Durka Durka Update

Just in case you missed the excellent Hot Air video update on the whole “Hadji Girl” brouhaha that the terrorist front organization CAIR and their witless and willing accomplices in the MSM are using to hurt our troops, here’s the link. No excuse now, so hop to it.

I, like Michelle, have [fifteen-sentence string of expletives deleted -- Emp.M] HAD it with those weasels sliming, attacking and undermining our soldiers, airmen and sailors in every which way they can think of. None of those maggots are worthy of licking the dirt-encrusted boots of the lowliest recruits of Camp Whatchamacallit and, more importantly, none of them would have the freedom to be the base, filthy, backstabbing assholes that they enjoy so much if it weren’t for our men and women of the Armed Forces.

What I hate even more is that it looks like some of the desk-jockeying shitbirds among the brass are beginning to cave to this nonsense, trying to figure out a way of punishing CPL Belile for hurting the feelings of CAIR.

Time to let them know that we won’t sit still for that. Let them know how much we love and support our troops and that we’re not going to let CAIR re-write the UCMJ.

Commandant of the Marine Corps
Phone: (703) 614-1034
Fax: (703) 614-2358
comrel@hqmc.usmc.mil

Semper Fi!

P.S.: How about telling CAIR to clean up their own hadji-supporting, hate-spewing, anti-American shithouse FIRST?

Send post as PDF to

The Media’s Zarqawi Dance

Zarqawi was pure evil. No one who has watched the horrifying video of Nick Berg’s savage beheading would dispute his utter depravity, and no one who has seen his broadcasts can deny the depth of the hatred he has for the West. Even al-Qaeda told Zarqawi to lay off with the beheading of so many Iraqis. The silencing of Zarqawi is a milestone, a sign for the doubters that we are winning this war even though there are some who would sabotage our victory.

The media, especially, has always been on the side of sedition. With conduct that is, at best, horribly biased and at worst, giving aid to the enemy, their pieces are staring us in the face every day, looking to define a war to millions of people half a world away. They have such a solemn responsiblity to report the truth, and yet they choose to report their opinions thinly disguised as “fair reporting.”

Case in point: This story in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, called “Slaying The Myth,” claims that Zarqawu’s image was not only false, but manufactured by the U.S.

“The myth of al-Zarqawi,” whines the editor, “as the leader of the anti-American insurgency in Iraq, a foreigner who symbolized al-Qaida’s engagement in the country, was exactly that: a myth. And it was a myth created, in large part, by the American government he had sworn to fight.”

Not content with just that, the author goes on to close with this gem:

Will al-Zarqawi’s death (the US air strike also killed a woman and child, among others) lead to the collapse of the insurgency in Iraq? The short answer is “No.” But, perhaps, now that he’s dead, the White House will finally be forced to face reality in Iraq, not myth.

Note the mention of the woman and child killed in the raid (now reported to not have been in the raid after all). That’s how you get people’s attention now, you know. Make sure to talk about women and children being killed. Never mind that the idea of women and children being active and willing combatants hasn’t been new to U.S. troops for, oh, about 37 years, give or take. One is left to wonder how the media missed the memo on that.

Atlantic Monthly has a classic “Damn the U.S.” piece about Zarqawi’s life this month as well.

Everyone I spoke with readily acknowledged that as a teenager al-Zarqawi had been a bully and a thug, a bootlegger and a heavy drinker, and even, allegedly, a pimp in Zarqa’s underworld. He was disruptive, constantly involved in brawls. When he was fifteen (according to his police record, about which I had been briefed in Amman), he participated in a robbery of a relative’s home, during which the relative was killed. Two years later, a year shy of graduation, he had dropped out of school. Then, in 1989, at the age of twenty-three, he traveled to Afghanistan.

As you can see, Zarqawi has basically been a piece of trash since his voice changed.

In the summer of 2003, three months after the American invasion, al-Zarqawi moved to the Sunni areas of Iraq. He became infamous almost at once. On August 7, he allegedly carried out a car-bomb attack at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad. Twelve days later, he was linked to the bombing of the United Nations headquarters, in which twenty-two people died. And on August 29, in what was then the deadliest attack of the war, he engineered the killing of over a hundred people, including a revered cleric, the Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, in a car bombing outside Shia Islam’s holy shrine in Najaf. The suicide bomber in that attack was Yassin Jarad, from Zarqa. He was al-Zarqawi’s father-in-law.

Okay, we get it. The guy was unredeemable. That’s why he’s dead. So why did author Ms. Weaver feel the need to base her entire article on the premise that the U.S. flat-out lied about Zarqawi’s influence and stature?

“Even then—and even more so now—Zarqawi was not the main force in the insurgency,” the former Jordanian intelligence official, who has studied al-Zarqawi for a decade, told me. “To establish himself, he carried out the Muhammad Hakim operation, and the attack against the UN. Both of them gained a lot of support for him—with the tribes, with Saddam’s army and other remnants of his regime. They made Zarqawi the symbol of the resistance in Iraq, but not the leader. And he never has been.”

He continued, “The Americans have been patently stupid in all of this. They’ve blown Zarqawi so out of proportion that, of course, his prestige has grown. And as a result, sleeper cells from all over Europe are coming to join him now.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Your government is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Western and Israeli diplomats to whom I spoke shared this view—and this past April, The Washington Post reported on Pentagon documents that detailed a U.S. military propaganda campaign to inflate al-Zarqawi’s importance. Then, the following month, the military appeared to attempt to reverse field and portray al-Zarqawi as an incompetent who could not even handle a gun. But by then his image in the Muslim world was set.

Just once, I’d like to see a fixture of the MSM report the news with a pro-America bent. (If you’re going to be biased when reporting, the least you can do is bias in favor of the truth, right?)

UPDATE: The WaPo has a nice little blurb hidden in the folds of this article about Zarqawi’s autopsy:

An Iraqi man raised questions about al-Zarqawi’s death, telling AP Television News that he saw U.S. soldiers after the airstrike beating an injured man resembling the dead terrorist until blood flowed from his nose.

[General] Casey said the claim was “baloney.”

“He died while American soldiers were attempting to save his life,” Casey told “Fox News Sunday.” “So the idea that there were people beating him is ludicrous.”

It just never ends, does it?

Send post as PDF to

A Perfect Storm Of Media Bias

So I was moseyin’ around the blogosphere this morning, looking for some better news than what I’ve been posting lately. Patterico has a hilarious analysis of media bias this morning titled L.A. Times: Extra! Extra! Fox News’s Ratings Plunge 17%!!!! (In a Much Less Important Story, CNN’s Ratings Slip by a Modest 38%). It’s a good read, so go ahead. What I found even funnier was the following anecdote in the comments:

…this is one of those “perfect storms” of bias that are so clear, even James Carville would be forced to recognize them.

Here’s one I saw a number of years ago. It begins in the 1980s: Ronald Reagan is president, and we’re ramping up the rhetoric against Iran, which is involved in the Iran-Iraq war.

During the middle of the night (D.C. time), two Iranian MiGs paint a couple of American Navy Tomcats — who promptly splash the MiGs. They duly report up the chain that they engaged and shot down two Iranian fighter jets.

It’s relayed to the Pentaton, from there to the National Security Advisor, who talks to the White House Chief of Staff… and the pair decide not to wake the president, since the incident is over. Instead, they tell him as soon as he comes downstairs in the morning.

When the news heard about this, they went ape: this proves, they shrieked, that Reagan is just a doddering old man, asleep on watch and mentally negligible to begin with, who’s already senile and has delegated away all the presidential authority to low-level flunkies (such as F-14 pilots and RIOs). They had a field day with the “hands-off” president snoozing his way through his second term.

Flash forward about six years. Bill Clinton is president. This time, a pair of Iraqi jets light up a couple of USAF F-16 Fighting Falcons… and swiftly become a duet of smoking holes in the ground. This, too, happens at zero-dark-thirty Washington time.

Again, the various folks in la Casablanca decide (rightly) not to bother waking the president; the incident is over, and there’s nothing he can do about it now in any event. They tell Clinton in the morning.

The news heard about it… and (I know, you’re way ahead of me) they inform the American people in story after story how this proves that Clinton is such a great and well-respected Commander in Chief that he’s not afraid to leave such decisions to the boots on the ground… or in this case, the butts in the cockpit.

A great leader delegates, intones Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw in near unison.

Bias, schmias… they just call ‘em as they see ‘em!

Send post as PDF to

All the News That’s Fit to Screw Up

The MSM, once again, has reported falsities as fact, and oddly enough, it has to do with trapped miners.

Reminiscent of the last time the media reported “facts” regarding trapped miners in West Virginia, ABC screwed up when reporting on the latest story, which involves two trapped miners in a cage about 950 meters underground.

…radio reports this morning that the two miners - Brant Webb and Todd Russell - had used a hacksaw to break free from the cage are not true, according to Australian Workers’ Union national secretary Bill Shorten.

The ABC reported that the two men had been able to leave the cage and walk around the mine shaft.

But Mr Shorten told theage.com.au that cutting the cage would weaken it and and put the men at risk should further rock falls occur - a fact he said was well known to the miners and their families.

The MSM screwing up a fact? You don’t say.

P.S. Did you buy stuff today? Support the red,white, and blue! Buy American, from Americans!

Send post as PDF to

Hersh Blows Soldiers’ Cover In Iran

Seymour Hersh, the editor of New Yorker magazine, has unequivocally announced that American soldiers are underground in Iran at this moment. He makes sure to point out that they are not Special Forces, just regular infantry soldiers. He claims he’s not going to tell anyone where they are, because he “doesn’t want anyone to get hurt.” ????!

Is he freakin’ out of his mind??? IF it were true, who on earth would think it’s a good idea to publicly announce a deep cover operation in Iran?! Because they surely wouldn’t be undercover much longer! And why hasn’t he been arrested already?! Probably because it’s not true. It’s my bet that Hersh is nothing more than a tool - and he’s being used to rattle the cages of the powers that be in Iran.

Malkin has the video; download and watch it. (wmv file)

Send post as PDF to

Women Don’t Need Personal Responsibility - They Have Molly Ivins.

Moonbat Molly had a lot to say today regarding South Dakota’s new abortion ban. It’s so fiskworthy I couldn’t help myself. I’ll refrain from doing the whole thing, but here’s the main portion:

The South Dakota Legislature has made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion under any circumstances except to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape, incest or to preserve the health of the mother. Should this strike you as hard cheese, State Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, explains how rape and incest could be exceptions under the “life” clause. Napoli believes most abortions are performed for “convenience,” but he told “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” about how he thinks a “real-life example” of the exception could be invoked:

“A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.”

That statement sets Molly off in a tizzy, since we all know that the chances of this situation happening aren’t that great. However, Molly goes on to defend the rest of the women having abortions - you know, the 99% who aren’t doing it for rape or incest.

Please stop and reread the paragraph above. See? Clearly Napoli’s exception would not apply to the South Dakota woman also interviewed by the NewsHour. “Michelle” is in her 20s, has a low-paying job and two children. And says she simply cannot afford a third. She drove five hours to the state’s only abortion clinic.

“It was difficult when I found out I was pregnant. I was saddened because I knew that I’d probably have to make this decision. Like I said, I have two children, so I look into their eyes and I love them. It’s been difficult, you know, it’s not easy. And I don’t think it’s, you know, ever easy on a woman, but we need that choice.”

As a song once said, “Where do I begin?”

First of all, forgive me if I have no sympathy for “Michelle.” She has two children already, which means (hopefully) that she’s aware of the fact that babies do not, in fact, get dropped off by the stork. Michelle has a low-paying job, which means (again, hopefully) that she was aware that she could not support another child before she got pregnant. Evidently, neither of these two facts stopped Michelle from willfully engaging in the one behavior that creates children. So Michelle gets pregnant, and rather than take responsibility for her choices and make loving, unselfish decisions for her child (such as giving her baby to a family who is capable and willing to love and care for it), she chooses instead to kill her baby. Of course, Michelle wants us to know she’s not a bad mom just because she killed her child. “It’s been difficult, you know, it’s not easy.” I’m guessing that Michelle is having an easier time than her baby did, but back to Molly.

But who is she to make that choice when Bill Napoli can make it for her? He explains: “When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again. … I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.”

You know, I applaud this statement from Napoli. He’s saying “Have some morals.” What’s wrong with that? He sees a state where life is valued and people stop having sex while expecting to not have any consequences. Good for him. People need to learn that choices have consequences. Of course, this sends Molly off into such a complete fit that she doesn’t even notice her mouth running away until the money quote’s out.

I find this so profound I am considering putting Sen. Napoli in charge of all moral, ethical and medical decisions made by women. Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he’s there, and perhaps that’s what we all need — a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious just for our own convenience.

And there it is. Even Molly knows that abortion is done “just for our own convenience.” I mean, what’s a human life? A woman’s career could be at stake. Her husband might find out that the baby’s not his. She might have to sacrifice. We can’t have that! A baby is a serious threat to a woman’s “empowerment,” if you listen to the feminists. Babies are simply a mass of cells to get rid of like a used tampon. I’d like to see a liberal columnist just once actually refer to abortion in terms that actually describe the procedure. Let’s look at Molly’s last comment again:

Certainly lucky for the women of South Dakota that he’s there, and perhaps that’s what we all need — a man to make decisions for us in case we should decide to do something serious like pay a doctor to stab a scissors into our child’s head and suck its brains out.

It looks a little different that way, doesn’t it? And just think - I didn’t even have to sensationalize. That is exactly what goes on, all over the country, every day. That is part of what women like Molly think they should have the right to decide about.

Let’s face it, people. Babies are many things - but they are never, ever, convenient. Their utter dependence on us for everything from a diaper change to basic feeding ensures that they are anything but. So it stands to reason (at least if you’re a human with a functioning brain) that if you don’t want to be “inconvenienced,” you should either take precautions, or abstain from having sex. End of story.

For years, the women’s movement has been going around asking, “Who decides?” as though that were the issue.

Well, when women make irresponsible and horrifying choices that put their own ‘convenience’ and lack of self-control over another human being’s life, then no, they shouldn’t get to decide. Women can “empower” themselves by being brave, confident, and responsible - and by stepping up to accept the consequences of their actions. Anything less than that is a slap in the face to real “women’s rights.” That is the issue.

Send post as PDF to

The Oscars - Glorifying Pimps?

I don’t watch the Oscars.

That’s over three hours you can never get back, people. But on talk radio this morning, I heard that the Oscar winner for Best Original Song was a song bemoaning how hard it is for pimps out there, from the movie “Hustle and Flow”. WTF??? Pimps have it hard? They exploit, abuse, and sell women and this is “cool”?! Black men sell black women - ’scuse me: “HO’s” - and this is the stereotype that want to glorify and reinforce?? That it’s tough to make “change” on their “ho’s?! Ohhh, so sad.

What black man in his right mind would want that image ascribed to him? Why would any black person want this image - pimps and ho’s - to represent THEM? Why does Hollywood have to glamourize the sewage on the streets and to some extent mainstream it as a legitimate lifestyle?!

One of my best friends is a black man, as is my brother. Both of them are incensed and embaressed and discouraged by the proliferation of this type of stereotyping of black men. I’m furious for them! How many times has my own brother been pulled over by the police when driving in a car with a white girl - “just to check”?! How many times has my friend watched women give him a wide berth on the street, though he’s dressed like any self-respecting businessman? The whole gansta rap/gansta lifestyle is glorified by Hollywood and MTV - but this is NOT a healthy example to young black men. It’s just not. Period.

What’s the point of screeching about “racism” when prominent, wealthy, famous black people are portraying themselves as ganstas, pimps, criminals, drug dealers, and “niggahs”. (G-d, it was hard to even type that word!) Why reinforce the very worst stereoypes about your race and then whine about “racism” when people believe that exact sterotype?! It’s stupid and backward!

/rant

Ok, back to the Oscars…I heard that when the winners were announced, and as the ganstas took the stage to bleep their way through a speech thanking God and Jesus for their success (yes, *gag*), the camera panned to the faces of black performers in the audience. Because I suppose that all black people everywhere are supposed to take pride in the dizzying heights of success that Three 6 Mafia has attained. Apparently, Jamie Foxx clapped and pumped his fist, indicating his pride in such an accomplishment. I also heard that Terrence Howard didn’t look especially pleased - I suppose he wished that he wasn’t supposed to be representative of such a rap song. I know my brother wishes HE wasn’t represented in public by the likes of Three 6 Mafia.

The song that won the Oscar is, in itself, disgusting. The lyrics are below. So my question for black people is: does this make you proud?

It’s Hard Out Here For A Pimp
by Three 6 Mafia

You know it’s hard out here for a pimp (you ain’t knowin)
When he tryin to get this money for the rent (you ain’t knowin)
For the Cadillacs and gas money spent (you ain’t knowin)
[1] Because a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain’t knowin)
[2] Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain’t knowin)

[Djay]
In my eyes I done seen some crazy thangs in the streets
Gotta couple hoes workin on the changes for me
But I gotta keep my game tight like Kobe on game night
Like takin from a ho don’t know no better, I know that ain’t right
Done seen people killed, done seen people deal
Done seen people live in poverty with no meals
It’s fucked up where I live, but that’s just how it is
It might be new to you, but it’s been like this for years
It’s blood sweat and tears when it come down to this shit
I’m tryin to get rich ‘fore I leave up out this bitch
I’m tryin to have thangs but it’s hard fo’ a pimp
But I’m prayin and I’m hopin to God I don’t slip, yeah

[Chorus]

[Djay]
Man it seems like I’m duckin dodgin bullets everyday
Niggaz hatin on me cause I got, hoes on the tray
But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water
Couldn’t keep up with my hoes, that’s when shit got harder
North Memphis where I’m from, I’m 7th Street bound
Where niggaz all the time end up lost and never found
Man these girls think we prove thangs, leave a big head
They come hopin every night, they don’t end up bein dead
Wait I got a snow bunny, and a black girl too
You pay the right price and they’ll both do you
That’s the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly pimpin
Gotta have my hustle tight, makin change off these women, yeah

I don’t want to hear from people who say that gansta rap only expresses the reality of life in the black ‘hood. Whatever. It expresses the dregs of society. It does nothing to lift the spirit, or show a better way, or give black people a better example. It’s filthy and depressing - and drags black people down into the gutters.

This is nothing new. Kit wrote about Chris Rock’s street performace at the Oscars last year. LaShawn Barber called it a “triumph of ignorance and vulgarity”. That, to me, is the glamourization of black ganstas in a nutshell.

Send post as PDF to

TIME’s Exclusive: Proof Of Easy-Going Gitmo

TIME is touting their exclusive as if it’s the final nail in the coffin of the whole American torture debate. What a laugh! I read the entire .pdf document - laughed out loud in places - but could find not one scrap of any mention of “torture”. Personally, I think TIME has done a favor for our government by flat-out proving how easy the most depraved detainees have it at Gitmo. But despite the hearty laughs, I don’t believe that they should’ve published it in the first place. This kind of business doesn’t need to be publicized to our enemies. Period.

Exclusive: “20th Hijacker” Claims That Torture Made Him Lie

Mohammad al-Qahtani, held in Guantanamo and touted by the U.S. as a major informant, is taking it all back, his lawyer says. PLUS: for the first time, TIME.com publishes a secret, 84-page record of his interrogation.

Of the roughly 500 detainees held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, none is more notorious than Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called “20th hijacker.” Only weeks before 9/11, he tried to enter the U.S. illegally in Orlando, Fla., while the plot’s leader, Mohammad Atta, waited to pick him up in the airport parking lot. As the Pentagon has said, “Had al-Qahtani succeeded in entering the U.S., it is believed he would have been on United Airlines Flight 93, the only hijacked aircraft that had four hijackers instead of five [and the one that ended up crashing in a Pennsylvania field instead of striking the White House, its widely believed intended target].”

TIME Exclusive: A secret document gives an inside look at how detainees at Guantanamo are treated. Read the entire interrogation log (.pdf)

Last June, TIME published excerpts from a highly classified, 84-page log minutely detailing al-Qahtani’s interrogation at Guantanamo. Now, as an increasing number of detainees mount legal challenges to their incarceration, TIME is making the record of al-Qahtani’s treatment available to the public in its entirety (except for some names which have been redacted) for the first time. Back in June 2005, the Pentagon insisted that al-Qahtani had provided vital intelligence, focusing on key al-Qaeda leaders and some 30 fellow prisoners at Guantanamo whom he identified as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards.

Now, in an eyewitness account of al-Qahtani at Guantanamo, his recently appointed American lawyer tells TIME that al-Qahtani has repudiated all of his previous statements — claiming they were extracted under brutal torture. And that repudiation is sure to fuel the growing number of challenges in American courts from the detainees at Guantanamo whom al-Qahtani fingered.
[...]
For the Pentagon’s part, a spokesperson told TIME that “it is longstanding Department of Defense policy to treat all detainees humanely.” The painfully detailed interrogation log of al-Qahtani seems to make clear that at the very least that policy has not always been followed.

HUH? “Painfully detailed interrogation log”?! It’s tiresome, it’s mundane, at times boring - but there’s nothing “painful” about it. I understand that the author is trying to build a case and the reasons behind such negative connotations don’t escape me. But then the author claims that a policy of humane treatment has “not always been followed” - and he cites this log as proof?! How on earth does the author come to that pansy-ass conclusion?! The log proves exactly the opposite! There WAS no brutal torture! There’s no way anyone could claim, after reading the interrogation log, that the detainee wasn’t treated humanely. Of course the policy was followed.

Here are some highlights from the interrogation:

Detainee insists he’s on a hunger strike. He refuses to eat. He refuses to drink water. Nope, he’s not gonna eat. But he’ll have a bottle of water - and then after that he’s on a hunger strike. He absolutely will not eat - because he’s on a hunger strike. Alright, he’ll eat one meal, but then after that he’s going on a hunger strike.

You know how long that guy was on a hunger strike? All of five hours. I hate when evil Americans force their detainees to eat a nice meal. They also torture him by lecturing him on the fact that he is a “man” - and men are supposed to take responsibility for their actions. Damn - that is some seriously harsh PsyOps - how dare they?!!

Then, get this - the detainee seems a little bummed, and they ask him “what’s on your mind” and he grumps about how unfair his situation is. Wahhhh. I wonder if he feels better after they let him pray.

Uh-oh, apparently not because he said the interrogator was causing him “pain” because he misses his family and other things he couldn’t have. He weeps. Doh.

After the detainee takes a potty break, he comes back pissy again and insists that he’s on a hunger strike. :D They set his meal next to him anyway.

The detainee has bad manners and the interrogator has to tell him that interrupting is “rude”. :D

He refuses water again, and is informed that they can keep him healthy and hydrated by IV. His vital signs are all OK.

The detainee whines a LOT about the illegal treatment he’s receiving. LOL Whatever.

Lots of talk about God - kind of like a mini-mosque. They end up having to IV fluids into his body because he’s refusing to drink water.

During a 9/11 video, the detainee head-butted one of the interrogators and then tried to spit on him. Contrary to the ass-whuppin’ I would’ve unleashed on that piece ‘o shit, the interrogator calmly said, “Go ahead and spit on me. It won’t change anything. You’re still here. I’m still talking to you, and you won’t leave until you’ve given God’s message.” Awwwww….so mean.

The detainee gets a little chilly so the AC is turned off. He goes potty and then begins to cry. He’s tucked into bed.

This goes on for days. Lots of exercise, naps, meals, potty breaks and water. Lot of preaching about honesty, truthfulness, responsibility, acocuntability, heaven, God, etc. In other words - church.

However, I did find some evidence of *ahem* uncomfortableness. These are examples of the very worst “torture” I could find in the whole thing (all 83 pages):

1. When he refused water (which he constantly did), they sometimes dribbled it on his head.
2. An attractive female kept “invading his personal space” - any red-blooded American man’s wet dream.
3. They hung pictures of swimsuit models around his neck.
4. He was made to watch a puppet show satirizing al Qaeda.
5. They showed him pictures of victims of 9/11 - a result of al Qaeda’s handiwork.
6. They made him write letters of condolences to families who lost loved ones on 9/11.
7. Of course, something the Dhimmocrats will find unecessarily cruel - he was made to stand and face the American flag while the national anthem was played!! AGGGGGGHHHHH! Call the ACLU!!!!!!!!

Bottom line: the “detainee” is a big wussy - he whines and complains all the time. But he’s never injured or hurt. I’ve seen worse treatment of American soldiers by their drill sergeants. The detainee gets angry and petulant a lot - and has little spastic hissy fits when he’s grumpy - like a toddler pitching a fit. He bitches that the guards aren’t “nice” when they take him to go potty. He does a LOT of sniveling and crying - boo hoo.

Interesting note - this guy had a lot of terrorist contacts in the UAE. Wonderful, right?

I have no idea why TIME magazine is presenting this “exclusive” as any kind of evidence of wrong-doing at Gitmo. To the contrary, I think Americans will read it and laugh out loud at how easy the Gitmo detainees have it. I know I did. But so, unfortunately, will our enemies. And they’ll prepare defenses against the interrogation techniques outlined in this document. What a farce!

That’s why I think it was wrong for TIME to publish this. Once again, they’ve undermine our defenses by advertising to our enemies exactly how we do things. Not only does it embolden the terrorists (why should they ever be afraid of being taken into the carefully nurturing custody of Americans?!), but it helps prepare them in their strategies against us.

Thumbs down (again) for TIME.

Send post as PDF to

Offend a Christian Instead…It’s Safer

Just in case you didn’t know, the Mohammed Cartoon Riots are still going on, and people are still dying.

Yes, I know: big yawn, right? Well, I just thought I’d tell you since the media won’t.

Doesn’t it make you wonder why the media won’t continue to cover the rioting? Is it because they’ve got the attention span of a gnat, they’re bored, and easily distracted? Well, sure. Plus, there are much more important issues of national crises such as the fact that our Vice President tried to murder someone, right? *eyeroll*

But the real reason the MSM/DP has moved on from covering the Mohammed Cartoon Riots is because they’ve exhausted every avenue of talking about the subject without actually covering it! There’s only so many ways one can describe the mild and bland cartoons without boring oneself to sleep.

For instance, the NY Times faced a terrible conundrum: how to best illustrate the Mohammed Cartoon Riots without actually showing people what the fuss was all about (ie: the terribly nasty cartoons) - because freedom of the press doesn’t actually extend to offending people, right? I mean, how do you show people what’s offensive to Muslims without actually offending Muslims?! Quite a quandry…

The Times decided the very best way to illustrate the point of the Muslim rioting was instead to publish a picture of the Holy Virgin Mary surrounded by porno cut-outs of female genitalia and buttocks and painted in elephant poop. That way everyone could see what the Muslims were so pissed about…

by Chris Olifini

Huh?!

The convoluted and infantile reasoning behind this editorial decision should get somebody fired - NOT because they offended Christians, mind you, but just for being such a monumentally illogical moron. Who wants to have ijdits working for them anyway?

Ann Coulter:

Needless to say, the Treason Times won’t show the cartoons that have incited mass rioting around the globe. At least The New York Times has a good excuse: It’s too busy printing national security secrets that will get Americans killed. Its pages are already brimming with classified information about our techniques for spying on terrorists here in America — no room for newsworthy cartoons! The Pentagon Papers and a top-secret surveillance program are one thing; cartoons that irritate Muslims are quite another.

Two days after the Times editorial page justified its decision not to reprint the cartoons as “a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words,” the Times ran a photo of the Virgin Mary covered in cutouts from pornographic magazines and cow dung — which I seem to have just described using a handful of common words! Gee, that was easy!

Shrinkwrapped:

The worst aspect of the Times non-coverage remains their refusal, on grounds of “cultural sensitivity” that has traditionally been missing when it involved attacks on Christianity, to actually show the cartoons. Most commentators have suggested that the refusal to show the cartoons involves a degree of intimidation (Christians have not threatened to behead anyone over Piss Christ or the Dung Madonna that the Times published, again, yesterday) and a misguided need to preserve the left’s world view that all non-white, non-American, non-Jews are victims of American, Jewish, and/or Western aggression and cannot be held responsible for their behavior.

I would like to suggest another reason for the Times delicacy in dealing with the cartoons as well as their apparent diffidence in showing the posters many of the protesters have been carrying. If the Times were a news gathering and disseminating organization (and it is likely some of them continue to think that is what they are) then showing the images would require some investigation. It would be problematic for the Times to reveal that the most outrageous and vile hatred appearing in any cartoons in the world emanate from the Muslim media. The Times goes out of its way to avoid these kinds of stories, perhaps fearing that if they show the true nature of our “allies” and “friends” in the Middle East, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, or the perpetual “victims”, the Palestinians who danced in celebration of 9/11, the backlash would engulf those who have spent so many years enabling such evil…

The Anchoress:

Terrorism has seeped into the newsrooms in the form of intimidation to silence.
[...]
Up to now, the only silencing of the press has been by their own editing pencils.

Well, certainly not intimidated by those pesky Christians, right? It seems there’s no limit to what they’ll publish as long as they don’t offend Muslims.