February 28, 2004

Report: Osama bin Laden captured along Afghanistan-Pakistan border

Osama bin Laden has been captured along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to a report Saturday on Tehran Radio.
In the report quoting "knowledgeable sources," the official Iranian media outlet does not specify when the al-Qaida leader was captured, and the report has yet to be confirmed elsewhere.

It said that Bin Laden was apprehended in a region populated by tribes along the border of the two countries, adding that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visit to Pakistan on Thursday was related to capturing the al-Qaida leader.

Woo-hoo!
Go get 'em, Rummy and the U.S. military!
In this case, do NOT bring him back alive.
Just bring back his head (not to be too crude, but we are fighting a vicious terror war and I'll be darned if I'll endure a long show trial with all the Libs whining for Osama's "rights!").

February 27, 2004

Six-Nation Nuclear Talks to End Saturday

Another round of six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program will end Saturday without achieving a significant breakthrough, but delegates tentatively agreed to try again by April 30, news reports and Chinese officials said Friday.

As the WSJ stated today in it's editorial page, there's nothing for it but complete Régime Change in North Korea.
How this is to be effected only time will tell.
President Bush did tell the nation on Sept. 20, 2001 that rogue nations who sponsored terrorism in general, and the Axis of Evil countries in particular, would be dealth with on a case-by-case basis.
Trying to talk or "negotiate" with the NorKs is clearly pointless: they change their minds and their positions only slightly more often than Dimocrat presidential candidate John F'n Kerry.
I don't know why we don't bring this matter to the attention of the UN Security Council--not that they'd do anything about North Korea's problematic regime, but so that it would set the accepted "multilateral" process in motion to deal with a rogue regime that is both proliferating and abusing the human rights of its citizens.
(Yep. The old Saddam song-and dance.)
Kim Jong-Il reads American papers, too, and he's betting the farm that either Bush will lose in November (God forbid.) or that the Dims will hassle President Bush so much about "preemption" that nothing will happen to the Juche régime, except for the imposition of some watered-down, ignorable UN sanctions.
My worry is that the Bobble-headed one may be right.
Time for the West to take the gloves off and lay down the law.
Paging President Bush/Sheriff Shane.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin on The Passion of the Christ on National Review Online
This is one of the most thoughtful reactions to the movie and its alleged anti-Semitism and from one who can comment on it with authority, being an Orthodox rabbi.
I read somewhere else that East Coast intellectual "elites" (Could this mean a cretin like Andy Rooney?) and their Left Coast compatriots in Hollywood (like Ed Asner) are so out of touch and disconnected with "Flyover Country" Americans like you and me, to whom things like belief in Jesus Christ and traditional marriage are important, that if they didn't talk about anti-Semitism and the supposed "overuse" of "violence" in the moving movie, they literally wouldn't have anything to say.
Rabbi Lapin predicted on opening day that the movie would make a lot of money and he was right:
the "Passion" brought in $26.6 million, a record on Ash Wednesday (mid-week in February no less!)
I'm not going to the theaters to see it, because as a life-long Christian, I've known for a long time that Jesus suffered terribly for our sins and I am so affected by visuals of violence that I'm not sure I could take watching it yet.
I plan to buy it on DVD and watch it at home in a few months, however.
My Better Half wants to go and I've encouraged him to do it.
From what I can tell, the film seems to follow the Bible almost completely and portrays the Truth of Christ Crucified (and Resurrected).
I am praying that many people will be brought to faith in Jesus that didn't know what He suffered and died for and that many others would have their Christian faith and walk renewed and restored.
To that end, you might want to visit Pray the Passion.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways; may God bless Mel Gibson for realizing that a 21st Century Hollywood movie could be a vehicle to spread the Good News vividly, directly and unforgettably!

February 24, 2004

Putin dismisses prime minister

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed his government in a live television broadcast.

The surprise move comes weeks before a presidential election which Mr Putin is expected to win by a landslide.
[...]
Analysts said Mr Putin's main target had almost certainly been Mr Kasyanov, but under the constitution he was unable to remove him without firing the entire cabinet.

Word from those who know is that Vlad should have waited until after he won the elections to have this hissy fit. (Like Richard Nixon did when he was re-elected in 1972.)
If Putin doesn't get at least 51% of the vote, he still may not win and now that Russia's election is shaping up to be pretty much like the one Iran just had, where the hard-liner gets a cursory nod from an oppressed electorate, many Russians are thinking about just staying home, just as the Iranians boycotted their sham poll.
Looks like democracy is taking some hard hits in Russia--if Putin brings back the red flag with the hammer and sicle and the Internationale as the national anthem, then we should really worry!

Secretary Paige Stands by NEA Claim

Education Secretary Rod Paige says he chose poor words in calling the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization,'' but he stands by his claim that the group uses "obstructionist scare tactics'' in its fight over the nation's education law.

Paige used the terrorist reference Monday in a private White House meeting with governors while answering a question about the National Education Association, which has 2.7 million members. His words startled members of his audience, triggered outrage from prominent Democrats and deepened the divide between the country's top education official and its largest union.

Paige told The Associated Press in an interview that he made the comment in jest.

"I was making what I now know was a bad joke; it was a poor choice of words,'' Paige said. "I was referencing the Washington-based organization in general, not teachers.''
[...]
The flap comes as the Bush administration faces increasing state opposition to the No Child Left Behind law, widely considered the most significant federal education act since Congress approved its original version in 1965. The law, approved in bipartisan fashion, requires a range of testing, teaching and school-choice changes to help children succeed.

Paige spoke at length Monday about his agency's efforts to help states and schools understand the complex law, but his feud with the NEA is no secret. The union - a reliable supporter of the Democratic Party - plans to sue the Bush administration over funding of the law and wants changes in how it is enforced.

But Paige's language drew a rush of criticism, giving Democrats election-year fodder.

"Secretary Paige and the Bush administration have resorted to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists,'' said Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
["Hate speech," Terry? The Dims can call Bush "Hitler" and John Ashcroft a "Nazi" at your MoveOn.org website, but Sec. Paige must be censured for using the right term about a group of crazies who've taken America's children hostage?--Jen]

A spokeswoman for presidential contender John Kerry called Paige's remarks "inappropriate, particularly at a time when our nation has experienced the devastation caused by terrorism.'' Kerry's chief competitor, John Edwards, called Paige's words "grossly offensive.''
[Don't look now, but I think this is the first time the Democrats have noticed that 9/11 even occurred!--J.T.]
[...]

Included in 100-word statement that his staff characterized as an apology was Paige's assertion that "the NEA's high-priced Washington lobbyists have made no secret that they will fight against bringing real, rock-solid improvements in the way we educate our children regardless of skin color, accent or where they live.''

In the AP interview, Paige said opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are "hard nosed, highly financed and well organized.''
[Yep. Sounds like the Liberal Left Dims, alright.]

Since 1976, when it shifted into an active role in national politics, the NEA has given every presidential endorsement to a Democrat. It is a big political donor, mostly to Democrats.

In the last presidential election cycle, the NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and national party committees, with about $9 of every $10 going to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. At that time, national party committees were allowed to raise union donations, part of the "soft money'' they are now barred from accepting.

I'm sure the NEA will think of some way to sneak that money over to the DNC...Hillary, Bill and Terry will have lots of great ideas about that!
I'm proud of Mr. Paige--he said the right thing and I wish he hadn't been so apologetic.
This is what the Left does, though, to black people who are Conservatives and Republicans and who speak the truth and don't have their hand out for federal monies or their "cut."
Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas get pegged as "Uncle Toms" and Dr. Condi Rice is branded a "house servant."
Obviously, the Libs were just waiting for Rod Paige to "step out of line," because in their minds, he's already way off the Dim plantation by being in the Bush Administration.
The NEA is like a cancer on our country's schools, glomming on to half of the budgets for their "administrators," their PC touchy-feely "programs" and their union benefits.
(How do you fire a union teacher, no matter how incompetent he or she may be, for instance?)
Now that Education Secretary Paige is expecting them to get some results (as measured by the proficiency tests in math and reading required by the NCLB Act) and earn all the money we're throwing at public schools, they're b*tching and whining.
This isn't over, but I get the strong feeling that Paige is going to win this fight.
But the real winners, I hope, will be the school children.

Bush attacks 'partisan anger'

President Bush yesterday lashed out at his Democratic opponents for the first time in the 2004 campaign, charging his challengers with espousing "old bitterness and partisan anger" to mask their record of raising taxes and endangering Americans with a weak national defense.
    
After abstaining from politics for months as Democrats attacked him throughout their primary season, the president took aim at presidential front-runner John Kerry, branding the Massachusetts senator an equivocator who changes course for political expediency.
[Too true!--Jen]
    
"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it.
    
"And that's just one senator from Massachusetts," Mr. Bush said, drawing raucous applause and whoops of appreciation from 1,500 supporters at the Republican Governors Association fund-raiser last night at the Washington Convention Center.
[Add mine: Woo-hoo!]
    
In his speech, Mr. Bush also assailed the whole Democratic [Party] as offering no vision for the nation, only rhetoric that seeks to divide Americans.
    
"So far, all we hear is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger.Anger is not an agenda for the future of America," the president said, drawing applause.

 The president said the November election will offer a choice between an agenda that empowers Americans, cuts taxes and protects national security and one that seeks to control Americans' choice and their money and bases U.S. sovereignty on the whims of other nations.
   
 "It's a choice between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward -- or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people," Mr. Bush told the gathering.
    
"It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence -- or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger."
    
He said in the election, "the American people will decide between two visions of government: a government that encourages ownership and opportunity and responsibility -- or a government that takes your money and makes your choices."
    
Mr. Bush said voters will see the starkest difference among the candidates for the presidency in the realm of national security.
    He defended his decision to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, who was deemed a threat by both Republicans and Democrats stretching back a dozen years.
    
"No friend or enemy today doubts the word of the United States," he said.
    
Addressing critics -- including Mr. Kerry, who voted in the Senate for military action in Iraq but now says he objects to Mr. Bush's acting without international consensus -- the president said, "Others would have chosen differently."
    
"Our opponents say they approve of bold action in the world, but only if no other government disagrees," he said. "They now agree that the world is better off with Saddam out of power. They just didn't support removing Saddam from power.
   
 "Maybe they were hoping he'd lose the next Iraqi election," he said, as the crowd erupted in laughter and applause.
[I love President Bush's dry sense of humor!]

In the last Iraqi election before the U.S. invasion, Saddam won 99.9 percent of the vote.
[As if they had a choice not to vote or whom to vote for!--Jen]
   
 The president also invoked the memory of his visit to the still-smoking wreckage at the World Trade Center in New York, where terrorist attacks had killed 3,000 people three days earlier.
    
"I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. I remember a lot that day. Workers in hard hats were shouting, 'Whatever it takes.' One fellow pointed at me and said, 'Don't let me down.'
    
"As we all did that day, these men and women searching through the rubble took it personally. I took it personally. ... I will never relent in bringing justice to our enemies," he said to applause.
    
Even before Mr. Bush's speech last night, operatives for Mr. Kerry, who is expected to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination on March 2, when 10 states hold primaries, fired a shot at the president.
    
"We now know that George Bush is on the run. Tonight, even before a Democratic nominee is chosen, George Bush is beginning his campaign for re-election," Mr. Kerry said in a statement. "At a fund-raiser with Republican governors, he will lay out what he calls his vision for America's future. Too bad we've had to wait four years for that vision. One thing we know for sure, we know he can't run on his record."
    
The senator said, "As Bush looks to the future, he can't escape his own past. Today, we are here to mark the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency."
[You wish, Ketchup Boy! Just keep telling yourself that when you look in the mirror, which I'm sure is often.]
    
The president has been under attack in recent weeks for everything from the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to his service three decades ago in the Texas Air National Guard.
    
Senior administration officials said Mr. Bush's decision not to engage the Democrats until yesterday was not because of flagging poll numbers.
    
Instead, they said the time for politics, which the president has eschewed as he repeatedly said he was focused on "the people's business," simply had arrived.
[Um, we're are at war.]
    
Mr. Bush last night brandished a bravado that has been lacking in recent weeks, worrying Republicans, who fear his federal spending increases, guest-worker proposal and hesitancy on homosexual "marriage" signaled a president abandoning his conservative base.
[This is just plain not going to happen. Wait and see.--J.T.]
    
On domestic policy, the president said Democrats "seem to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority, and more choices, and more control over our own lives."
    
"We'll hear them make a lot of promises over the next eight months -- and listen closely because there's a theme: Every promise will increase the power of politicians and bureaucrats over your income, your retirement, your health care, and your life. It's that same old Washington mind-set -- they'll give the orders, and you'll pay the bills," he said.
[I loved this and Ronald Reagan would have, too!
When it comes to the Dims, you know you can take this to the bank...or not take it to the bank, as it were.--J.T.]
   
 Invoking the legacy of President Reagan, Mr. Bush said Republicans have passed the largest tax cuts since the 1980s and warned that Democrats threaten to roll back his tax cuts.
   
 "Our opponents have their own plan for these tax cuts. They plan to take them away," he said. "We'll have fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C., [and] to keep this economy growing, the tax cuts must be permanent."
    
Earlier yesterday, Mr. Bush said he was prepared for the coming political battle.
    
"I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue," he told governors of both parties gathered for a White House event.
    
But he pledged to continue to stay focused on running the country.
    
"This is going to be a year in which a lot of people are probably going to think, 'Nothing can be done, right,' because we're all out campaigning. Well, that's not my attitude," the president said. "You've got to do what you've got to do in your home states, in terms of politics. But surely we can shuffle that aside sometimes and focus on our people, do what you were elected to do and what I was elected to do to make this country hopeful."

Viva Bush!
Now let's get this outstanding president re-elected, what do you say?!
    

Here's the place to go for the whole speech, but the last 2 paragraphs say it all for me:

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

I think it is a very sad day that things have come to this state of affairs, that our President would have to come forward and take this step, but he knows what needs to be done and is doing it.
Unfortunately, the gay "marriage" activists won't quit trying to implement the civil sanction of "same sex" and other kinds of relationships until this amendment is ratified (and perhaps not even then).
Like the Communists they admire, the Liberal Left is out to destroy this republic and every institution that makes it work and marriage and the family are a huge part of that.
American families, all of which begin with a husband and wife, are the building blocks of this, or any, nation.
I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were weeping in Heaven today, because they never saw an America where marriage would have to be Constitutionally protected or wanted to see such an abomination (President Bush didn't look too happy even speaking of it.).
Liberty doesn't mean license.
But fasten your seat belts, fellow citizens; this may be a very rough ride to preserve our Republic!

Pakistan army gets new missile system

President Pervez Musharraf handed an indigenously produced nuclear-capable ballistic missile system to Pakistan's army Saturday, asserting the country would continue to strengthen its deterrent capability.

Musharraf used the handing-over ceremony to reiterate the country had never and would never proliferate its "hard-earned" nuclear technology.

"Had never and would never proliferate?" That's pretty rich coming from Perv!
AS IF he didn't know anything about the evil machinations of Pakistan's Dr. A.Q. Khan selling nuke secrets and equipment to Iran, Libya and Malaysia!
And what does he mean by "hard-earned?" I don't see him breaking into a sweat over anything but getting caught making nukes by the West. I guess he must mean hard-earned by the people of Pakistan, who have less to eat and must live a lot harder life in order to pay for all of these bombs.

The solid-fuel Hatf-111 (Ghaznavi) missile system that was handed to the Army Strategic Force Command will form an integral part of Pakistan's operational deterrent system, which also includes Shaheen and Ghauri intermediate missiles, Musharraf said.

The Ghaznavi has a range of 290 kilometers (181 miles) and was successfully test fired in 2002 and 2003.
[IOW, This one's for you, India!--Jen]

Musharraf said that during the past four years his government had demonstrated its resolve to strengthen the country's defense.

What cr*p!
Pervez is sounding just like Saddam used to, when he had new bombs.
Pakistan is supposed to be having serious talks with India to settle the Kashmir problem, so where's the big need for national defense and these missiles?
President Bush needs to put the smackdown on Musharraf and Vajapayee and let them know that the USA should have censured Pakistan and India when they went nukeyaler in 1998, but because Bill Clinton lacked a spine, we didn't.
But there's been a new sheriff in town for awhile and neither country should be given a pass for their nukes anymore!

C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11
You can read this "story" for yourself, but I'm not excerpting it for the usual LyingLiberalLeft reason that it's poorly done and propagandistic. (Duh.)
The article is 2 pages long, revolves around our intell in 1999 and yet manages not to mention that it was the Clinton Administration at the helm once.
Further, the Slimes's writer presupposes that the German government would have given us full cooperation to track Al-Shehhi and his jihadi Muslim friends like Mohammed Atta.
In the pre-9/11 world, I think that's a huge if.
Worse still, it makes no mention of the laws that President Bush has passed since 9/11 like the fine Patriot Act which now gives our law enforcement the tools they need to detain and prosecute those who would make war on Americans, yet the Slimes reserves the right to bash on about the Patriot Act and how it "impares civil liberties" here constantly.
(Had we known about the proclivities and dark goals of the 9/11 hijackers much before that black day and picked them up in this country, how many Libs would have been out squeeling and whining in the streets about "racial profiling," "persecution," etc.? Plenty.)
Nor does the Slimes talk about how the CIA (and the FBI, too, among other federal security agencies) was hampered by rules and regulations which sprung out of the Frank Church Committee hearings and also from legislation by Robert Torricelli in the Senate (which John Kerry supported) imposed on the CIA (from the President down to CIA operatives in the field) which tied the CIA's hands when dealing with evildoers abroad.
All in all, this is more coulda, shoulda, woulda from the Left who I think are out to bring down the CIA.
As I've said before, our CIA isn't perfect, but it hasn't been so bad and certainly not so bad that it should be "revamped" or done away with altogether.
We're still at war and need the CIA and its vital intell now more than ever!
What the NYTimes would like to see is a completely crippled CIA because now our intelligence is telling us that there is plenty of trouble brewing for us all over the globe, starting with Iran:
Another Nuclear Program Found in Iran
and if there's anything the Liberal Left hates it's an America that acts, especially preemptively, to take out threats before they strike.
They hate a President that acts, too.
And they're not real fond of Americans who love that sort of America and that sort of President.
For shame, NYTimes.
Yet this is a the same paper that published the obituaries of the 3,000 American citizens who were killed on 9/11.
I am speechless with anger at their condescension and their smugness!

February 23, 2004

'Osama to be handed to US if caught in Pak' - Sify.com

Pakistan Monday indicated that it will hand over Osama bin Laden to the United States if he is caught on its soil. The comment from Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmud Kasuri followed a British newspaper report that bin Laden, the head of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, was cornered in a remote part of northern Pakistan.
[...]
Britain's Sunday Express newspaper quoted a US intelligence source as saying bin Laden was "boxed in" in an area 16 kilometres square "north of the town of Khanozai and the city of Quetta".
Here's a big shout out to Task Force 121!
This is the special group of our finest Army Delta Forces and Navy SEALS that are on the hunt for Bad Boy Osama.
They know what to do, because they're the guys who nailed Saddam in the spidey hole!
Good hunting, guys and do us one big favor, please: Kill him. Really.
No long, gruelling (for us) show trials for Mr. Fatwa.
Bring us back a souvenir or two (if you know what I mean and I think that you do!), but no live boy.
We're praying for you to bring this evildoer and killer to American Justice and to do it without hurting yourselves.
God be with you and happy hunting.

February 22, 2004

Iranian Conservatives Surge Toward Election Win

The Lying Leftist Liberal media, here typified by a link to Al-Rooters, has consistently referred to the mullahs in Iran as "Conservatives" with a capital "c" in reporting on Friday's election, using the terms "Conservative" and "hard-liner" interchangeably.
I suppose they mean that what they're conserving is the Islamic Revolution.
(Just so we're clear, American Conservatives seek to preserve the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.)
Of course, the election turned out the way everyone feared that it would and "reform," such as it was, in Iran is dead.
What happens now is anyone's guess, but we can only hope that the spirit of Liberty is abroad in the land and on the plus side, Iran is now book-ended by 2 budding democracies, Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to us and our Coalition.

Several Dead in Jerusalem Bus Blast
AT LEAST SEVEN KILLED IN JERUSALEM BUS BLAST

Seven people killed, 60 injured in blast on Jerusalem bus
Those rat bastard Paleostinians.
They're doing it again for the usual reasons, but also because the International Court of Justice is hearing their (the Islamists') complaint case against the Israeli security fence this week and they're trying to get more leverage for "peace talks," (Or as the "Palestinians" call it "something for nothing." Or even more accurately, "Land for murder.")
The fires of hell, and not 72 virgins, wait on the other side for these evildoers and killers.
And on this side, there will be no free, independent state for them because the Islamists cannot and will not give up terror.