Saturday, May 07, 2005

An Arab Christian Witnesses
To The Jew-Hatred In The Arab World

From Front Page Magazine:

[This speech was delivered at the Columbia University Conference on the Middle East and Academic Integrity in New York City on March 6, 2005. -- the Editors.]

I'm honored to bring Columbia a unique perspective concerning the academic freedom issue. I see similarities between the issue and my personal experiences growing up. I was raised in an Arabic society in Lebanon that took impressionable young minds and filled them with propaganda. Minds that were young and didn't know any better.

I am an eyewitness and a victim of the indoctrination of hate education, racism, intolerance, intimidation and fabricated lies by my government and religious influences. This indoctrination was for one purpose: To eradicate the newborn state of Israel; To foment hatred and wipe out Jewish presence in an Arab dominated world.

For Arabs, the simple existence of Israel was viewed as a nakbah! This pan Arab hate indoctrination was a reaction to Jews returning to their homeland after Arabic and Islamic belief for 1400 years that the Yahuds were vanquished and subjugated as Dhimmi.

I believe hate motivated indoctrination fosters irrational thinking and faulty reasoning whether it influenced my education as a child in Lebanon or the "advocacy education" that roils the classrooms here at Columbia. This is the root cause, for the controversy swirling around several members of the Middle East Asia Languages Arts and Culture (MEALAC) faculty and their alleged intimidation of students and other faculty!

What is at stake is our future, the students of today who will become tomorrow's leaders. If their minds are poisoned with irrational hatred and the hate is not combated and eliminated, then academic freedom and free speech in an open marketplace of competitive ideas is dead.

But let me begin by talking about my experience growing up in Lebanon where doctrinal hatred of Jews and Israel was ever present. From Television programs, to national songs, hourly radio newscasts and newspapers, our citizens were fed a steady diet of lies poisoning our attitudes towards the Jews. Israel - Aaesrael , Israel is the devil. Al-Yahud shayateen, The Jews are evil. Sarakou Al-Ard Al Arabiyah. They stole Arab land. Al Wakt al wahid allazi yassir endana salam huwa lamma naqtul kul al yahud wa narmihum bil bahr, The only time we'll have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

Every time Israel was mentioned it was attached to the phrase, Al adew al Israeli. The Israeli enemy. My country and others saw nothing wrong with practicing this form of mind abuse. Of taking a generation hostage, molding them into misguided weapons; some willing to be martyred in the name of Islam or Palestinian nationalism. It's a form of mental child abuse taking place in every Arab country.

As a Maronite Lebanese I went to a Christian private school. The pervasive national animosity toward the Jews affected us there to the extent that our Bibles did not include nor did we study the Old Testament. We didn't even know it was a part of the bible. We were told that the Torah is the enemy's book.

We were young. We didn't know any better. These were our teachers. We respected them and trusted them. Had I not had the opportunity for an up-close and personal experience with the Israelis, I would have had nothing by which to judge or compare what I was being told by my society.

My eyes were opened when I spent 22 days in a hospital in northern Israel in the early 1980's. I watched unbelievably as Israeli doctors treated my mother wounded by an artillery shell before he treated the wounded Israeli soldier lying next to her. They treated Lebanese Muslims and Palestinian militia fighters on a par with wounded IDF soldiers.

I was shocked that this enemy, hated by the Arabs, treated us all with utmost courtesy, compassion, and respect. It was a transforming experience countering the lies and all the propaganda that I had been indoctrinated in as a child.

Ultimately, I made a commitment to leave my home country and move to Israel to be with these people whose values I respected. I ended up working in Israel as a television news anchor. I never felt like a second class citizen in Israel. To solidify my commitment to Israel I buried my beloved parents remains in the same Mount Zion cemetery in Jerusalem where the grave of a "ger t'zeddik" or righteous gentile-Oscar Shindler would one day be.

I was tired of the lies, exaggerations and manipulations of Arabic society, which brings me to another parallel concerning academic freedom and objectivity. Where is objectivity in the Arab world when they claim that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a CIA/Mossad plot? Where is objectivity on campuses when similar claims and distortions are made? Can there be objectivity when advocacy and hatred is involved?

The lies that Arab society tried to teach me as a child in Lebanon are the same as those spread under the guise of academic freedom on the Morningside campus of Columbia.

During a recent speech at a Columbia Law school forum, Professor Massad repeated 24 times in a half-hour that, "Israel is a racist Jewish apartheid oppressive state." His exercise in academic freedom ignores the facts.

As a Middle Easterner brought up on this patent "Israel is a racist state" propaganda, I discovered it is total hate inspired nonsense. I've seen with my own eyes what kind of society Israel is. I consider Israel to be one of the most multi-racial and multi-cultural countries in the world. There are no racial restrictions on becoming a citizen of Israel like there are in many Arab countries.

Remember, Jews can't live in the neighboring Arab Kingdom of Jordan or in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Israel's multi-racial society belies the charge of Racism. More than 100 different countries of the world are represented in the population of Israel.

Consider how the Israeli government spent tens of millions of dollars airlifting more than 40,000 black Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 1984 and 1991. Since 2001 Israel has reached out to help others taking in non-Jewish refugees from Lebanon, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, Liberia, Congo and even Bosnian Muslims. How many such refugees have the 22 states in the Arab league taken in?

The Arab world won't even give Palestinian refugees citizenship in their host countries.

Over one million Arabs are full Israel citizens. An Arab sits on the Supreme Court of Israel. There are Arab political parties expressing views inimical to the State of Israel sitting in the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Women are equal partners in Israel and have complete human rights.

Professor Massad... show me an Arab nation with a Jew in their government. Show me an Arab country with half as many Jewish citizens as Israel has Arab citizens. I'll borrow some of your academic freedom now and say that Arab nations are the real racist and oppressive states.

What Are They Hiding From Us?
And Why?

From Robert Spencer:

Last Friday, firefighters conducting a routine inspection in a Brooklyn supermarket found 200 automobile airbags and a room lined with posters of Osama bin Laden and beheadings in Iraq. An element in the airbags can be used to make pipe bombs. The owner of the building, according to the New York Post, “served jail time in the late 1970s and early 1980s for arson, reckless endangerment, weapons possession and conspiracy, according to the records.”[1] But officials were definite: this has nothing to do with terrorism.

It doesn’t? What does it have to do with, then? Was this a local Rotary Club chapter that decided to sell pipe bombs as a fundraiser and thought that a few posters of Osama and Iraqi beheadings might liven things up?

Similarly, when explosions killed fifteen people and injured over 100 at an oil refinery in Texas City, Texas on March 23, 2005, the FBI quickly ruled out terrorism as a possible cause.[2] When a group calling itself Qaeda al-Jihad and another Islamic group both claimed responsibility, the FBI was still dismissive.[3] But then it came to light that investigators did not even visit the blast site until eight days after the explosions — and eight days after they ruled out terrorism as a possibility.
One more independent-minded investigator asked, “How do you rule out one possibility when you don't have any idea what the cause is?”[4] Still later came the revelation that initial reports of a single blast were inaccurate: there were as many as five different explosions at the refinery.[5]

It may still be possible that these blasts were accidental, and that five distinct things went wrong at the refinery to cause five separate explosions at around the same time. And maybe there was no terrorist involvement. But how did the FBI know that before even investigating?

Most Americans do not realize that such incidents are taking place on American soil after 9/11. Are officials trying not to alarm the American public? Or is this a politically correct strategy born of the success that canny American Muslim advocacy groups have had in portraying themselves as victims since 9/11: are officials trying to protect innocent Muslims from backlash?

Whatever their motivations, they are keeping Americans in the dark about the true nature and extent of the jihadist terror threat in our own country. The consequences of that can only be negative.

There's more. Go read the rest.

Eurabia In A Nutshell

Notice the Star of David, the symbol of Judaism, is portrayed as the equivalent of Nazism.

Notice they're hanging Arab/Palestinian flags in front of a building which features the word "Libertie." Why? Because they can, because they have "Libertie" to do so.

Notice the martyr on a stretcher; a symbol of Jihad.

There you go, Jew-hatred, abuse of Libertie, and Jihad. Eurabia, in a nutshell.

Thanks to No Pasaran.

Posted by Hello

The Middle East Conflict In a Nutshell

From Little Green Footballs:

Palestinians tried to commit mass murder yesterday, firing an anti-tank rocket at a school bus full of children.

Palestinians on Friday morning fired an anti-tank rocket on Friday morning at school bus carrying children outside the southern Gaza Strip settlement of Kfar Darom, shaking the fragile lull in violence. The rocket failed to hit the bus.

Little Green Footballs points out that the mainstream media has completely ignored this story. This rocket would have been fired by someone from either Hamas or Fatah, both organizations which have legitamate political power in Israel.

There is no Israeli political party, with legitimate power in the Knesset, which is also a terrorist organization.

Now, imagine that your children were on their way to school and someone, from a terrorist organization that had legitimate political power in the country neighboring yours, fired a rocket at your kids bus. What would your response be?

Wouldn't you ask your government to go to war with the neighboring nation, unless that nation completely dismantled the terrorist organization?

I know I would.

That's the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in a nutshell. All wrapped up, right there for you to understand.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Jihad Begot The Crusades

Ridley Scott's film The Kingdom of Heaven comes out today, and it has been approved by the official apologists of terror, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). That means it gives the Muslim perspetive on what happened in the Crusades. But what really happened? From Thomas Madden, in Christianity Today:

... medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word crusade in his remarks?
With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren't the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam.
Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades ... They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a "teaching moment," an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won't last long, so here goes.

The threat of Islam
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters,

the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars.
They were a direct response to Muslim aggression

—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way.
From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.
When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

Do you doubt the word of a history professor in Christianity Today? Ok, how about the word of Professor of Medicine who has published books and articles on the History of Islam? Here's Andrew Bostom, from The American Thinker.

Here is more information from Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

Here is more information from the highly respected British Historian Paul Johnson.

It appears the Crusades were not what we were taught in school. While Christians might have been vicious and bloodthirsty in their war-making, the Crusades were a response to Jihad. What's more, the Crusades were a series of wars that happened over a period of approximately 200 years. And they happened 800 years ago. In other words, they were but one example of Christians spreading Christianity by the sword.

Jihad, on the other hand, was ordained by the Koran, and has been constant for 1,300 years.



... dreaming of the waves, you're bobbing on your board, and you're being pulled out suddenly, and you feel it before you see it. The Next One, jamming, a million swirls and eddy's come together, simultaneously, in an explosion of inevitable chaos come to order. The huge green glass shard of the curl, with sand dancing gold inside, and foam, teetering, snow on a crest, about to come crashing down. But, you are caught up and, in a twinkling of an eye, you are glancing down the side of the wave, wrapped in the womb of it's tube, slicing through to it's message, "Oh man. Oh God. Oh Everything in The Whole Fucking World.

Posted by Hello

More On The Bushitler Lunacy
And A Warning To The Republican Party

From Victor Davis Hanson:

We are in unsure times amid a controversial war. Yet the American people are not swayed by the universities, the major networks, the New York Times, Hollywood, the major foundations, and NPR. All these bastions of doctrinaire liberal thinking have done their best to convince America that George W. Bush, captive to right-wing nuts and Christian fanatics, is leading the country into an abyss. In fact, a close look at a map of red/blue counties nationwide suggests that the Democrats are in deepening trouble.

Why? In a word, Democratic ideology and rhetoric have not evolved from the 1960s, although the vast majority of Americans has — and an astute Republican leadership knows it.
The old class warfare was effective for two reasons: Americans did not have unemployment insurance, disability protection, minimum wages, social security, or health coverage. Much less were they awash in cheap material goods from China that offer the less well off the semblance of consumer parity with those far wealthier. Second, the advocates of such rights looked authentic, like they came off the docks, the union hall, the farm, or the shop, primed to battle those in pin-stripes and coiffed hair.

Today entitlement is far more complicated. Poverty is not so much absolute as relative: "I have a nice Kia, but he has a Mercedes," or "I have a student loan to go to Stanislaus State, but her parents sent her to Yale." Unfortunately for the Democrats, Kias and going to Stanislaus State aren't too bad, especially compared to the alternatives in the 1950s.

A Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean, George Soros, or Al Gore looks — no, acts — like he either came out of a hairstylist's salon or got off a Gulfstream. Those who show up at a rally and belong to ANSWER don't seem to have spent much time in Bakersfield or Logan, but lots in Seattle and Westwood. When most Americans have the semblance of wealth — televisions, cell phones, cars, laptops, and iPods as well as benefits on the job — it is hard to keep saying that "children are starving." Obesity not emaciation is the great plague of the poorer.

So the Democrats need a little more humility, a notion that the country is not so much an us/them dichotomy, but rather all of us together under siege to maintain our privileges in a tough global world — and at least one spokesman who either didn't go to prep school or isn't a lawyer.

The Democrats, at least in the north, were right on the great civil-rights debate of 1960s. Yet ever since, they have lost credibility as they turned to the harder task of trying to legislate an equality of result — something that transcends government prejudice and guarantying a fair playing field, and hinges on contemporary culture, behavior, values, and disciple.

The country is also no longer white and black, but brown, yellow, black, white, and mixed. When a liberal UC Berkeley chancellor remonstrates about "diversity" and "multiculturalism," lamenting that his merit-based entrance requirements have sadly resulted in too few "Hispanics" and "African-Americans" (he ignores that whites at Berkeley also enroll in numbers less than their percentages in the state population), what he really means — but won't say — is that there are apparently too many Asians, about 45 percent enrolled in Berkeley versus about 12 percent in the state population.

What will he do? Praise a hard-working minority that overcame historic prejudice against them? Hardly. We suspect instead the typical liberal solution is on the horizon: some clever, but secretive administrative fix that contravenes Proposition 209, and then denies that compensatory action is aimed against the Asians it is aimed at.

In short, race-based thinking beyond protection of equal opportunity is fraught with public suspicion, especially when so many loud spokesmen for minorities — Jesse Jackson or Kweisi Mfume — either are elites themselves or do not practice the morality they preach.
An Alberto Gonzales or Condoleezza Rice comes across as proud, competent, and an expert rather than a tribalist, while those in the Black Caucus or La Raza industry appear often the opposite.
Would you want a sober Colin Powell or an often unhinged Harry Belafonte and surly Julian Bond in your party? Did Condoleezza Rice, answering acerbic senators without notes, or Barbara Boxer, droning off a prepared script, appear the more impressive in recent confirmation hearings? A Democratic "minority" appointment to a cabinet post at education or housing is one thing; a Republican belief that the best candidates for secretary of state, national security advisor, and attorney general are incidentally minorities is quite another.

The problem with Democrats is that Americans are not convinced that they will ever act in any consistent manner. We can argue about Afghanistan, but if one were to go back and read accounts in October 2001 about hitting back, the news reflected liberals' doubt about both the wisdom and efficacy of taking out the Taliban.

Would Al Gore have invaded Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11? If John Kerry were President and China invaded Taiwan, what would he do?

What would an administration advised by Madeline Albright, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Jamie Rubin, Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter do if Iran sent a nuke into Israel, or North Korea fired a series of missiles over the top of Japan?

Or, if al Qaeda, operating from a sanctuary in Iran or Syria, took out the Sears Tower, how would a Kennedy, Kerry, or Gore respond? Six cruise missiles? A police matter? Proper work for the DA? Better "intelligence"? Let's work with our allies? Get the U.N. involved?

Whatever we think of George Bush, we know he would do something real — and just what that something might be frightens into hesitation — and yes, fear — many of those who would otherwise like to try something pretty awful.

Until Democrats promote someone who barks out something like, "We can and will win in Iraq," or, "Let the word go out: An attack on the United States originating from a rogue state is synonymous with its own destruction," or some such unguarded and perhaps slightly over-the-top statement, I don't think that the American people will entrust their safety to the party. John Kerry, to be frank, is no Harry Truman, and time is running out for Hillary Clinton to morph into Scoop Jackson.

... if you listen to Dr. Dean and his class venom, it hardly seems comparable with how he lives or how he was brought up. John Kerry's super power boat, Teresa Kerry's numerous mansions, Arianna Huffington's gated estate, George Soros's jet, Ted Turner's ranches, Sean Penn's digs — all this and more, whether fairly or unfairly, suggest hypocrisy and insincerity: Something like, "High taxes, government regulation, racial quotas, and more entitlements won't hurt me since I have so much money at my own disposal anyway, but will at least make me feel good that we are transferring capital to the less fortunate."

Worse yet, such easy largess and the cost of caring often translate into contempt for the small businessman, entrepreneur, and salesperson who is supposedly illiberal because he worries that he has less disposable income and is less secure. And when you add in cracks about Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and the "Christian Right" — all the things the more cultured avoid — then the architects of a supposedly populist party seem to be ignorant of their own constituencies.

When we see Democrats speaking and living like normal folks — expressing worry that the United States must return to basic education and values to ensure its shaky preeminence in a cutthroat world, talking of one multiracial society united by a rare exceptional culture of the West rather than a salad bowl of competing races and tribes, and apprising the world that we are principled abroad in our support of democratic nations and quite dangerous when attacked — they will be competitive again.

Since they will not do that, they will keep losing — no matter how much the economy worries, the war frightens, and the elite media scares the American people.

I think Mr. Hanson's article here is a very good assessment of the position in which the Democratic Party finds itself. However, I think he underestimates the true "wussiness" (Socalism, meaning lacking in intestinal fortitude) of much of America. For God's sake John Kerry almost won. It folllows, then, that a Democrat would not have to stand up and warn rogue states that a WMD attack on American soil "would be synonymous with it's destruction." In fact, I don't think the Democratic Party would have to say much of anything about the larger world.

Unfortunately America has, in my opinion shown a strong sense of isolationism, recently. Basically, most of the people who voted for John Kerry (one of the weakest candidates ever to run for President of the United States) voted thusly on the grounds that America has no business doing anything about an evil and dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein. Think about that. Americans knew how bad he was, and yet they didn't want to do anything about him. Similarly, much of America (not to mention the world) doesn't want to do anything about Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. These are intolerable, human-rights abusing, dictatorships, and they are threatening the world. And yet, many of us want to ignore them and hope they go away, even while they build nuclear weapons.

Therefore, I believe a Democrat could win by taking the credibility the Democratic party still posesses on racial issues, in immense, if inexplicable amounts, and spending it on an isolationist platform of anti-llegal immigration proposals, and protectionist trade statutes aimed at China.

I agree with Victor Davis Hanson that, in a day and age of Kia's, cheap Surround-sound, and cellphones, the effective gap between the rich and poor is negligible, but there are many people for whom Wal-Mart looks like a lifetime proposition, not only as a place to buy goods, but as a place of employment. This is a state of affairs completely out-of-whack with the American Dream. And, it certainly would be easy for a smart Democrat to make it looks as if these problems were caused solely by illegal immigration and cheap goods from China.

I mention these points not because I agree with them, but in order to warn the Republicans, who I think have become far too smug. Hillary Clinton will beat you in 2008, if Condoleeza Rice is not nominated as the Republican candidate.

You can mark my words.

The Bushitler Election Conspiracy

From the liberal website Tom, with thanks to Michelle Malkin:

Back in January, I wrote a piece for questioning widely circulated claims that the election in Ohio had been stolen. I had done some poking around, anticipating that at least some of the frightening anecdotes filling our mail boxes and raging on talk radio would be borne out. In spot checks on a few popular fraud anecdotes, I found credible alternative explanations such as incompetence, structural problems, politicization of decision-making and other failings— but no evidence of deliberate fraud designed to hand the election to Bush.

I looked especially closely at the theory that fraud is the only way to explain the large gap between the early exit polls, which showed Kerry doing very well, and the final result giving Ohio’s key electoral votes to Bush. According to this theory, there was no way the actual tally could vary so greatly from the exit polls. The proponents of this view essentially accuse the legendary exit pollster Warren Mitofsky, and a media consortium, the National Election Pool (NEP), of some kind of complicity— or at least willful denial. I found no evidence whatever of either.

For casting doubt on the conspiracy theory, and I received virtual barrels of e-mail, most from angry anti-Bush activists who could not believe that their hard work had been for naught. I also heard from Steven Freeman, a University of Pennsylvania professor and author of a widely cited study that served as the primary basis for the pro-theft-theory folks, The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy . His remarks, and my response to them, appeared on

Privately, I heard from many Democratic officials, election reform advocates and analysts from inside Ohio and elsewhere, who believed my reporting to be accurate, and who were more than a little perturbed by the frenzy, which they found a counterproductive distraction from the serious ongoing effort to reform election practices.
Since the exit poll debate refuses to die, this seems a good time to trumpet the arrival of not just one, but two, new technical analyses that cast further doubt on the theory that the exit poll results themselves indicate fraud. The author of the first is an earnest young fellow in San Diego named Rick Brady.

“Brady's paper is a must-read for those still genuinely weighing the arguments on the exit poll controversy,” writes Mark Blumenthal, a longtime Democratic pollster on whose website blog, (“Demystifying the Science and Art of Political Polling”) Brady sometimes posts.

Brady’s point-by-point refutation of the Stolen Election thesis, in which he exposes fallacies, misuses of data and other technical sloppiness, can be found here. These range from an inapt comparison with German exit polls to reckless application of out-of-date margin-of-error statistics.

Meanwhile, a growing chorus of voices is raising doubts about the methodology and conclusions of a loose-knit coalition of academics called U.S. Count Votes (USCV) which has been at the forefront of the Ohio fraud movement. As Warren Mitofsky told me privately back in January (he’s now gone public with this) —and demonstrated to me in some detail why—he finds the fraud theory highly implausible. Recently, columnist Terry M. Neal interviewed Mitofsky about the findings of USCV. Mitofsky said :

"The trouble is they make their case very passionately and not very scholarly. I don't get the impression that any of these people have conducted surveys on a large scale."

Although many of the USCV people have degrees in statistics and math, those are general skills that constitute only a part of the toolkit needed to design and deconstruct complex polls. That’s not to say they don’t have some legitimate points, just that they don’t have the chops for such a powerful conclusion.

Like the USCV folks, Rick Brady—author of the new study— is no polling expert. He has been deeply involved with graduate-level statistics primarily while earning a master's degree in public planning, but appears to have approached the exit poll mystery with the best qualifications—an agile and open mind.

The other study comes from Elizabeth Liddle, a U.K.-based former USCV contributor and Ph.D. candidate in psychology/cognitive neuroscience who published her own independent study, which demonstrates fundamental problems with the fraudniks’ conclusions.

She begins by acknowledging her own concerns with the situation in Ohio. “I believe your election was inexcusably riggable and may well have been rigged,” writes Liddle. “It was also inexcusably unauditable. I am convinced that there was real and massive voter suppression in Ohio, and that it was probably deliberate. I think the recount in Ohio was a sham, and the subversion of the recount is in itself suggestive of coverup of fraud. I think Kenneth Blackwell should be jailed. However (and I'll come clean now in case you want to read no further) I don't believe the exit polls in themselves are evidence for fraud. I don't think they are inconsistent with fraud, but I don't think they support it either.”

Specifically, Liddle asserts that the exit polls were not just wrong in so-called battleground states, as the fraudniks assert, but everywhere. “My analysis shows that the swing states were not in fact more wrong than the safe states,” writes Liddle. “This evidence shows that the greatest bias was [actually] in the safest blue states... Moreover, the pattern of polling bias is the same as in the nearest comparable election, 1988, another two-horse race where there was also a large significant over-estimate of the Democratic vote and another losing Democratic candidate (Dukakis).”

Liddle explained to me that, since 1988 at least, voter sampling has consistently over-polled Democrats. I’ve heard a variety of explanations for this, but in general, it’s not hard to imagine that Democrats might be at least marginally more inclined to explain their political decisions to exit pollsters, who, after all, are representatives of the often-reviled “liberal” media. In fact, it seems that Republican voters are overall slightly less likely to accurately express their preferences to in-person interviewers, even in precincts where they constitute a sizable majority.

So, absent the emergence of true polling methodology experts screaming theft, we may reasonably conclude that no evil genius rigged the results. Instead, what we experienced was probably an amalgam of system failings, miscalculations, incompetence, and, in some cases, the variably successful exertions of biased election officials. These are, at worst, symptoms of gaming the system, a deplorable practice hardly limited to this election or, historically, to one party.
Until the public becomes confident in the underlying integrity of the electoral apparatus in this country, none of the urgently needed improvements to that system can take place. That’s why the conspiracy-mongering must cease. Can we instead please turn now to the many substantive proposals already being proffered to make things better—including pending legislation?
Let’s keep our eye on the real ball that’s in our court.

I'm very happy to hear sane liberal voices popping back into the mix, because I have been a Democrat all my life. I even worked for the Democratice Party for a short time. But, I can't imagine returning to that party in any way, until the party apologizes for catering to the Bushitler crowd, and for giving Michael Moore a honored seat next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention.

In my opinion, the Electoral Process is the hallowed halls of Democracy. The Democratic Party walked into those halls, hocked up a giant, chewing-tobacco-laced gob of putrid, pulsating loog, and spit it onto the ornate rugs we have woven of our efforts for the last 230 years of Democracy here in America.

They must apologize.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Saddam's Genocide: The Numbers So Far
290 Mass Graves
300,000 People
1,000,000 Feared Murdered

From Graham Lester:

Modern paraphernalia has been useful to archeologists and crime-scene investigators who are engaged in a grisly task in Iraq:

Dates on medicine found in the graves indicate the people were killed about the time of the 1987-88 Anfal campaign in which Kurdish villages were razed and hundreds of people relocated to the south, said the US archaeologist in charge of the excavation, Sonny Trimble.

"Blister packs of pills have expiration dates, wrist watches have the day, and the dates go back to that year," Mr Trimble said. "We're finding them very effective."

The former minister of human rights in the US-backed Iraqi administration, Baktiar Amin, said that, based on the AK-47 bullet casings and bullet holes left in the bones, gunmen opened fire on civilians, mostly women and children, killing them as they stood in open trenches.

And the numbers involved are more staggering than most of us ever imagined:

More than 290 mass graves found since Saddam was overthrown by US-led forces in April 2003 contained the bodies of at least 300,000 people believed to have been killed by the regime, Mr Amin said.

He believes the total number missing could be close to one million. Link.

I've never understood why anyone opposed removing this man from power, even if it took force.

"Pleasure Marriages"

From Dymphna at Gates of Vienna:

Have you ever heard of muta'a? It means ecstasy in Arabic — but a truer definition might be prostitution.
Saddam Hussein outlawed the practice in Iraq; it’s generally looked down upon by the Sunni Muslims. However, the Shi’ites have Mohammed on their side as he is supposed to have recommended it as a way for widows to earn extra income.
Muta’a is a pleasure marriage, a temporary arrangement lasting from an hour to a decade, depending upon the ability of the man willing to pay for such an arrangement.

A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are "special reasons"...{he} grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.

Your probably don’t need to be told that this arrangement is legal only for men. Women cannot and do not initiate any such arrangement.
According to the news report,

Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his Web site. ("A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him ...")

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want Iraq's new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give muta'a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni, oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.

The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.
Try to wrap your mind around this idea. The religion of Islam allows for these hour-long "pleasure marriages." Mohammed decreed that they were allowed. They are not allowed for women which, apparently, means they are only to be initiated by men.
Let's face it, our society is fascinated with such "marriages" as well; Desparate Housewives, Sex and The City, American Pie, the list goes on. These movies reflect a Western society obsessed with casual sex. But, in the case of Islamic pleasure marriages, the woman is being treated purely as a commodity, or, in other words, a whore.
And, of course, it needs to be pointed out that no other major religion allows for such a thing.
Man, and they think we're decadent.

A Concise Presentation of The New Anti-Semitism

Click here to view.

Congress Says No U.S. Aid
Will Be Given Directoly To Palestinian Authority

From Mystery Achievement:

From the WaPo via Worthy News: Restrictions Imposed On Aid to Palestinians.

Congress imposed the tight restrictions on aid to the Palestinians that President Bush had announced with fanfare in his State of the Union address, possibly dealing a blow to U.S. efforts to support new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
In the emergency spending bill that lawmakers completed late Tuesday, the White House had sought $200 million "to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms," as the president said in his February State of the Union address. But the fine print of the document gives $50 million of that money directly to Israel to build terminals for people and goods at checkpoints surrounding Palestinian areas. Another $2 million for Palestinian health care will be provided to Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, while the allocation of the rest of the money is tightly prescribed.
The bill appears to make it difficult for the White House to give any of the aid directly to the Palestinian Authority, as Palestinians had hoped. Instead, the assistance must be funneled through nongovernmental organizations.
"The conferees agree that the budget request and the recommendation contained in this Act do not provide specific direct financial support for the Palestinian Authority," the conference report said. The bill requires that $5 million of the aid be used for an independent examination of the authority's accounting procedures and expenditures.
Direct aid to the Palestinian Authority is symbolically important for Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen. Shortly after Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat died in November, Bush allowed $20 million to be delivered directly to the Palestinian Authority. Under an agreement with Congress, however, that money was immediately transferred to pay bills owed to Israel's electric company.

In light of the post below (wherein I explain that the agenda, of the two main political parties in the Palestinian territories, is the destruction of the state of Israel) this is very good news indeed.

Go read the rest over at Mystery Achievement.

Anti-Israel Professor Is An Anti-Semite
I Will Explain

From Front Page Magazine:

Marc H. Ellis is university professor and director of the Center for American and Jewish Studies at Baylor University, a Baptist University in Waco, Texas, not ordinarily on anyone's radar map as a particularly notable institution when it comes to the field of Jewish scholarship.
Indeed, theologically Waco is best known for serving as home of the Branch Davidians and the abortive FBI raid on its headquarters. Thus fringe "theologians" seem to feel right at home there. Maybe it has something to do with being home to singer Willie Nelson.

... Ellis is commonly honored and cited as a Jewish anti-Jewish and anti-Israel authority by neonazis and by
Holocaust Deniers, including on the web site of recently deported Canadian nazi Ernst Zundel, by the neonazi "Institute for Historical Review" or as an authority who helps debunk the "myth" that there ever was a Holocaust of Jews by the nazis. ... Ellis apparently has never outright endorsed open Holocaust Deniers, denied that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, nor has he "justified" Holocaust Denial as "understandable".

Ellis has published a series of books, all largely promoting liberation theology
[1] mixed with his thoughts about the Holocaust and Israel's endless track record of "inhumane crimes",[2] most of them published with "Fortress Press", a non-academic church publisher associated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Ellis seems to have succeeded in getting virtually no Jewish audiences, publishers nor journals anywhere in the world to take his "scholarship" seriously.

Ellis claims to be some sort of expert on "Holocaust Studies" and has authored a number of books that claim to be Holocaust scholarship, including "Ending Auschwitz: The Future of Jewish and Christian Life" [Westminster John Knox Press (1994)], and Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes (Pluto Press, 2003), which purports to be a book about the "lessons of the Holocaust" for resolving the Arab-Israeli war. In his other writings, such as in "O, Jerusalem. The Contested Future of the Jewish Covenant," [Fortress Press (1999)], Ellis proffers his sage advice for resolving the Middle East war, in part based on the appropriate lessons to be drawn, a la Ellis, from the Holocaust.

Ellis himself sums up in his own words the "lesson" he draws from the Holocaust :

"To have the Holocaust part of Jewish success, to have the victims of the Holocaust become part of Jewish empowerment, is unsettling. To speak of the Holocaust without confessing our sins towards the Palestinian people and seeking a real justice with them is a hypocrisy that debases us as Jews. Surely, the ultimate trivialisation (sic) is the use of memory to oppress others and this, rather than the 'industry', is responsible for the difficulties facing those who seek to communicate the historic suffering of European Jews."

Ellis' idea of promoting the ethics of the Hebrew Prophets is to write Israel-bashing pieces for the same al-Ahram Egyptian daily that regularly prints blood libels about Jews and cites the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as an authoritative source.[4] One wonders where exactly Ellis finds sources in the Books of the Prophets for the Palestinian "Right of Return", which he so passionately endorses,[5] that is, their "right" to end Jewish national existence. Ellis thinks that Jews should turn their High Holidays into days of mourning for their "crimes" against "Palestinians."[6]

Ellis' latest effort on behalf of ... distortion, and trivialization of the Holocaust, replete with Ellis' usual insistence that the Holocaust needs to be converted into a weapon against Israel's survival, is "Israel and Palestine: Out of the Ashes", Pluto Press Ltd, 2003.

The first hint one has of the real orientation of this atrocious little book, which purports to be a theological re-examination of what it means to be Jewish after the Holocaust, is that the only people Ellis and his publisher could find to endorse the book on the jacket are members of the Terrorism Lobby: Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, and their ilk. Not a single Jewish theologian. Pro-terror and Islamist web sites have given the book rave reviews. So has the PLO's web site. Need we say more?

For Ellis, Israel is the embodiment of all that is evil and all that is wrong with Judaism today. His concept of Israel is of a bunch of "bullies" riding about in helicopters and firing senselessly at poor innocent Palestinian civilians for absolutely no reason at all (an image repeated ad nauseum in many of Ellis’ screeds).

Suicide bombers blowing up Israeli buses and other perpetrators of mass atrocities against Jews do not interest the busy Ellis, ... He certainly does not think any lessons from the Holocaust can constitute justification for any Israeli soldier actually picking up a weapon to defend his country. Ellis' Israel is a belligerent selfish entity, mistreating and enslaving (yes, he uses that term) the Palestinians, as part of some sort of grand pursuit of the goals of the Jewish settlers in the "Palestinian" territories.

In Ellis' opinion, Israel's existence is not justified by Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. The only "massacres" of any Holocaust-relevance are those Israel perpetrates. Jenin and Deir Yassin (neither of which was in fact a massacre) are the moral equivalents of the Holocaust of the Jews, insists Ellis over and over.
But in Jenin, less than twenty civilians died in the midst of a military operation by Israel against terrorists hiding in the town. Deir Yassin was the scene of a battle in which some civilians got killed in the fighting but no massacre took place.
One cannot imagine a more obscene distortion than to compare these Arabs killed in military operations with the Jewish victims of the nazi Holocaust, especially when the person doing the comparison has never had a word to say against Arab aggression and Arab anti-Jewish terrorist atrocities, nor against Arab calls for genocide.

To compare such unfortunate incidences, where comparatively small numbers of civilians got killed in outright battles, with the Holocaust is morally sick.

And, by the way, what is this "right of return" this Mr. Ellis supports so whole-heartedly?:

"They are calling for 4.25 million Palestinian Arabs – refugees of the 1948-9 war and their descendants – to immigrate to Israel, turning the Jewish majority in that country into a minority and ending Jewish self-determination in a sovereign state. In other words, its exercise can have only one result: the ending of the Jewish state. "

And why is this true? Well, as I cited in the post below (on Holocaust Remembrance Day) the two main political parties in the Palestinian Authority are the ruling party (called the Palestinian Authority, or Fatah), and Hamas.

The official charters of both parties call for the destruction of the state of Israel, and the Hamas Charter calls for the elimination of Jews from the resultant land of Palestine.

Here, click on the links below:

Palestinian Authority Charter (Read articles 19-21 of the 1968 Charter on the official UN web page of the Palestinian Authority).

Hamas Charter.

How could Israel accomodate the wishes of such "political" parties and still remain a state? The answer is they can not. And they should not be expected to tolerate these groups within their own homeland, just as the United States should not be expected to tolerate Al Qaeda within it's borders.

Political forces (Professors, Political Parties, media outlets) which expect Israel to tolerate such "political" parties are the forces of the New Anti-Semitism. Such forces need to be called out and exposed. That's what I am attempting to do with this blog.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Holocaust Remembrance Day

There's a whole gallery of photos which you probably don't want to look at, but I give the link because I think documentation and remembrance is important.

I have never seen a movie on the Holocaust. Yes, that means I have never seen Schindler's List. I have seen short parts of documentaries, and, as I have detailed here before, I have had several close friends and girlfriends who lost huge parts of their families in the Holocaust.

This blog is not dedicated to remembering the Holocaust. Instead my subject is the New Anti-Semitism which has arisen in the world. I do believe that it is imperative that we learn the lessons of the history of the Holocaust, and of what led up to it, so that we somehow avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

I would say the biggest mistake the world made leading up to the Holocaust was not believing that Hitler meant it, when he said in Mein Kampf, that he wanted to kill all the Jews in Europe.

Today, the biggest mistake the world is making is not believing it when groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority say that they feel it is their duty to kill the Jews and eliminate their presence in Israel.

Coincidentally, there are nearly six million Jews in the state of Israel currently.

Here at CUANAS (Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism) we join with our Jewish brothers and say, Never Again.

Posted by Hello

Do Pigs Fly? Apparently, They Do

A funny and important post from Little Green Footballs. I say just go there and see. It's perfect.

Jack Speaks The Truth
About The Judicial Nominees Situation

From my friend Jack, over at Jack of Clubs:

I have been debating this point on and off for a couple of weeks with friends. Looks like the AP has finally noticed that the talking points that both Republicans and Democrats are making don't quite square with the facts:

Time was, Republicans buried Bill Clinton's judicial picks by the dozen in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Democrats indignantly demanded a yes-or-no vote for each. That was then.
This is now, when Democrats block a far smaller number of President Bush's court nominees -- and Republicans heatedly insist the Constitution itself requires a vote.
"Give them a vote. A vote up or down," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said recently, speaking of seven appeals court nominees Democrats have vowed to block.
"That's what we've always done for 214 years before this president became president."
Except for more than 60 nominees whose names Clinton sent to the Senate between 1995 and 2000.
Republicans didn't resort to filibusters in many of those cases. They didn't need to.
They controlled the levers of Senate power at the time, and simply refused to schedule action on the nominations they opposed. Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, played a pivotal role in the blockade.
Inconsistency is hardly a Republican-only trait.
"According to the U.S. Constitution, the president nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said in 1997.
"It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor," said Boxer, who supported a move in 1995 to ease the filibuster rule.
Except that she joined other Democrats in successfully filibustering 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court candidates. Bush has renominated seven of the 10, and they are at the core of the current struggle over rules governing judicial confirmation.
I have not posted on this because I find it hard to get too excited about what seems to be an obvious fact of politics. Politicians do and say what they need to get their agendas implemented and it doesn't always match what they did or said previously when the situation was reversed. Not particularly admirable, but hardly surprising.
But I am rather annoyed that conservatives, who don't have political carreers to think about, have bought into the Constitutional meme and are even pretending that the Democrats are being somehow particularly unprincipled in the present circumstance. It may be good for the country to abolish the 60 vote rule for ending a filibuster; I don't really know. But it is hardly a moral concern and it is certainly well within conservative principles to allow it to stand. I may have more to say about this later.

Good for Jack. I agree, and let me explain where this kind of twisting of the truth really bothers me. As Jack says, he is annoyed when people, who don't have political careers to worry about, buy into the Constitutional meme. I say, yeah, and that means people like Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh.

You see, guys, that just makes you shills for the Republican party. And it also makes you very boring, as far as I am concerned.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wishes Saddam Hussein a happy birthday. From Front Page Magazine:

An advertisement sending birthday greetings to Saddam Hussein was published Monday in the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida.
As PMW has reported numerous times, Saddam Hussein is seen as a hero by the PA leadership and population. During the war in Iraq, PA political and academic leaders called for armed terror against U.S. soldiers, and a music video calling for Iraqis to kill U.S. troops was played daily on PA TV. PA society, media and leadership actively mourned his fall.

The following is the text of the birthday greeting in the PA daily:

Blessings to the leader of the masses, Saddam Hussein the faithful, the legal President of the Iraqi Republic on the occasion of his 68th birthday.

Two members of the leadership of the Fatah Movement, Bader Tewfik Hassan “Abu Yunis” and Fuzi Kamel Shahrur, express to the leader of the nation and her warrior knight
Saddam Hussein the president of the Iraqi Republic best wishes on the occasion of his 68th birthday, and bless all of the faithful among the Iraqi and Arab nations, who support and defend justice.

We wish him long life for the sake of Iraq and to free the Arab nation from the enslavement of foreign imperialism. Oh, the glory of victory, with the help of Allah.”

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 1, 2005]

To view this bulletin online, go to: view music video go to:

You just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth. In this case they are putting a big sign on their forhead that says, "I Am Incredibly Stupid." There is nothing to be gained by them calling Hussein the "legal President of Iraq." Well, there's nothing to be gained in the West anyway.

The negotiations for the implementation of the "Road Map to Peace" are being conducted by Western nations. Western nations may disagree with the way the United States went about the war, but they do not disagree that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and that the new Iraqi government is the real government of Iraq.

So, in other words, while we are all so diligently working on the "Road Map for Peace," the Palestinian Authority, apparently, doesn't give a rip what we think.

Does that bode well? Do you think they really are angling for negotiations when they are, at the same time, trying to undermine, what is arguably, the largest project in which the Western world is currently involved. Does it seem like they really want to make a deal when they would rather angle for agreement with Islamofascists who hate the United States, then to angle for the agreement of those Western countries with whom they are currently in negotiations?

Hmm. Man, you just gotta love your enemies.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

A Brave Muslim Dissident

From Melanie Phillips:

Great news. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, the Muslim editor of the Bangladeshi newspaper The Weekly Blitz who was thrown into jail in Bangladesh 17 months ago for speaking out in favour of Israel (see my post last month), has been freed. One of the two people who campaigned for him, Dr Richard Benkin, has issued a press release which says this:'Earlier today, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, the Muslim journalist jailed after publishing articles that urged his nation of Bangladesh to recognize Israel, advocated interfaith dialogue, and condemned terrorism and the growing power of radical Islamists in the non-Arab Muslim world, was released at about 7pm Dhaka time.

'Throughout 2003, Choudhury wrote articles countering the biased news about Israel and the Jews, interviewed Israeli professor and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Ada Aharoni, and helped Zionist Richard Benkin publish material in the Bangladeshi press. All of this sparked debate and discussion where there had been none before. But as he was about to leave for an historic address in Tel Aviv, Choudhury was taken away by police.

'Not charged at first, though accused of the catch-all “spying for Israel,” Choudhury was repeatedly denied bail even beyond the limits of Bangladeshi law. Police raided his home and office, seizing computers and files; followed by a mob that sacked the premises with impunity. His brother was beaten and twice had to flee Dhaka; and his family was threatened and brought to the brink of financial ruin. Eventually, he was charged with sedition, a capital offense, though the government admitted in its own investigation that there was no real evidence for the charge.

'But things started to change early in April when US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) got involved, calling a meeting between himself, Benkin, and new Bangladeshi Ambassador Shamsher Chowdhury. Kirk proved a solid advocate for Choudhury and human rights, clearly enunciating the case for his freedom. Chowdhury was receptive and promised to press the matter with his government. All three men pledged to work together for justice. The ambassador proved to be a man of his word. Soon thereafter, Choudhury began receiving the needed health care previously denied him; and only three weeks after the meeting, he was freed. It was accomplished within the framework of Bangladeshi law and involved efforts by several high government officials.

'Choudhury himself is anything but bitter. Speaking with Benkin shortly after his release, Choudhury said “my 17 months in prison will have been worth it” if the government of Bangladesh helps return that nation to the principles of tolerance and democracy that are its heritage.'

This is really tremendous. It shows what effect a couple of determined individuals can have if they make their voices heard on behalf of truth and justice. And it should act as a spur to others in the west to raise their own voices in support of other courageous Muslim dissidents, who are risking their lives by advocating freedom, tolerance and truth-telling in societies where to do so can be a death warrant. Just like the Soviet dissidents in the 1970s and 1980s, Muslim dissidents are in desperate need of our support if the tyrannies under which they suffer are to be broken. With the world behind them, it can be done.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

My Main Man Posted by Hello

Los Angeles Times Edits Truth From Story

From Patterico's Ponitifications:

L.A. Times editors have doubled down. They have yet again suppressed evidence that U.S. soldiers were justified in shooting at the car carrying Giuliana Sgrena to a Baghdad airport.
Reuters story filed Saturday morning states on page two:

CBS news has reported that a U.S. satellite had filmed the shooting and that it had been established the car carrying Calipari was traveling at more than 60 miles per hour as it approached the U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad.

Today’s L.A. Times reprint of the article edits out that passage, which suggests that there is definitive proof that the car was speeding – a critical issue in the controversy.
Anyone else feeling that sense of déjà vu?

As I told you yesterday, the same exact passage was contained in a Friday Reuters dispatch, and was edited from the L.A. Times reprint of that article in yesterday’s paper.

Today’s edit proves that yesterday’s suppression of this information was no accident. It was part of an ongoing effort to hide this evidence from the paper’s readers. After all, The Times still has not told its readers about this evidence, even though CBS News aired it Thursday night, and it’s now Sunday morning.

As I noted yesterday, the speed of the car is a critical issue, and the paper has run numerous articles trumpeting Sgrena’s allegations that the car was moving slowly. If they’re going to cut anything, this is the last thing they should cut – if they’re interested in the truth.

But it’s the first thing you’d cut if your objective is to make the United States look bad . . .