double digits. In some state where Downies actually have control (which state is that again?), party faithful (all 6 of them) gather to call for the election of a Downie in 2008, or 2012, or 2016, or whenever they can goose the country into trusting their party again. Howard Dean says we will lose World War I. Harry Reid calls police when he believes that his toilet is bugged, only to find that what he thought was a bug was in face a sanitary toilet cake he himself had installed. Nancy Pelosi, on a trip back to San Francisco, is attacked by a woman wearing an "I hate Transexual Liberal Asshats" t-shirt at the Ronald Reagan Airport. The Downtrodden National Committee releases a statement calling Associate Justice nominee Samuel Alito "that little scumbag Eye-talian," then apologizes only for misspelling "eye-talian." In business news, Wall Street announces that if a Downie is elected President any time in the 21st Century the stock market will shut down for 1 month of mourning. Former Vice President Al Gore, standing in 2 feet of snow in Michigan, again says that global warming is the worst threat the United States faces. Former President Jimmy Carter visits Jack Kevorkian in prison, but flees when Kevorkian tries to inject Carter with a lethal cocktail. Kevorkian is then pardoned by President Bush.
Make sure to stay right here for the next installment of "This Date in Downtrodden History"!
The Italians, in the zeal to appease Muslim terrorists, have decided not to arrest them, or even surveil them (as that could be a violation of their civil rights, poor babies), but instead order the arrest of CIA agents who allegedly grabbed a Muslim terror suspect on their soil in 2003.
We should tell the Italians the following: your warrant is invalid. If you waste your time and arrest our agents, we will arrest the Italian Ambassador and his wife and their staff and hold them until our agents are released. Can you spell "international incident"? Comprende?
Italian court issues arrest warrant for CIA agents
An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.
The move raises the stakes in the dispute between Europe and America over the CIA's controversial policy of "extraordinary rendition".
It means that police forces in Britain and the 24 other members of the EU would be legally obliged to arrest any of the suspects, who would be sent back to Italy under a fast-track system adopted as a counter-terrorist measure after the September 11 attacks.
The same procedure was used to return Hussain Osman, one of the alleged would-be suicide bombers in London on July 21, after he was tracked down to Italy.
The Italian prosecutor, Armando Spataro, said he had also asked Interpol to try to detain the CIA agents anywhere in the world.
President Bush should call the Italian premier, Silvio Berlusconi, and tell him to quash this shit. Because Italy will lose in the end, not the US, if this is allowed to continue.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Another member of the pro-terror and pro-Palestinian group, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a gang of scary leftwing psychos, was arrested in Israel. However, he cannot be deported because he has threatened to cause violence to the airplane which would carry him back to Scotland.
Pro-Palestinian Brit refuses to leave
A British citizen and member of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement, arrested a month ago after allegedly assaulting a soldier in Hebron, cannot be deported from Israel despite being considered a security risk, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Andrew Macdonald, a 31-year-old Glasgow native, has spent the past three weeks in a detention center in the south awaiting deportation. Police confirmed on Wednesday that they were unable to deport Macdonald due to his refusal to board a Scotland-bound plane and his alleged threats to disrupt the flight.
Macdonald, who is currently being held in the Immigration Police Tzohar Detention Center, was arrested on November 3 with two other ISM activists after allegedly assaulting a group of soldiers standing at an IDF roadblock in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood in Hebron. Macdonald was eventually released but was arrested again in Hebron on November 24 after he was caught in the West Bank city with an expired visa. Three weeks ago, police escorted Macdonald to an airplane at Ben Gurion Airport but he refused to board and according to police threatened to disrupt the flight.
Here is what Israel should do: tell him he is being taken to the Palestinian areas in a helicopter. Then, over the ocean, throw him out with his hands cuffed.
After he hits the water at, say, 200 miles per hour, he won't be able to threaten violence anymore. And when Scotland asks what happened to him, let Israel say that he was taking a bath for the first time and would report back as soon as he was done.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
John Walker Lindh, the thug who went to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban against his own country, asked President Bush this week to lessen his 20 year sentence.
We say that President Bush SHOULD lessen it - from 20 years to 19 years, 364 days.
And not a day sooner.
Lindh Asks for Lighter Prison Sentence
WASHINGTON (AP) -- American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh has asked President Bush again to reduce his 20-year prison sentence by an unspecified amount, Lindh's attorney said Tuesday.
Lindh, now in his early 20s, wrote a first-person account to the Justice Department's pardon attorneys arguing why he believes Bush should reduce his sentence. Lindh's attorney said the document could not be publicly released under U.S. government restrictions intended to prevent Lindh from disclosing national secrets.
Lindh, imprisoned in southern California, was captured in Afghanistan weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He pleaded guilty in U.S. civilian court to supplying services to the Taliban government and carrying explosives for them, but the government dismissed terrorism-related charges against Lindh.
"As passions have cooled, it became clearer to people that John was a young man ... who was in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Lindh's attorney, James Brosnahan of San Francisco. "Hopefully, this president or some future president will reduce his sentence."
If that future President is a Downie, Lindh may get his sentence reduced. Then again, a future President who is a Downie will just surrender the whole country to al Qaeda, and Lindh will probably serve in some al Qaeda-controlled Congress.
It looks like our good buddies the French and the Germans were just pumping tons of weapons into Iraq, and some of them have been found.
What was that about indicting Jacques Chirac for being an international asshole again?
Huge weapons cache found
ZUWAD KHALAF, Iraq — As the piles of missiles and rockets dug from the desert floor grew, smiles on soldiers’ faces turned to scowls of serious concern.
Working on a tip from an informant, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division on Tuesday dug up more than a thousand aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which had been buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said.
“This is the mother lode, right here,” Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after uncovering more than 20 Soviet missiles.
As the sun set Tuesday, soldiers continued to uncover more, following zigzagging tire tracks across the desert floor and using metal detectors to locate weapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds.
But the growing piles of missiles and rockets were of primary concern for the soldiers in Iraq, where bombs made with loose ordinance by insurgents are the preferred method to target coalition forces.
“In our eyes, every one of these rockets represents one less IED,” said 2nd Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Mass., a platoon leader in the division’s 187th Infantry Regiment.
Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs, but the service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein.
Still, the plastic around some of the rockets — of Soviet, German and French origins — appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.
1984, 1994, 2004 - it just shows why Saddam Hussein said that Chirac was his "best friend."
This is too funny for words: A thief in South Africa, running from the police, ran right into a zoo, and crawled into the tiger compound, where he was mauled to death.
One asshole down, tons to go.
Tigers Kill Man Suspected of Mugging in South Africa
BLOEMFONTEIN, South Africa — A suspected mugger being chased by security guards met a grisly end after he fled into a zoo and climbed into the tiger enclosure.
His mauled body was discovered Sunday by a visitor to the zoo in Bloemfontein, in central Southern Africa, prompting initial confusion as to how the man ended up in the enclosure.
Police said Wednesday the man and an accomplice had robbed a couple at knifepoint early Sunday. Security guards gave chase and one of the suspects jumped over the perimeter fence. He then apparently ran to the tiger's den in the middle of the zoo.
"What exactly happened we don't know and we won't ever know because the only person who could tell us is dead," police spokeswoman Else Gerber said.
She said there was an empty can of beer near the corpse and that the autopsy would reveal whether the man was intoxicated at the time.
Zoo officials have said the Bengal tigers will not be destroyed because they were blameless. The tigers had been fed on Saturday and so did not eat the man because they were not hungry, according to media reports.
All we can say to this one is: Bwahahahahahahahahaha...
As we here at Joobo have been saying, the BBC is one of the "triad of journalistic evil," along with CNN and al-Jazeera, using the airwaves to spread anti-American, anti-George W. Bush, and anti-Semitic slander at every turn.
Well, it is time for some really ripe of evidence of this.
How ripe? Get ready to plug your nose at the stench of leftist rot.
Here is just one segment, dealing with the latest economic figures. The US economy grows, the European economy stagnates. But, the slags at the BBC cannot say this - they have to couch both stories in terms the average leftist moron can understand.
First, the US economy grows...but the BBC says that it "persists."
What? Doesn't bad news "persist"? How can good news persist?
Of course, the BBC tells you just how.
Rapid US economic growth persists
The US economy has continued to grow quickly despite the impact of hurricanes and record high oil prices.
The Department of Commerce said that gross domestic product (GDP) increased by an annual rate of 4.1% in the three months to the end of September.
That was the fastest rate of growth since the first quarter of 2004, and up from 3.3% in the previous three months.
Consumer demand - which has been helped by discounting - was the key driver, along with business investment.
Fascinating, eh? It sounds like things are in great shape. But the BBC has to find a dank cloud in there somewhere:
On the negative side, growth in the third quarter was less than had been initially predicted and corporate earnings slid as companies had to meet the cost of hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
Yup, that's the "negative" news.
However, how are the economies of those "economic powerhouses" of Europe doing? France, for instance?
Not good at all. Of course, the BBC couches that news in good terms.
French output has surprise tumble
France's economy is under fresh scrutiny after industrial production unexpectedly fell in October.
Output dropped by 2.5%, after rising by 0.6% in September, the statistical office INSEE reported.
While the government has promised to revive the flagging economy, a mixed picture has emerged in recent months.
Despite the good intentions recent riots have dented consumer confidence, unemployment is still above 9% and reforms are proving difficult to enact.
So, that "surprise tumble" means what? Output dropped. Unemployment continues near double digits. Riots. In short, things are bad.
But, check out this crappola from another Froggie:
In an interview with French newspaper Les Echos, the European Union's (EU) Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said that while a recovery in the euro-zone was taking hold, it was still early days.
The US economy is steaming along, but there is that bad news. The French are dropping dead, but some numbskull says things are about to "take hold."
So, how is that wondrous UK economy that just cannot rush to ensure that homosexuals can marry each other? Pretty rotten, too.
Deficit widens as growth slows
The Chancellor has admitted that the UK economy is growing more slowly than he had hoped after a "tough year".
Mr Brown said it was the doubling of oil prices and high house prices that had put pressure on the economy.
He predicted that the economy would grow by just 1.75% this year - half the rate he had forecast six months ago.
And he has accepted that the public finances will be £5bn worse off as a result - and extended the economic cycle by another two years.
But his tone remained upbeat as he claimed credit for keeping the economy on an even keel.
"We are the first party to achieve eight years of continuous economic growth since 1805," the chancellor told the House of Commons.
Uh, we have this just in from the Captain of the Titanic - he has had a great voyage, and sees things getting better in the future, but right now his fucking ship is sinking. Yup.
Of course, the BBC's attempts to make the good look bad and the bad look good is not just limited to economic issues - they even try to make Saddam Hussein look like a poor and tortured (forgive the pun) soul:
'Americans tortured me' - Saddam
Saddam Hussein has been beaten and tortured by the Americans, he has alleged at his trial in Baghdad.
"I have been beaten on every place of my body, and the signs are all over my body," he told the court.
A White House spokesman rejected the charge, saying it was one of the most "preposterous" things Saddam Hussein had said recently.
Poor Saddam! After all, the BBC held a "war crimes trial" against President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, and used evidence that we invaded Iraq to prove we committed war crimes. For Saddam to have brutally murdered hundreds of thousands is something the BBC just need not bother to mention. That he makes allegations of "torture" with no substantiation, and gets airplay, is nothing new from the birdbrains at the BBC.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
The left in America, along with their willing imbeciles in the mainstream media, continue to think along two lines: that the NSA surveillance without court warrants was "against American citizens" (which it was not), or that "it is unprecedented" or "has no foundation in law."
Despite the fact that these morons have this entire story wrong, we here at Joobo need to set out why. And while it is not easy, we have the facts on our side, and as usual the left does not.
The Supreme Court has already held that in authorizing the war against al Qaeda, in what was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Congress gave the president the powers to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "nations, organizations, or persons" that he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" in the attacks on 9/11. This case, Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al., did not specifically deal with the issue of warrantless wiretaps or surveillance, but with the President's powers to hold persons he suspected of being enemy combatants. Nonetheless, the court showed that the AUMF granted the President extraordinary powers.
But, wait - says the liberal argument. Since the Supreme Court did not specifically okay such surveillance, Bush committed an illegal act, right?
Wrong, as usual.
Because the same law they cite, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), specifically allows such searches or surveillance without a warrant:
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
And, as President Bush has so stated, Attorney General Gonzales has said that the surveillance was okayed by his office.
End of argument, right?
Not for liberals, of course. Because they find it easier to defend a President who lies under oath to a federal judge or commits obstruction of justice than allow another President who they hate to do what he needs to do to defend this country from terrorists who want to murder us.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
We have two interesting angles on the leaking of the story to The NY Times on the Bush administration's orders, without court warrants, to monitor the calls and e-mails of certain persons in the United States calling or communicating to persons with ties to al-Qaeda.
Executive Orders by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Allowed the Spying on American Citizens, not Terrorists
George W. Bush pushed the NSA to monitor the calls of people in this country - not American citizens, but people who happen to be here - to countries with ties to al Qaeda, without warrants from a court.
The liberals, in their usual hysteria, are calling this terrible, horrible, disgusting, and some are using the word "impeachment."
Unfortunately for the left, they have a small problem: their heroes, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used the same surveillance, but on American citizens without court orders.
Let us see how many media outlets report this.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949: FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That was February 9, 1995 - when Bill Clinton was President.
Oops. Now here is what Jimmy Carter did...in 1979:
Executive Order 12139: EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
So, once again, liberals are hoisted on their own pitard - this time, the pitard of truth.
Just once we would like to see the left be consistent on something. Just once.
So, now that the Left's argument that "Bush is doing this unlike any President before him" is dead, let us focus on the next fact: that President Bush had the full authority to conduct such no-warrant surveillance:
Court Case Shows That Bush Had the Authority for No-Warrant Surveillance
The left has been exposed again: lies, lies, lies.
A court case in 2002 held that the President has the right to order no-warrant surveillance under his constitutional responsibility.
Barbara Boxer, mouthpiece for the illiterate Left, had no comment, as usual.
[File in Adobe Acrobat PDF form]
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001: On Motions for Review of Orders of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Nos. 02-662 and 02-968)
We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. 629 F.2d at 914. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.
Now, this case was dug up with barely any research. In fact, the research in this entire entry was done with a search engine and the right queries. So, how come the MSM cannot do the same research and find out the whole story as we did here? It is just sheer laziness, or is their leftist media bias so prevalent that they cannot bother to find out the truth?
Monday, December 19, 2005
Every person with an IQ above single digits believes that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. However, because Muslims are not in this category, they seem to have a problem comprehending the truth of history.
After the President of Iran, Mahmoud al-Goatfucker, said that the "Holocaust was a myth," we now have on our hands another Islamic fruitpie, who claims, as do all Holocaust deniers, that the "gas chambers" were used - get this - for delousing clothing.
Oh, and Hitler loved Jews. Oh, and the Jews killed other Jews to "push them" to go to Palestine.
If this were not sickening, it would be hilarious.
Columnist for Egyptian Government Daily: The Nazis Did Not Massacre the Jews
"What this truth means is that these massacres, which Israel alleges that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews, never happened. The famous execution chambers [i.e., the gas chambers] were no more than rooms for disinfecting clothing."
"It has Also Been Proven That Hitler was Not Against the Jews, as Disseminated by the Zionist Historians"
"According to what we know, [the most recent of these researchers] is the courageous British historian David Irving, who paid a heavy price for his courage. Some other historians have proven that some of the massacres alleged to have been perpetrated against the Jews in World War II were carried out in coordination with the Jewish leadership, in an effort to push [the Jews] to emigrate to Palestine.
"It has also been proven that Hitler was not against the Jews, as disseminated by the Zionist historians, but that on the contrary, he permitted 120,000 Jews to emigrate to occupied Palestine in his first years in power, in order to appease the Jews.
This is why Muslims are stupid - it is because they cannot comprehend that bullshit is not history...but, to them, history is bullshit.
Cindy Sheehan, who has had to go overseas for publicity because her 15 minutes are up in the United States, is in Spain making an ass of herself. But, to protest the United States, she got a huge crowd of 100 people to march with her.
If she had jumped in front of a moving bus, she would have gotten a bigger crowd.
Then again, we wish she HAD jumped in front of a moving bus.
Sheehan Leads War Protest in Spain
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.
About 100 protesters carried banners criticizing President Bush.
Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."
Yup - Iraq is "worse" than Vietnam.
In Vietnam, we lost 58,000 men.
In Iraq, we have lost 2,150.
It that really worse?
Then again, in this woman's twisted mind, it might be.
One look at her sees why she is twisted: she is one ugly bitch:
And this woman is listened to? She should just be locked up.
John Kerry, Dimwit of Massachusetts, told a crowd the other night that he believes that if the Downies retake the House in 2006 that they should impeach President Bush. He cited no other program for moving forward - he thinks they should spend their time on impeachment.
That should be a winning strategy.
Kerry Links Retaking House To Bush Impeachment
MA. Sen. John Kerry said last night that if Dems retake the House, there's a "solid case" to bring "articles of impeachment" against President Bush for allegedly misleading the country about pre-war intelligence, according to several Dems who attended.
Kerry was speaking at a holiday party for alumni of his WH '04 bid.
About 100 campaign vets gathered at Finn McCool's bar in D.C. to hear him. In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."
Kerry Comm. Dir. David Wade, in an email, said his boss was joking.
Wade: "Is it really a story that, with a smile on his face and to ensuing laughter, at a Christmas party for his hardest working troops who are still working to win in 2006, a Democrat joked about why these diehard Democrats needed to keep dreaming of a Democratic Congress? Impeachment jokes in Washington are as old as Don Rumsfeld and as funny as Dick Cheney is gruff. Only the truly humorless would say bah humbug to the rarest of partisan red meat." Wade said Kerry often asks this question: "How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the Administration intentionally misled the country into war?" More Wade: "Good luck finding a Democrat in America who disagrees..."
But several in Kerry's audience said the comment made them uncomfortable, in part because they believed the press would discover what Kerry said and twist its context. In keeping with Kerry's wishes, several attendees, while acknowledging what he said, declined to comment when asked about the remarks.
Dem strategists know that many in their base might favor impeachment. But they do not want the party to appear hyper-partisan, especially when Cong. approval ratings struggle to reach 30 percent. Most Dem strategists believe that Americans would not stomach a second drawn-out, polarizing impeachment trial in the span of ten years. Others do not believe Bush deserves to be impeached. Dem leaders have cautioned colleagues not to use the word "impeachment" when speaking to base crowds.
An Impeach PAC, led by Democrats.com's Bob Fertik, has raised about $40,000 since November and promises to spend it in competitive races. And at least three national polling firms, Research 2000, Zogby and Rasmussen, have included the impeachment question on surveys.
Ah. So Downies leaders have "cautioned" their members not to use the word "impeachment."
In short, they are being told to whisper it to the radical looney wing of the party - a sort of "wink wink" to get out and vote for their sick party.
Of course, the media won't expose this. They are spending their own time trying to bring down President Bush.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
It has been said before - all of the intelligence prior to the Iraq War said that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMD. Now, nearly 3 years later, while we have found some supplies, we have not found those "stockpiles." Where did they go? Did they ever exist at all?
Yes, they probably did - and an influential Israeli General says that they were moved to Syria six weeks before we launched our invasion, while France dithered and blocked us in the United Nations.
Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.
The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.
The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."
From July 2002 to June 2005, when he retired, General Yaalon was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military. He is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He made similar, but more speculative, remarks in April 2004 that attracted little notice in America; at that time he was quoted as saying of the Iraqi weapons, "Perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."
Of course, the left and the anti-Semitic crowd will just say, "See - this is an Israeli saying this. Israel hated Saddam Hussein. There is no proof of his allegation. Besides - he is the only one saying this!"
Uh, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Yaalon is not the only one saying this.
Someone - an American - said this 2 years ago and the MSM refused to listen to him, as usual.
Spy chief says Iraq moved weapons
Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.
Other goods probably were sent throughout Iraq in small quantities and documents probably were stashed in the homes of weapons scientists, Gen. Clapper told defense reporters at a breakfast.
Gen. Clapper said he is not surprised that U.S. and allied forces have not found weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq because "it's a big place."
"Those below the senior leadership saw what was coming, and I think they went to extraordinary lengths to dispose of the evidence," he said.
As we say here constantly, never argue facts with the left. Because even when you have the facts, they will either ignore them or make some up to fit their arguments.
The State of California is prohibited ("prohibited" meaning "not allowed by law") to offer tuition to illegal aliens not in this country legally. But not only did they do that, but they offered lower tuition rates than American citizens.
Heads should roll for this one - but, in the meantime, lawsuits they are a'flying against this crap.
Students sue for tuition parity with California illegals
Students from 19 states yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from California officials for charging them significantly more than illegal aliens pay to attend state-run colleges.
The 42 plaintiffs say California state lawmakers and the University of California board of regents knowingly violated a federal law enacted in 1996 that says any state that offers discounted in-state tuition to its illegal aliens must provide the same lower rates to all U.S. citizens.
California has a "unique" statute barring discrimination on the basis of geographic origin, said lead attorney Michael J. Brady.
Some students in the University of California system could be eligible for as much as $300,000 in total damages, he said.
The plaintiffs' attorneys say the lawsuit was filed in a state court in Yolo County on behalf of about 60,000 U.S. citizens who have paid out-of-state tuition to attend public higher-education institutions in California since 2002.
Now, for that "money quote" - in this case, a portion of the law passed by "California lawmakers" (i.e., Downies, who control that state's legislature), which indemnified the college heads who actually ran this shit:
Mr. Brady said California officials knew their tuition law that took effect in 2002 was unfair and illegal.
"Former Governor Gray Davis initially vetoed it, saying it violated federal law and that it would cost California $65 million [in damages]," Mr. Brady said. "He sent it back to the state Legislature with that warning, but they re-enacted the same law," which Mr. Davis eventually signed.
Mr. Brady said administrators of the University of California system also recognized that the state law was invalid, and they refused to implement it unless they were "given immunity." As a result, he said, California lawmakers enacted an "immunity statute," which says that if the state tuition law is declared illegal or unconstitutional, schools in the University of California system would not be held liable for retroactive tuition differences.
Now, imagine if the Republicans in Congress passed a law which allowed one group to get a better deal (taxes, etc.), and, knowing it might be struck down, also indemnified those who carried it out from lawsuits.
The ACLU and their leftist minions would be in court day after day and holding press conferences. But the ACLU defends illegal aliens and terrorists, so it must be okay.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
This past Thursday, millions of Iraqis - Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd - went to the ballot box to cast votes for Parliament. It was the third election this year, and the first to have massive Sunni involvement, as they realized that they foolishly boycotted the elections in January and October. The Sunnis fighting the US and coalition troops realized their error - that boycotting the elections and killing innocent people with car bombs was not working for them - and they pushed their people to go vote - which, if you think of it, is quite funny. Except this is dead serious.
Imagine the scene: just 3 years, or actually 33 months, into a war, we have brought democracy to a country once ruled by a murdering dictator who had his people cowering in fear 24/7. We have moved in with help from only a handful of allies - without the help of the cowards of France and Germany - removed the murdering dictator, captured him and put him on trial, and have allowed the Iraqi people to see a future for the first time ever.
Of course, President George W. Bush deserves the credit for this, as do the brave American and coalition forces who have fought the Islamic terrorist scum, with about 2,400 overall giving their lives in the effort. Each one of them is a hero, and their loss is immeasurable. However, let us remember that in World War II, the United States lost 8,000 dead in just three days of the battle of Iwo Jima. The American military, which has borne the brunt of this conflict, performed above and beyond the call of duty.
Let us also remember that it was President Bush, given intelligence that Saddam Hussein was building up weapons of mass destruction, who chose to end this madness in Iraq, despite the dithering of said France, Germany, Russia, and the American left. Of course, much of the intelligence may have been wrong, but, in the end, Bush did the world a great favor removing Saddam, because, one day, those sanctions would have ended, and Iraq would have begun its WMD programs all over again. Saddam Hussein had to be taken down, and taken down he has been.
Now, 33 months after Operation Iraqi Freedom began, those elections were held, where 70% of the Iraqi people went to the polls. Imagine if in the United States we had a turnout like that! But, for the American media, including those who openly side with those forces fighting America around the world in the name of radical Islam, this election was a sham, a show, as they stood there waving, "Move along - there is nothing to see here."
In addition, those in the media decided that not only was it a crime that President Bush was rising in the polls again, but that his associate Karl Rove had not been indicted, and the American people lost interest in their cooked-up non-story known as "Plamegate." So, they have on their plates what we here like to call "The Grand Strategy." The 11 parts of this strategy are this:
1. Make sure that good economic news goes unreported. If unemployment goes down, make sure to do stories about "those Americans out there who are hurting who President Bush does not care about." If the stock market goes up, remind people of how it was when Bill Clinton was President, before the bubble in 2000 dropped it through the floor. Forget to remind people that the American economy was headed for the toilet in late 1999 and early 2000, before George W. Bush became President. Make sure to label tax cuts pushed by Bush as "pushing up the deficit" but not "averting a depression after 9/11."
2. Make sure to report each casualty in Iraq as "today, another American soldier was killed in Iraq. We estimate that xxx troops have been killed since President Bush started the war in Iraq based on faulty intelligence." Make sure to tie President Bush's name in each story, to make it sound like he killed the soldier.
3. Make sure to cover each Cindy Sheehan rally, even if 8 crackpots show up to support her.
4. Make sure to portray Rep. John Murtha and his "let's get out of Iraq right now" plan as a smart initiative, but completely forget to mention the name, much less the words, of Senator Joseph Lieberman because Lieberman backs up President Bush's plan for Iraq. Make sure to forget to mention that Murtha slurs his words (drunk? Alzheimer's?), sounds like a crackhead, contradicts much of what he says, and definitely make sure to call him "a war hawk" who "served in Vietnam" who is "disgusted at the way the war is being fought," despite the fact that Murtha has been against the war for 2 years (and making crackpot statements against it since that time).
5. Make sure to highlight the military status of any of President Bush's critics, but ignore the military status of any politician who dares to support him. For instance, when Senator Chuck Hagel backs President Bush, he is "Senator Hagel of Nebraska," but when he opposes the President he becomes "Senator Hagel, who is a Vietnam War veteran."
6. Make sure to report any alleged torture allegation against the United States, but play down the abuse and murders of al Qaeda worldwide, including in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, where Islamic nutjobs continue to attack civilians who do not adhere to radical Islam.
7. Find ways to report the "CIA Leak investigation" as breaking news, despite the fact that there has not been breaking news on that "story" since Lewis Libby was indicted in October.
8. Show that the alleged release of the name of Valerie Plame was some sort of crime, but refuse to say that the leak of alleged CIA "torture prisons" in Europe, or that President Bush ordered the NSA to surveil Islamic sympathizers of al Qaeda in America without court warrants, are crimes far worse than the alleged release of Plame's name, despite the fact that the two latter stories aided and abetted this country's enemies.
9. Report every 10 minutes that "President Bush's approval ratings are at 35%, which is the lowest he has ever been" when they were there, but when they rise to, say, 40%, refuse to report the story or use the old "yeah, but" reporting style, in, for example, "A new poll shows that President Bush's approval ratings have risen to 40%, but the American people still disapprove of the Iraq war, the economy, and his handling of Hurricane Katrina." I don't remember the "yeah, but" style being used to report of Rapist Willy Clinton's ratings. Then again, most of the American media was busy fawning all over Clinton when he was robbing and stealing and lying for the eight nightmarish years he was in power.
10. Refuse to allow the identification of minorities when they commit crimes. When a white man is identified as a suspect, the media says, "The suspect is identified as white, 5 foot 8, 220 pounds, wearing dark clothes and sneakers." But if a black man is a suspect, the media reports it thusly: "The suspect was said to be 5 foot 8, 220 pounds, wearing dark clothes and a sweater." If a Hispanic is a suspect, the media may use that term, but only if the crime is a murder or murders. Otherwise, the color of the suspect is deemed not to be important - unless the suspect is white.
11. Allow the likes of Paul Slugman, Keith Dimbulbermann, and Wolf Blintzes to lie about every single thing they report on when it comes to the Bush administration. When Slugman is forced to retract his Marxist horseshit peddled as alleged economic theory, The New York Times buries the retraction on page 96 under the Obituaries columns. Dimbulbermann spends each night railing about how terrible President Bush is, but he does it to the 22 people who actually watch his program. And Wolfie Blintzes, with his sidekick Jack "the Smack" Cafferty, wrestle each other daily to see whose IQ is lower, or who can make a shifty remark that President Bush is the devil incarnate.
So, here is what you need to do: watch the American media (print, television, internet, etc.) and see if daily, if not several times daily, that they do not use their spaces to bark out marching orders fitting into one of these 11 categories. You will notice it where before you may have missed it. But it will become more noticeable as you open your mind to the tactics of the leftists who run the so-called "mainstream media." And then you will see how truly insidious the American media, and its leftist lapdogs, is to the health of America.
The Iranian media is reporting that there was an attempt on the life of Iranian thug and Muslim asshole Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with one of his bodyguards killed in the attempt.
As usual, the MSM missed this story.
Iran President's Bodyguard Dies in Ambush
Tehran, Iran -- One of the bodyguards of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was killed and another wounded when an attempt to ambush the presidential motorcade was thwarted in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan, according to a semi-official newspaper and local residents.
“At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway”, the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported on Saturday.
“In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president’s bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded”, the newspaper, which was founded by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wrote.
In some ways, this is good news. Even though the assassination attempt failed, it does show that the Iranian people have a desire to be rid of this lowlife scumbag.
We can only hope for more attempts, because the more that happen the better chance one of them succeeds.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Check out this photo, of President Bush and an Iraqi showing off her finger in ink from voting in the Iraqi elections.
However, the MSM in the United States continues to portray President Bush as some sort of demon. However, when Bill Clinton, the media darling, was in office, a picture like this was usually followed by Rapist Willy massaging the woman's breasts, or lifting her skirt.
That is why the MSM in America is disgusting, and their destruction is welcome news.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
What's with the Muslims these days? Besides the fact that they have a combined IQ under 10, and their women are ugly without the burqas, and the men are forced to fuck goats to get sexual stimulation, they seem to believe that they can "wipe" Israel out.
If they are so darn set on this goal, why do they instead spend all their time beating their wives and having sex with farm animals? Why not pick up a gun and go fight the Israelis, so the Jews can make large mounds of dead Arabs as they have in the past?
In addition to the complete imbecile who is currently the head of Iran, now the moron who heads Egypt's "Muslim Brotherhood" says Israel must be "wiped out."
How about we here in the US stop sending Egypt the $3 billion a year we send them?
Egypt's Muslim Brothers brand Israel a 'cancer'
CAIRO - Israel is a "cancer" in the Middle East and its peace deal with Egypt should be submitted to a referendum, the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brothers said in an interview published Thursday.
"I declared that we will not recognize Israel which is an alien entity in the region. And we expect the demise of this cancer soon...," Mohammed Mehdi Akef told the state-owned English language Ahram Weekly.
Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1979, becoming the first Arab country to establish diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.
Islamists opposed to the deal assassinated President Anwar Sadat in 1981 for signing the Camp David accord and opposition to the normalisation of relations with Israel remains strong in Egypt.
Akef stopped short of demanding the peace agreement be scrapped but suggested it should be submitted to a popular referendum.
"That is for the people to decide... If I had the power I would put it to the people," he said.
It looks like "Mohammed Mehdi Akef" needs to just go back to whatever farm he comes from and go back to fucking goats. However, the goats may not like it, as they are far smarter than this dimwit Akef.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
The Downtrodden Party and their congressional thugs have no concern if America is hit by terrorists again - they show this lack of concern by their refusal to pass the Patriot Act, parts of which expire in 2 weeks.
Now, Downies in the Senate threaten to filibuster if the act is even brought up for a vote.
In short, Downies are now endangering America and Americans.
House Ready, Senate Balks on Patriot Act
WASHINGTON (AP) - The GOP-controlled House plans to quickly renew portions of the USA Patriot Act before they expire at the end of the year. Some Republicans say the nation's safety could be endangered if the Senate doesn't follow suit.
The House on Wednesday was expected to pass a White House-backed bill that would renew more than a dozen provisions of the Act - the government's premier anti-terrorism law - which are due to expire Dec. 31.
But saving those provisions will be more difficult in the Republican-controlled Senate, where some GOP and Democratic senators are unsatisfied with the compromise bill, which was worked out last week between key Republicans in the House and Senate.
At least one senator, Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, is threatening a filibuster.
The Downies need to suffer a massive defeat at the ballot box next year.
Remember in 2006 when you go to the polls: that Downie candidate you vote for wants to make sure terrorists hit America like they did on September 11, 2001. Maybe if there were fewer and fewer of them in Washington, their decision to block tax cuts or the Patriot Act will be more severely compromised.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Sunday, December 11, 2005
'Peace mom' Sheehan in new play by Nobel winner
LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who won wide attention with a vigil outside President George W. Bush's ranch in the name of her soldier son killed in Iraq, is the subject of a new play by Nobel laureate Dario Fo.
"Peace Mom" received its world premiere in London on Saturday night, starring British actress Frances de la Tour, with both Sheehan and Italian dramatist Fo in the audience.
The one-woman show is based on extracts from Sheehan's letters to Bush and other writings. De la Tour delivered the monologues beneath large pictures of Sheehan's son Casey and a tank in the Iraqi desert in front of a plume of fire.
"Frances did such an amazing job of conveying my feelings of anger and betrayal," a tearful Sheehan said after the play.
Well, let's check out what Miss "De La Tour" looks like, from her official site:
Yup, she looks like Cindy, too.
It looks like they picked an ugly lowlife to play a disgusting lowlife.
Bill Clinton, the Rapist-in-Chief©, went to a UN Conference on "Global Warming" in Canada, and opened his fat mouth once again, saying that President Bush is "flat wrong" in opposing the laughable Kyoto Accords, which would destroy the American economy.
Clinton Says Bush Is 'Flat Wrong' on Kyoto
MONTREAL Dec 9, 2005 — Former President Clinton told a global audience of diplomats, environmentalists and others Friday that the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.
With a "serious disciplined effort" to develop energy-saving technology, he said, "we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets in a way that would strengthen and not weaken our economies."
Clinton, a champion of the Kyoto Protocol, the existing emissions-controls agreement opposed by the Bush administration, spoke in the final hours of a two-week U.N. climate conference at which Washington has come under heavy criticism for its stand.
Yet, the media conveniently leaves out that it was Rapist Willy who submitted the Kyoto Accords to the US Senate in 1998, and it was defeated, 98-0.
How many Democrats voted to table it? Every one of them.
Kyoto Protocol: Economic Threat or Opportunity?
One of the most vociferous opponents of the treaty was Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, who headed the Congressional delegation to Kyoto, Japan.
Other speakers included Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, under secretary for economic, business and agricultural affairs, U.S. Department of State; J. Brian Atwood, administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development; Peter Coy, associate economics editor, Business Week; and Richard L. Sandor, chairman/CEO of Environmental Financial Products Ltd. and also a director of Central and South West Corp.
"The Kyoto Protocol agreed to by the Clinton Administration and over 160 nations last September poses a severe threat to the vitality of the United States economy in the form of drastic energy price increases, job losses in key manufacturing industries and an overall decline in our standard of living," Sensenbrenner said.
Hmmm...here's the Senate resolution refusing to ratify the Kyoto Accords:
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and
(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.
Clinton never resubmitted the Accords, and when President Bush came into office he refused to comply with them.
And to this day, the slavish MSM refuses to explain why the US Senate, in 1998, when Bill Clinton was President, did not ratify this economic destruction of a treaty. Because, if they did, it could make Bill Clinton look like a fool or a liar - or, perhaps, both. Which he was during his entire maladministration.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
CBS News says that President Bush's approval ratings are in "free fall."
Unfortunately, someone should remind the writers at CBS that their own poll show Bush's numbers rising.
Free Fall For The President
The holidays are coming, people are not broke and they are feeling pretty good about themselves, and that for the moment may have arrested George W. Bush's downward spiral in the polls. It'll be interesting to see how Democrats react to that piece of good news for the White House.
Now, for that CBS News poll, released just this week:
In Poll, Bush Improves on Economy but Iraq War Looms
After months of political erosion, President Bush’s approval rating improved markedly in the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, largely tracking Americans’ more positive attitudes toward the economy.
The survey, conducted Dec. 2-6, showed Mr. Bush’s approval rating at 40 percent, up from 35 percent a month ago, which was the low point of his presidency.
Now, if CBS has said that the war in Iraq was unpopular, that would fine. But, they say Bush's numbers are in "free fall."
As we like to say here at Joobo: Bullshit, bullcrap, horseshit.
Friday, December 09, 2005
In their editions appearing tomorrow, Saturday, both The NY Times AND The Washington Post have stories about how Senator Joseph Lieberman has become a pariah in his silly party - because he supports the war, supports President Bush, and supports America and our troops.
How long before the dummies in the Downie Party get ticked off enough of his bucking the surrender trend to have him thrown out of their caucus?
Lieberman Wins Republican Friends, Democratic Enemies With Support for War
Five years ago, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman was one of President Bush's arch political rivals. Now many in his party complain that he sounds more like Bush's running mate.
The Connecticut Democrat's strong public defense of Bush's handling of the Iraq war has provided the White House with an invaluable rejoinder to intensifying criticism from other Democrats. In public statements and a newspaper column, Lieberman has argued that Bush has a strategy for victory in Iraq, has dismissed calls for the president to set a timetable for troop withdrawal, and has warned that it would be a "colossal mistake" for the Democratic leadership to "lose its will" at this critical point in the war.
Lieberman's contrarian behavior is not out of character -- he is far more hawkish than the majority of Democrats, and he has vigorously backed invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein from the beginning. But the latest defense of Bush and his stinging salvos at some in his own party have infuriated Democrats, who say he is undercutting their effort to forge a consensus on the war and draw clear distinctions with Republicans before the 2006 election.
Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son.
In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.
Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."
"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said.
Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said.
Notice that both stories carry comments by Harry Reid, Really in the Minority Leader (who lies about the polls on Iraq), and sums up the feelings of liberals, who hate Lieberman as much as they hate President Bush.
Lieberman's coming defection from his party signals that a line has been crossed: the Downtrodden Party is now in full "We Surrender" mode. And they intend to ostracize and demote any of their rank-and-file who deigns to oppose them or even think differently.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
If there is anyone in Europe besides Jacques Chirac who should be shot for collaborating with the enemies of Western civilization, it is Harold Pinter, a British playwright who has decided to throw his lot in with the enemies of America.
Plus, he suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Playwright Takes a Prize and a Jab at U.S.
LONDON, Dec. 7 - The playwright Harold Pinter turned his Nobel Prize acceptance speech on Wednesday into a furious howl of outrage against American foreign policy, saying that the United States had not only lied to justify waging war against Iraq but had also "supported and in many cases engendered every right-wing military dictatorship" in the last 50 years.
"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them," Mr. Pinter said. "You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis."
Pinter is currently in a hospital suffering from some unknown disease. Here is hoping that he dies from it before too long. And that he suffers. It would be a fitting end to a piece of shit like this.
The Inuit Indians in northern Canada, who are finding it hard to kill innocent animals like polar bears and whales, blame their problems on "global warming" - a fallacy - and the United States. So they launched a lawsuit against us.
Get ready for the ACLU to take up their cause.
Threatened by warming, Arctic people file suit against US
The people of the Arctic filed a landmark human rights complaint against the United States, blaming the world's No. 1 carbon polluter for stoking the global warming that is destroying their habitat. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), representing native people in the vast, sparsely-populated region girdling the Earth's far north, said they had petitioned an inter-American panel to seek relief for Canadian and US Inuit.
"For Inuit, warming is likely to disrupt or even destroy their hunting and food-sharing culture as reduced sea ice causes the animals on which they depend to decline, become less accessible, and possibly become extinct," said Robert Corell, who spearheaded an Arctic climate impact assessment.
President Bush is doing the right thing by dismissing these imbeciles who blame the natural warming of the planet on industrial action in general, and the United States in particular. They need to shut up and get lost. We will not upset our economic well-being so some sub-humans can hunt polar bears and seals.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
The Washington Post, being kind, says that some Downies in Congress are terrified that the recent comments of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Murthafugger, and other liberal idjits "may" paint the entire party as one advocating "a weak" national security stance.
Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks
Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.
These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.
These Downies, fools all, are worried for good reason: their party IS weak on national security, on making this country safe, or presenting a plan of making sure the terrorists do not hit us again.
The Downies think the 2006 election is theirs to win. Actually, they won't, because when the American people think really hard about who will protect them or who will offer surrender to our enemies, they see the Downies as advocating the latter policy.
The US economy is steaming along, but for some Marxists and failed creeps in the liberal media, there is always bad news.
And so, Reuters, the anti-American and anti-Semitic "news" agency, posts this crap about "pessimists" on the US economy.
Who is their source? Paul Slugman of The New York Times, one of Bush's most asinine critics, that's who. Someone who, if unemployment went to 0% and the deficit vanished, would still claim things were bad.
How typical of the leftist media to call this thug a "pessimist."
Bush takes on pessimists on U.S. economy
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will point to faster-than-expected growth and other positive economic news on Monday in a speech he hopes will help convince Americans the economic outlook is rosier than they think.
Bush, whose approval ratings are at all-time lows, faces public pessimism over the economy and questions from some commentators over whether the U.S. economy is fundamentally sound, given a soaring budget deficit and a trade deficit with China that is heading for $200 billion for the year.
"The problem isn't that people don't understand how good things are. It's that they know, from personal experience, that things really aren't that good," wrote economic commentator Paul Krugman in The New York Times on Monday.
Notice how this story says that Bush's approval ratings "are at all-time lows."
Sorry, folks, but along with quoting Marxist idiots, you also have trouble with the facts:
President Bush Job Approval
Wednesday December 07, 2005--Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. The President's ratings have been at 45% or above for six straight days and nine of the last ten.
These Job Approval ratings are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a Three-Day Rolling Average basis with 1,500 interviews. Premium Members also receive data based upon a Seven-Day Rolling Average basis and 3,500 interviews. Those figures are less volatile than the Three-Day numbers and eliminate any possible day of the week bias.
The Seven Day figures have shown the President's Job Approval at 46% for five straight days. They show the President's rating bottoming at 41% on October 28 and making modest but steady progress since that time.
As usual, the media gets it wrong. But that's what happens when liberals write the news instead of reporting it.
Hmmm...another Downie is indicted for criminal activity.
It must be a "culture of corruption" surrounding that party.
Second Associate of Philly Mayor Charged
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- An attorney who headed a committee trying to develop a key piece of city-owned property was charged with fraud and conspiracy Tuesday, the second close adviser of Mayor John F. Street to be swept up in a federal corruption investigation.
Prosecutors said Leonard Ross, 58, attempted to sell access to his office to raise campaign funds for Street and to get a $150,000 line of credit for himself.
The charges echo similar counts filed against others caught up in the probe, which became public when police discovered an FBI bug in Street's office in 2003.
A series of related federal probes have resulted in convictions of more than a dozen people, including the former city treasurer who tried to trade government contracts with businessmen for gifts, favors and cash.
The mayor was not charged - but neither was Warren G. Harding. But he surrounded himself with criminals, as did Bill Clinton.
How much of this story will the media play up? Probably none.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Howard Dean said yesterday that the “idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong” is just one more reason why Downies cannot be trusted to run America.
But the media is playing this one close to the vest – because if it shows what a complete moron Dean is, it will hurt their cause as well of installing a leftist government in this country.
However, let us imagine if, say, during World War II, that in September/October/November 1944, when we were bogged down in Europe and suffering horrendous casualties, that the chairman of the RNC came out like Dean did and said the following:
RNC Chairman Says “We Cannot Win the War in Europe”
RNC Chairman James Williamson said today in a radio interview that the “idea that we're going to win the war in Europe is an idea which is just plain wrong.” Williamson, speaking on WRTC radio in Atlanta, Georgia, made the comments when asked why American forces were bogged down in Europe following the D-Day invasion this past July.
“The President has badly mismanaged this war, and now American forces are suffering for his lies and ineptitude,” Williamson said. “We have lost 10,000 American boys since D-Day, and now we are stuck in a quagmire against Nazi forces.”
In response to a caller who asked when Williamson thought we would break out of the so-called “bulge” near the German border, he said, “I don’t know if we will. The idea that we're going to win the war in Europe is an idea which is just plain wrong, and we should stop thinking about it. President Roosevelt has made this war unwinnable through his gross mismanagement of the conflict.”
DNC Chairman James Farley condemned Williamson’s comments. “For the chairman of a former major political party to say that we will not win in Europe is disgusting. He is advocating a policy of defeat, and this president will not stand for it.”
Now imagine the press coverage if such comments had been made. The New York Times would call them “horrible, defeatist remarks” and The Washington Post would demand in an editorial that this chairman either apologize or resign immediately.
Instead, the Downies defend Howard Dean – which, for a party of surrender, is to be expected.
Since Vietnam, the Downtrodden party has done its level best to make sure that America is surrendered to its enemies - either the Soviets during the Cold War, or, now, as we battle Islamic terrorism. In 2004, the Downies ran a presidential ticket which advocated the surrender and defeat of America by a former Vietnam soldier who denounced fellow soldiers and accused them of false war crimes.
Now, the Downies are in full scale retreat in the War on Terror - from Iraq to arresting and killing al-Qaeda worldwide - and, on a daily basis, calling the President a "liar" and other assorted ad hominem attacks which only play to their party's leftwing base, whether or not it hurts us overseas.
Now we have two disgusting examples of how Downies are denouncing the military and advocating defeat. First, John Kerry, the slug from Massachusetts who tried to steal the 2004 election, accused American troops in Iraq of alleged war crimes. Kerry's proof? None. But he likes to hear his own voice, so he makes the charge which he has been making since Vietnam.
The following is in a pdf file (Adobe Acrobat required):
CBS News "FACE THE NATION" - Sunday, December 4, 2005
SCHIEFFER: All right. Let me shift to another point of view, and it comes from another Democrat, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. He takes a very different view. He says basically we should stay the course because, he says, real progress is being made. He said this is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists. He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?
Sen. KERRY: Let me--I--first of all, there is so much more that unites Democrats than divides us. And Democrats have much more in common with each other than they do with George Bush's policy right now. Now Joe Lieberman, I believe, also voted for the resolution which said the president needs to make more clear what he's doing and set out benchmarks, and that the policy hasn't been working. We all believe him when you say, `Stay the course.' That's the president's policy, which hasn't been changing, which is a policy of failure. I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...
Sen. KERRY: ...Iraqis should be doing that.
Yup, Johnny - those darn Americans keep terrorizing poor Iraqis. But he says we shouldn't be doing it - the Iraqis should.
And this is standard leftist thinking that Americans make us look bad overseas.
Next, Howard "I am an Asshole" Dean says that we will lose in Iraq.
Understand that? Dean doesn't say he thinks victory is tough, or difficult - he says we will lose.
And this runs the Downie Party!
Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.
"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democratic position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
So, here are some of the Downies' proposals for the war:
Surrender soon, but not too soon.
Hand over the country to France.
Hand over the country to Iran.
Hand over the country to Usama bin Laden.
That's it - the Downie recipe: Surrender, surrender, surrender. In short, they have brains made of toilet paper.
And this is why Downies continue to remain in the minority everywhere.