Chrome reaches second birthday, version 6 goes stable – I’ve been playing (again) with Chrome as my primary browser at home the past few weeks. Better and more stable performance than Firefox, but poorer tab handling and a more limited plugin ecosystem. Still pondering.
Not ready for primetime – Wow. And this is the chief executive of the state? (Notably, Brewer was required, by law, to participate in a single debate. I suspect she will duck any others.)
Brewer’s painfully long pauses – There’s having a brain fart, and then there’s … well, this ought to give Arizonan voters “pause.”
Rick Joyner Very Concerned that Obama Might Be a Treasonous Muslim – He’s a Muslim! Maybe! Except he acts like a Christian! Unless he’s lying! No, he’s definitely a Muslim! Probably! Except God told me he’s searching for Jesus! But until then he’s clearly a Muslim! Maybe! But if so, that would be really bad! (Jeez, do these folks ever listen to themselves and the crazytalk they engage in?)
Gingrich Wants Ground Zero Declared a National Battlefiled Memorial to Stop Park 51 – What makes Gingrich think that declaring Ground Zero a “National Battlefield” would affect the Park51 debate? Even if that magically made it possible to rule one way or the other about any new construction in the zone (yeah, that’s not a new bureaucratic nightmare for the entire WTC neighborhood), discriminating against the center would STILL fail any 1st Amendment test. And would it mean that the various strip clubs and OTB parlors in the area would somehow magically vanish, too?
Could We Still Put a Man on the Moon? : Mike the Mad Biologist – It’s not clear we could, for a variety of reasons. Certainly not without spending a lot of money — an amount that will continue to grow the more we shut down and mothball and discard and abandon what little space program we still have. “Maybe instead of worrying about Musselmen taking over the country and other ersatz notions of honor, the Tea Buggerers could worry about losing technological know-how. But that would cost money. Which is totally Hitler.”
Leaked German Military Report on Peak Oil [Casaubon’s Book] – Unfortunately, too many people are interested in short-term convenience and comfort, and short-term profit, to proactively change the huge role that petroleum plays in our economy.
Robin D. Laws – Protecting Your Hero – That’s a very interesting distinction (iconic vs. dramatic heroes), both literary and from a gaming perspective. And there are times when I’ve enjoyed both, but as Doyce notes, having conflicting expectations between Player and GM as to what a particular game is going to be like is a great recipe for frustration, at the very least.
Sentences to ponder – Yes and no. There can be big difference between various individual candidates within parties, esp. in executive, vs. legislative races. Even there, are Dennis Kucinich and Ben Nelson really indistinguishable? On the other hand, people tend to vote on party lines (at least by default), and personalized differences can serve to swing folks one way or another (or to donate more or less to the cause).
Or maybe not a dolt. Yeah, that’s still unkind. How about “… a dangerous lunatic”? A danger to others, certainly. A danger to logic and rhetoric, unquestionably. A danger to America, without a doubt.
Bryan Fischer - it's okay to be a holy warrior as long as you're not, y'know, a jihadist or something.
Take his appearance the other night on Anderson Cooper 360 (guest hosted by Sanjay Gupta). Fischer made it very clear that, no matter what moderate extremists like Sarah Palin might argue for cover, the goal in his eyes is not to stop the Cordoba House / Park51 project, but to stop all mosque construction in the US, period. He does so with fear-mongering, redefinition of terms, and rhetorical wingnuttery that would even have Beck and Limbaugh looking a bit embarrassed.
We’re joined now via Skype by Bryan Fischer; he’s the host of Focal Point on the American Family Radio Talk Network. . We should point out that he’s also issues director for the American Family Association. While he says his views are his own, not the association’s, the American Family Radio Network is, in fact, listed as a division of the AFA, just to get that all clear. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Fischer.
I.e., he works for them, he performs for them, they’re his main media outlet — but they try to maintain plausible deniability for his utterances. (Dude, when you have even the AFA backing away from you, you might want to reconsider.)
GUPTA: … I want to be clear on your viewpoint here because you’ve made quite a bit of waves lately. You don’t want any mosques built in the United States, is that correct? You want a moratorium?
FISCHER: I think the reality Dr. Gupta is, that when we look at Islam, we’re looking at a totalitarian ideology that is anti- Christian, anti-Semitic.
Oooh! It’s not a religion, it’s an ideology. (Religions are ideologies, too, of course, technically, if you want to actually look at the words, but we all know that the True Religion is something Very Different and Holy.)
Is Islam (a hard religion to apply a single label to, given its wide array of factions and lack of central authorities) totalitarian?
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
One could argue that, in an ideal Islamic world (according to some Muslims), yes, there would be one faith (Islam) and one God worshiped (Allah), and that Islam would control the government, the schools, the culture, etc.
It's okay, as long as it's OUR theocracy, right?
One could argue that, in an ideal Christian world (according to some Christians), yes, you’d have the same thing. Except the Christians (the Right-Thinking True Christians™) would be in charge.
So, yes, in that sense, Islam is “anti-Christian” and Christianity is “anti-Islam,” as both seek totalitarian dominion over the nation and the world.
Of course, most Christians would deny they’re part of some fiendish plot to rule everything — especially, they’d say, because Christianity is so diverse, lacks a central authority, is filled with theological divisions, and is a religion of love and peace. But that’s just what you’d expect them to say …
As to “anti-Semitic” … I’ll leave the very sorry records of both faiths to speak for themselves.
The values that are at the core of Islam are contrary to every single solitary western and American value.
So it’s okay if we have a totalitarian Christian nation, because that’s the Western and American thing to do, but we cannot abide a totalitarian Islamic nation.
Of course, a lot fewer folks are militating for the latter at the moment than the former, but let’s not quibble with (actually spoken) words.
Look, they even pray funny!
Speaking of which, what are the core values of Islam? Well, we have the Five Pillars, which are often used as a reference:
Monotheism and the Prophet
Daily Prayer
Charitable Giving
Fasting
Pilgrimages
No, nothing there that matches up with Christianity. What a bizarre, un-Western, un-American religion.
Granted, how Islam implements those points is different from Christianity — but, then, Catholic worship is pretty different from that of the Baptists (not to mention Mormons), and orthodox Judaism is even more different from all of the above.
Of course, to be fair, Right-Thinking True Christians™ have accused Catholics, Mormons, and Jews of un-Western, un-American thinking. Heck, back before we had a Bill of Rights, even Baptists and Quakers were persecuted for their unspeakable and anti-social beliefs.
I think communities ought to have the liberty to reject building permits.
Didn’t a Republican-led Congress unanimously pass a law in 2000 to keep local communities from imposing substantial burdens on churches that wanted to build or expand? Oh, right, they just expected that to apply to Christians.
Each one of these mosques is either a potential or actual recruitment center for Jihadism or training center for Jihadism.
Yes, I suppose that’s true. And every Catholic church is either a potential or actual recruitment center for IRA supporters. And every Baptist church is either a potential or actual recruitment center for abortion doctor assassins and bombers. And every Mormon temple is either a potential or actual recruitment center for Republicans.
Even if a mosque can be used for recruitment of Islamic terrorists (what Fischer most probably means by “Jihadism”), doesn’t it make more sense to know where that’s happening, rather than driving it all underground? Is it Fischer’s suggestion that, if only we don’t build mosques, we won’t have Muslims in this country? That works so well (and so righteously) in countries where Christian church construction is restricted or forbidden, right?
On the contrary, of course. And, in fact, this whole “we are at war with Islam” simply supports Al-Qa’eda’s narrative, and plans, and, yes, recruitment process. “They talk about freedom, but they hate us and want to destroy the One True Faith.” How does Fischer think most people would react to that sort of rhetoric?
FISCHER: … Well, the reality, Dr. Gupta, is that no one could claim First Amendment religious protections if their ideology and their activities are subversive.
For certain values of “subversive.”
All you’ve got do is ask the Christian militia, the Hutaree how much First Amendment protections they had when they set out to attack federal officers. They have Bible verses plastered all over their Web site. Everything they did, they did in the name of Jesus Christ. They are right now pondering the limits of the First Amendment from the inside of a jail cell, which is where they should be.
To love, honor, and conspire to blow away cops who are working for the Anti-Christ
Except that the Hutaree weren’t busted for their religious faith, but for explicit criminal actions they committed or were conspiring to commit. Their ideological basis for doing so was irrelevant (worrisome, but not a criminal act in and of itself).
Because that’s how we do things in this country.
Further, isn’t the extension of Fischer’s very argument that, given how we have an extremist Christian group we can point to (“Every Christian church is either a potential or actual recruitment center for violent Christian militias or training center for violent Christian militias”), that we should restrict all future Christian church construction?
Of course not. Because Christian extremists and militias and violent lunatics are the exception. Whereas Fischer knows that all Muslims are jihadists. The voices told him so.
GUPTA: You know, you have said — now, again, you’ve said some this before. Your evidence for saying that every mosque potentially here is dedicated to the overthrowing of the American government is a manifest, I believe, issued in 1991 by a group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, you quote some frightening passages from there about destroying Western civilization from within.
But, Bryan, you realize this group doesn’t speak for all Muslims; it doesn’t speak for all Muslims around the world. It doesn’t speak for all Muslims in the United States. It’s a radical political group, very controversial.
And while its history does involve some violence, they’re — they’re controversial even among Muslims. So, how can you — how can you use that one particular organization and say that they’re speaking for 1.2 billion people?
FISCHER: Well, Dr. Gupta, it’s nice of you to try to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood, but their tentacles include the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council for American-Islamic Relations — CAIR, and also the Muslim Association.
Ooooh … tentacles! How fiendishly Cthulhuesque!
The guilt by association here is, of course, the actual fiendish part. I’d be willing to bet you I could play “Seven Degrees of Separation” between the Hutaree and Bryan Fischer, too. Depending on who’s met with whom, who’s shared which podium, who’s radio show person X had gone on as well as person Y, it would be relatively trivial.
Regardless, the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are really no more (or less) scary than the Christian Dominionist movement, which (through folks like Janet Porter) arguably have “tentacles” in most American Christian groups. Does that justify oppression of Christians in Muslim nations? Or, for that matter, in the US?
So, you’re looking at four — five, really, if you include the Brotherhood — five of the most prominent and most visible Muslim organizations in North America. They are far from a fringe group; they represent the essence and the core of Islam. And it’s very clear that the goal of Islam in North America is the extermination of Western civilization. No community should have to put up with that.
If there’s one thing that “Western civilization” points out, it’s that suppression of radical ideology rarely works. The best way to avoid the “extermination of Western civilization” (though what that term means to Fischer is probably different from what I think of it) is to present a robust case for it. The point of our freedoms is that they are self-perpetuating — the free marketplace of ideas is its own best defense.
… Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war. It is a religion of violence. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of peace. It was founded by the Prince of Peace. That’s the major contrast between the two religions.
An angel leading the Crusaders to Jerusalem (Gustav Dore). But only for peaceful purposes.
How Fischer can make this statement with a straight face — looking at the history of war and violence in the “Christian West,” how many of those wars have been over Christian religious division, or been justified by Christian faith, or dedicated to the cause of the Prince of Peace — is beyond me. Whether it’s Crusades in the Middle Ages, or framing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as modern “crusades” — let alone the history of Europe, the Irish “Troubles,” etc. — Christianity has been a tool in the pocket of those who want to oppress others in a violent fashion.
Not to defend Islam here, I certainly don’t suggest that followers of Islam have been intrinsically more peaceful than those of Christianity. I’d simply say that neither faith has demonstrated a fundamental adherence to the ideals that its more enlightened modern adherents would like. Arguing which is “worse” or “less bad” is a mook’s game.
Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? as one radical once said.
Islam, in reality, is a political ideology. It’s a totalitarian political ideology. And you simply cannot hide a totalitarian political agenda behind the First Amendment.
How, fundamentally, is Islam any different from Christianity in this regard? Given the way Fischer and his cohorts are insistent on insinuating Christian religious dogma and doctrine into civil law, dabbling in politics, and trying to control the government … how, fundamentally, is it functionally discernible from Islam save for the serial numbers?
Sure, an Islamic-controlled nation would be a different place to live in from a Christian-controlled nation, in practice. In many ways, though, it would be the same.
And even, regardless of that, political ideology is also protected by the First Amendment (that’s the foundation of the Freedom of Speech, which is protective most strongly of political expression).
Imagine if Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Now, he wasn’t. He was an atheist. But imagine he was a part of a violent Christian sect, and he wanted to build a 13-story center, cultural center, for his Christian sect overlooking the grounds of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. … I don’t think anybody in America would put up with that, and they would be right not to.
Fischer hand-waves away McVeigh’s religious faith, or lack thereof, too quickly. It’s difficult to draw a coherent picture of his beliefs, but they don’t seem to fit a convenient atheistic mold. Raised Catholic, he spoke of “my God” at times, at other times of agnosticism, at other times of science, and at other times of a core “higher being.” (Notably, he resisted attempts by Ramzi Yousef to convert him to Islam in prison.)
That said, Fischer’s example here is simply poorly premised and structured (no great surprise). The Muslims behind the Cordoba House project are demonstrably not of the same Islamic sect as the 9/11 hijackers, and the project is not not planned to “overlook the grounds” of the former WTC. A far better analogy would be the setup, and then asking what if someone then wanted to build a Methodist church a few blocks away from the Murrah Building site.
Would the American public put up with that?
Fischer is adamant that we not tar Christians with the same extremist brush as Christian wackos (the Hutaree, the hypothetical McVeigh). But he glibly assumes that all Islam is monolithic, and that the murderers of 9/11 are fundamentally no different from any other Muslim, including the American Muslims supporting the project in question.
GUPTA: … Quickly, Mr. Fischer, a lot of Muslim-Americans watching tonight, some of them very upset by some of the comments you have made in the past, what do you say to them now?
FISCHER: Well, I say I love Muslims. I am pro-Muslim. I am anti-Islam.
Well, bless his heart. He’s pro-Muslim (i.e., people who follow Islam), but anti-Islam. He loves Muslims, just not the faith they dedicate their lives to.
I’m sure he hates the sin and loves the sinner, too. Unless they’re gay.
If the people behind Cordoba House were to say, “We love Christians. We are pro-Christian. We are anti-Christianity,” would Fischer call that hate speech and a justification for his position?
I would say to a Muslim, look, your ideology is destructive. It’s deceptive. It’s dark. I invite you to come into the light of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. That’s where hope and light, forgiveness and a promise for the future can truly be found.
The Inquisition is honing its waterboarding techniques already, ready to test those converts
If only they’d become good Christians, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
That’s the bottom line of Fisher’s position. It isn’t about religious freedom — it’s about Us vs. Them. It isn’t about Western Civilization, except insofar as he sees that as Christendom. The problem is not the particular people involved or anything they say, it’s that they aren’t Christians, and therefore ultimately have no rights, have no basis for being trusted, and should be assumed to be an enemy until they capitulate and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
It really is a holy war for him. Now, who’s the Jihadist, again?
* * *
I would be remiss if I didn’t note some other doltish comments later on the show. Like from Erick Erickson:
GUPTA: Erick, I read this — this column by you. You put President Obama’s speech supporting religious freedom in Lower Manhattan in the same category as someone supporting satanic worship, human sacrifice, and jihad. Do you stand by that?
ERICKSON: Yes. You know, I think a lot of people missed the point, other than people who picked up my point, which was, these are absurd results, but they are the results that come along with should Fred Phelps build a church where Matthew Shepard was killed or the Klan putting a center next to where Martin Luther King Jr. was killed? They’re absurd results.
Actually, while Erickson later tries to distinguish (like at least a few of his brethren) between whether there is a Constitutional right to do this, vs. whether it “should” be done, he again misses the point himself. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not Osama bin Ladin. The Cordoba Initiative is not al-Qa’eda. Erickson’s analogies would be more properly “should the Lutherans build a church (by coincidence) where Matthew Shepard was killed?” or “the GOP putting a party headquarters next to where Martin Luther King Jr. was killed”? Unless you are going to attribute guilt over Shepard’s death to all Christians, or blame all whites for the death of MLK, it’s simply not an issue.
And unless you are going to attribute guilt over 9/11 to all Muslims, and consider them all as the moral equivalent of practitioners of “satanic worship, human sacrifice, and jihad,” then it’s irrelevant.
Because Americans have a tradition of how to deal with an untrustworthy and threatening population, even if they are so-called "citizens"
And if you do, then you should be blocking all mosque constructions, a la Fischer (if not throwing them all in internment camps, right?). Except that Erickson’s quick to back away from that position with a hearty “some of my best friends” kind of line.
Why, by this way of thinking, it’s okay to build a mosque in New Jersey, or Tennessee, or California (there are no 9/11 victims there? nobody still traumatized”like a stab with a knife” by the event? Islam magically stops being satanic there?) and not in Manhattan is beyond me.
And beyond Bryan Fischer. Who at least is honest enough to take his arguments to their logical conclusion, even if they are full of doltitude.
*sigh*
I’m glad I didn’t start this post last night when I thought of it. I might never have gotten to bed.
This is not actually Sarah Palin, but it’s the kind of knee-jerk “guns and flags, you betcha!” self-aggrandizing sentiment I think she represents.
Or, if I ought not to be calling people names (which I ought not), the, “Sarah Palin says more doltish things than average.”
*sigh*
Current doltitude: chiding President Obama for daring, daring to stand up for (gasp) The Constitution. Oh, the humanity! He just “doesn’t get it!” The Doltish Right American People aren’t interested in the Constitution unless it has to do with guns! The rest of the time, it’s used by liberals to let illegals in and gays marry and uppity blacks get into the White House. Really! Somebody on the Internet said so!
Sarah Palin Monday night chided President Barack Obama for his support of the right to build the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York, saying the president “doesn’t get it.”
Yeah! Doesn’t he know that MUSLIMS ARE EEVIL? And the First Amendment is really about protecting Christians? He just doesn’t get it!
“It sounds cliched to say that the president is disconnected from the American people on this issue, …
It sounds cliched because the Right has been attacking Obama for being “disconnected” (and “aloof” and “snooty” and “Spock-like” and “un-American” and “Islamic” and a raving liberal and a traitor and a Kenyan and … well, and “disconnected”) since, oh, about 30 seconds after it looked like he was going to tie up the Democratic nomination.
“… but how else do you describe it,” the former Alaska GOP governor said on Fox News.
Um … he swore to uphold and and protect the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic and, by protecting the rights of some folks to build a house of worship (and swimming pool and library and meeting rooms) on property that’s properly zoned and owned by them, he’s doing just what he was hired for? That’s how I’d describe it.
“He just doesn’t get it, that this is an insensitive move on the part of those Muslims who want to build that mosque in this location….
Insensitive to the xenophobes and Islamiphobes on the Right, and the folks they can rile up by painting an image of a huge, leering, domed temple arching over Holy Ground Zero, perhaps.
… It feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.”
Really. A stab to the heart.
When, pray-tell, will it be okay for an Islamic cultural center to be built a few blocks away from Ground Zero? Next month? In a few years? Decades? After the last surviving family member has passed away? Alternately, where would be far enough away for Americans of the Muslim faith to build in order to not be all heart-stabby? Another block? Several more blocks? Off of Manhattan? Outside of the Eastern Seaboard? Anywhere on US soil?
Do the Americans who still have that “lingering pain” know what else is still in business, or has been built, in that area of New York City? Do they lie awake at night, feeling all stabbed, because there might be something or someone disrespectful of Holy Ground Zero somewhere in the neighborhood?
“Nobody argues that that freedom of religion that the Muslims have to build that mosque somewhere,” Palin told Greta Van Susteren.
I notice that folks who start sentences with “I fully support someone’s freedom to do something …” often end them with “… but they shouldn’t do it because I think it’s a bad idea.” Especially when it’s Sarah Palin.
I mean, actually, there are folks out there arguing that (if I can parse Sarah’s sentence into actual English) our constitutional right to freedom of religion actually doesn’t apply to Muslims. Really. They’re on the Internet and putting out press releases, right alongside their screeds about gays recruiting children and fluoride polluting our precious bodily fluids.
For the mosque to be “so adamant about this exact location just a block or two away from 9/11, again, is that knife, it feels like.
Again with the knife! Lucky she didn’t decide to say, “If feels like a gunshot to the gut” or “a bomb to the roadside” or something. That might have been really inflammatory.
And it’s not like the folks planning this center just had their choice of any location they wanted. Good and suitable property in lower Manhattan doesn’t grow on trees. “So adamant” in this case means they actually managed to buy the property and, in a flagrant abuse of our, y’know, system of private property and property-holders rights, and all those other things Sarah’s usually in favor of when it’s not EEEEVILLL MUSLIMS!!!! involved, decided that that’s where they were going to build their project.
Imagine, the nerve of buying property, filling out all the paperwork, having plans, and then daring, daring to actually build what you planned on building! The nerve!
“If the purpose of this mosque, as we are lead to believe, is to create this tolerant environment, to avoid anything like a 9/11 ever repeating, you have to ask why didn’t one of those 100 [existing] mosques already accomplish such a thing,” Palin said.
Gee, Sarah, let me think. If Christians really all are about spreading the message of love and peace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ, why have we had centuries of a Christian-dominated West with gazillions of Christian churches and with ostensibly Christian nations fighting each other, sometimes even using Christianity as their justification?
“So I don’t buy into that reason, that that’s the purpose of this location being chosen.”
Right. There must be some SECRET, ULTERIOR MOTIVE. Like they’re going to build the place, then they’re going to send a secret radio beacon back through Time in their basement that will help the 9/11 hijackers figure out where New York City is so they can carry out 9/11. The fiends!!
Y’know, I stand by my initial thought. Sarah’s a dolt.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Tough folks to please – “I feel ridiculous defending Graham from other Republicans, but the larger significance of this is important: the GOP base wants to create an environment in which Republican lawmakers should be afraid to even TALK to Democrats.”
Apple Launches Cloud Music Service in Uncharacteristic Fashion – Interesting. I suspect the labels will have a point here, but the idea of hosting my own music store on the cloud rather than on a single (well-backed-up) hard drive at my home is … attractive.
Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns – The Denver Post – Wow. Lunatic Fringe ‘R’ Us! I mean, really … the only objection raised here is that it’s a suggestion made by a group within (GASP!) the UN. Which obviously means it’s part of a world-wide socialist anti-American cabal out to pollute our precious bodily fluids! Yeesh.
New Start: the worst GOP obstruction yet | Michael Tomasky – “A semi-serious legislator, the kind trying to do the job he’s paid by taxpayers to do, would get in there and negotiate and get more money for upkeep or Star Wars or whatever, bearing in mind that US-Russia relations on a matter as grave as this should not be held hostage to electoral politics. Believe it or not, that’s how things actually used to work in this country. Not any more. And one party is far, far more to blame than the other. Disgraceful.”
“Freedom:” The Right of Religious Fundamentalists to Discriminate Against Everyone Else | RHRealityCheck.org – “People are allowed to believe whatever bigoted things they want about their fellow human beings. What they aren’t allowed to do is act in bigoted ways contrary to their profession and expect to keep their jobs, a much different thing.” Someone whose conscience does not allow them to serve all members of the public equally should find another line of work, not demand that society allow them to discriminate against their clientele.
What exactly does “at” mean in this context? It means, it turns out, a few blocks away, a minute or two to walk, a tenth of a mile … hardly some horrific evil religious tower, towering like a tower over the fallen towers!
This is not the proposed Cordoba Center
In fact, have you ever been in downtown Manhattan? Does a 13 story building actually tower over anything?
Here’s a map, to put it in context.
Thank goodness the Right isn't peeved at Verizon!
And, just to make things clear, we’re not talking about a mosque. We’re talking about a cultural center, an Islamic equivalent to the YMCA, with a gym and a pool and a library and (yes) a prayer room. And we’re talking about something being built blocks away — something that will be, itself, overshadowed by the buildings erected at the Ground Zero site.
The arguments against Cordoba House seem to boil down to:
People who conflate the terrorists of 9/11 with all Muslims are (now that their noses have been ground into it) upset that there are, in fact, Muslims in NYC, and that they want to build a cultural center.
Even though the folks involved have purchased the property, and have gone through all the appropriate permitting and work with neighborhood government, the sacred American principles of “private property,” “religious freedom,” and “local control” ought to be tossed out (at the instigation of groups that usually idolize private property, religious freedom, and local control).
It’s a great way to gather donations for the Right!
It’s that last one that bugs the holy hell out of me, because this controversy is really being ginned up, not so much by folks who are still nursing emotional wounds from 9/11, but by folks who see those victims as leverage for political gain and publicity and donations. The cynicism (and slipshod logic) of the opponents of the Cordoba Center is breathtaking, and aggravating.
Almost as aggravating as the argument that, well, Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow Christian churches to be built, so we shouldn’t allow an Islamic center to be built. Really? We should model our religious and civil freedoms on Saudi Arabia?
There’s one more catch for the opponents of the so-called Ground Zero mosque: by the same logical leap you can call the Cordoba Center a “mosque,” you can also call Ground Zero as it already exists a giant, open-air mosque. Muslim prayers are already taking place right on the edge of the construction site, and not for world domination. Families are going there to pray — for the souls of the dozens of innocent Muslim victims who died on September 11.
The National Republican Trust PAC (a/k/a GOPTrust) claims to speak for the real Republican party, the real America. They have set themselves up to needle the “official” GOP for being too wishy-washy, for not being trustworthy with their donations, for not being conservative enough. How do they describe themselves?
The National Republican Trust Political Action Committee (NRT PAC) was formed as an independent organization to help promote American values and support federal candidates for Congress, Senate and the Presidency who share those values.
The NRT is committed to continuing the legacy of Ronald Reagan. As such, the NRT PAC promotes a political vision that includes several core ideas:
Government is best when it is limited.
The free enterprise system and entrepreneurship are the cornerstones of America’s economic strength.
Taxes are a necessary evil and should be reduced.
Our national security protects our economic and political freedoms.
A strong national defense is the best way to avoid war and deter aggression.
The American civilization finds its foundation in strong moral and family values.
Supporters of NRT come from all walks of life. They share one common belief, that America has been a great nation because of her people and their enduring values.
Nice-sounding words. Placid. Conservative. Hardly incendiary. Some nice Reaganesque principles (even where they are not), but pretty harmless.
My immediate response is that I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a slickly produced, lovingly crafted, utterly disgusting piece of xenophobic, inflammatory, hate-filled tripe.
A mosque is about to be erected on the hallowed acreage of lower Manhattan’s Ground Zero. Where we Americans weep, they rejoice and intend to erect a shrine to the 9/11 terrorists they hail as martyrs. This offense cannot stand.
There’s so much bullshit in that paragraph, I don’t know even where to start. It’s got emotion-laded buzzwords up the yin-yang, all designed to incite hatred and fear.
The first and biggest point, of course, is that it’s riddled with inaccuracy, whether through blithering stupidity or cunning malice. It’s not a 13 story mosque, for one thing (though, if it were, so what?) It’s an Islamic cultural center — library, gymnasium (think of the “Y,” only with flowing Arabic script, I’d assume), and, yes, a mosque. We’re hardly talking about something akin to the Dome of the Rock here (though, again, even if so, so what?).
For another thing, of course, the folks building this are not the murderous yahoos you see juxtaposed in the film footage. This is not a statue to Osama bin Ladin, or the Al Qa’eda Madrassa for Islamic Extremism being put in. There is no shrine to terrorist martyrs. It’s like claiming the folks building the new Catholic Church down the street are all IRA terrorists, coming to America to plant bombs and blow up the police and make us part of Ireland.
One could point out that, for years, Christian conservatives in this country — some of whom I strongly suspect will be loudly huzzahing this commercial — were screaming for, pushing through, then basking in RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1990 to keep the Evil Gubbiment from interfering with religious freedoms, like using zoning laws and other chicanery to keep churches from being built or expanding. Of course, the law doesn’t spell out that it was meant for Good Honest American Christian Churches, not all those Other Sorts, but that certainly seems to be the inference one can draw when people are shouting for the Evil Gubbiment to stop the More Eviller Muslims from, well, building something that includes a church, on property that they own and that is properly zoned.
Wait, which was the Religion of Peace again? I lose track ...
Religious freedom, right? What we fight and die for, an American tradition that we celebrate in the Constitution of the United States, right? Obviously nothing that GOPTrust feels any allegiance to, unless it’s for, y’know, the Right religions. Not that one practiced by Swarthy Middle-Easterners. (No, the Other Swarthy Middle-Easterners.)
I can take it to even a more meta question here, which is who hell gets to choose or vote on what’s an appropriate use of a building in the Ground Zero area. An office? A bank? A toy shop? An apartment? A travel agency? A Starbucks? I can gin up reasons to be offended by practically any of those. Are we going to throw it all into a public referendum whenever anyone chooses to build (or become a tenant in) a building within X blocks of Ground Zero?
What about businesses that are (gasp) owned by Muslims — are they okay to be located within the Sacred Precincts of Ground Zero? How about Muslim employees working at the site? Yeah, sure, Muslims were among those workers killed at the WTC, but they were obviously all America-Hating Martyrs to Their Religion of Hate, right? Don’t want any of their sort showing up with their mocking ways and non-Christian beliefs.
So, clearly we need to cordon off the whole area — maybe all of lower Manhattan, just to be sacredly safe — and require anyone who wants to pass through that section of New York to munch on some bacon and recite the Lord’s Prayer by heart (depending on whether we’re just being Christianist or “just” Anti-Muslim), and keep so those Evil Muslims away from our Hallowed Ground (you know it’s hallowed because we got reminded in the commercial by of the I-beam cross someone erected in the rubble).
But, really, all those are intellectual propositions. Speaking from an overall, over-arching, gut-feeling standpoint, I just want to say that the National Republican Trust PAC (which is not tax-deductible to donate to, by the way) is a loathesome assemblage of fearmongers. Whether they are really as jingoistic, xenophobic, and hateful as they seem, or whether they are just willing to drum up that sort of sentiment among those who watch their little minute of tripe (and then, hopefully, send them money), I don’t know, nor am I sure I want to know.
What I do know is that they are, as I understand the word, Un-American. Rather than E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many, One,” their motto seems to be, “Out of Many, There’s Us vs. Them, So We Better Get Them Before They Get Us. Oh, and Send Us Money, Too.”
Loathesome. Yeah, that’s the right word. It’s like finding maggots in your refrigerator, or roaches in your bed. They’re not only repulsive in and of themselves, they dirty anything they touch.
And while they are not (we keep being reminded) officially affiliated with the GOP or Republican Party, that they choose to use those names, and that the Grand Old Party in question hasn’t spoken out against their message is, to me, quite telling. Whether out of fear or because they believe in it, the Repubican Party is tacitly supporting it.
The Party of Hate.
Kudos to NBC and CBS, at least, for rejecting this ad.
The Daily Show on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, trials in NYC, street justice, the many faces of Rudy Giuliani, and why the greatest thing to fear about a New York KSM trial isn’t the justice system or terrorism …
The collision of two jets (American Flight 11 and United Flight 175) into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 was certainly the most visually horrific (and horrifically visible) part of the attack that day. And it was the part that led to the most deaths, during and after the attack: people in the bulidings, standers-by, police, firefighters …
But …
At the Pentagon, 125 people were killed on the ground, along with 59 victims aboard American Flight 77 when it was crashed into the building.
In Pennsylvania, 40 passengers and crew on United Flight 93 were victims of terrorists as their plane crashed to the ground.
Those places, and those people, were part of the terror attacks that day. And they should not be forgotten.
In honor of the day, I will eschew from political blogging. This was a moment that united us in tragedy. Let us remember the dead, let us remember how we worked to help the living, let us remember the price of hatred and extremism, let us never forget, but let us never let fear rule our lives.
Still playing catch-up from the past few days. Here’s some non-election stuff. POLITICS North Texas house burns because local authorities… – Wow — to protect against some sort of vague threat…
Still playing catch-up from the past few days. Here’s some non-election stuff.
Rep. Jane Harman: Finally, Some Progress in Combating… – Rape and sexual assault of women in the military is more than just a heinous crime. This programs is taking the right tack, I think, by trying to reinforce the idea that it’s also unmanly and against the traditions of the service.
Lieberman Introduces Amendment To Recognize The ‘Strategic… – Lieberman’s only hope of not being moved into a broom closet for his office come January is that (a) McCain wins, and (b) he gets some sort of cabinet job. The man has not only burned all his bridges to the Democratic party, he’s pissed on the ashes and capered about laughing.
More Things That Matter More Than Lipstick – Why we need a strong federal government, and just the sort of regulatory spending that John McCain thinks is a waste of the taxpayers’ money. Not that he or his circle have to worry about working for a company that falsifies time records.
Government bureaucracy makes a donation impossible. – On the other hand, nobody would claim that government regulations always make sense. In this case, the answer is clear: charge $1 for the marble to fix the Tomb of the Unknowns so that the bureaucrats have something to put in their spreadsheets that doesn’t cause a #DIV0 error.
Why would any sane person put a Level 4 biodefense lab in Galveston? – Check and see whose district it’s in. Check and see who was the lead Congresscritter (House or Senate) that pushed for the location. See, that’s one of those there “Earmark” things that causes problems.
cbs4denver.com – CDOT To Raise Speed Limit On Part… – The stretch of I-225 from I-25 to Parker is straight, wide, and has minimal exits. Why it’s ever had a 55mph limit surpasseth understanding — though it’s certainly added to state revenue due to speeding tickets. Ah, well — it will make Margie’s commute a bit easier.
“Changeling” – First Trailer – FilmoFilia – Coolness. This is the big “breakthrough” screenwriting job for Joe Straczynski. Everything I see and hear makes it look like a winner.
The saint of 9/11 – How a Catholic priest who was lionized by so many after his death during 9-11 fell from grace after the Vatican became aware he was gay.
Voice deepening gas – My voice is already deep, but I don’t care — this sounds veyr cool.
The Latest on DVD Copying – This could be the sort of schema that both gives 99% of the public what it wants and keeps the production company suits happy — if they let it.
As BD puts it, “Nicely done.” It did give me pause to think about my own 9-11 thoughts. But I find what I remember and take from that day is…
As BD puts it, “Nicely done.”
It did give me pause to think about my own 9-11 thoughts. But I find what I remember and take from that day is not FEAR that the BAD GUYS ARE ALL COMING TO GET US!! AND OUR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, TOO! Yeah, there are bad guys out there, but … what 9-11 showed me is how we, as a nation, could be united in response to a tragedy — heck, how we could be united with the world.
9-11 should not be about us being afraid. It should be about us striving to do better. Yes, we need to defend ourselves — but we need to be doing so much more than that, if we’re to be true to our principles.
It’s one thing to never forget. It’s quite another to obsess.
Seven years ago today. Six. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. In honor of a day that brought us together in grief, support, and determination, I will eschew posting about…
In honor of a day that brought us together in grief, support, and determination, I will eschew posting about politics today. I may save it up for tomorrow, but for today …
Yes, it’s time once more for that feature here where I try desperately to catch up with all the browser tabs I’ve refused to close for the past few days…
Yes, it’s time once more for that feature here where I try desperately to catch up with all the browser tabs I’ve refused to close for the past few days until I can blog about them.
I was digging into my referrer logs today, just for giggles, and ran across some Usenet references. I followed them, and found this page on, of all things, alt.guitar.amps. It…
I was digging into my referrer logs today, just for giggles, and ran across some Usenet references. I followed them, and found this page on, of all things, alt.guitar.amps. It linked to this page of my blog, where I refute (shamefully, without citation) this quote attributed to George W. Bush:
George W. Bush did not say:
We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.
The quote is from Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, and sometimes this is mentioned (Woodward’s name giving it a certain cachet).
But Woodward never attributes this quote to Bush. Instead, he records it as being said by an unindentified CIA or Special Forces trooper at a 9/11 memorial they’ve built in the Afghan mountains during the first mission into Afghanistan.
After someone pointed to my page as a counter-proof, they were shouted down by someone else who pointed to all sorts of other Internet citations that claimed Bush did say it, so nyaaah (we are talking, of course, about Usenet …).
If someone’s citing me in an argument, I have a stake in things. So inquiring (and OCD) minds want to know the truth. And so, naturally, I turned to Google. The phrase is stillquotedbypeopletothisday as a Bush utterance, so the truth of the matter seems more than just an academic concern. If he said it (or if Woodward says he said it) then that’s useful information. If not, then let’s know that, too.
(All the bolding below is mine, just to show things up.)
The citations that this is a Bush quotation are numerous. That’s not surprising, since it would be a great zinger against him. In addition to the above, it shows up all over the place — but, suspiciously, rarely quoted at length, or in context, and often with the smell of “I read this quote there so I used it here” about them, or “I got this from Agnes, who got it from Jim, who got it from Louise, who got it from …”
In Bush at War Bob Woodward writes, “Most presidents have high hopes. Some have grandiose visions of what they will achieve, and he was firmly in that camp.”
“To answer these attacks and rid the world of evil,” says Bush. And again, “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great nation.” Grandiose visions. Woodward comments, “The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of Gods Master Plan.”
Bob Woodward’s deferent, perhaps even obeisant homage to “Dubya” in his recent book, Bush at War, contains this troubling observation: “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan.” This frightening perception followed the President’s declamation, “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.”
(Note that the quotes don’t quite match, which seems odd.) (Cook is in turn cited here.)
Someone mentions the “end of the book” as a location, but still attributes it to Bush:
Woodward ends his book with another quotation from the president, uncomfortably apposite: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation.”
It’s not just sources on the left, but a review of the book by Georgie Anne Geyer, in Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative, again says:
And Woodward ends the book with another quote from the president, in which he again reflects the obsessive chaos theory of the neoconservatives surrounding him like sentinels and for whom Iraq has become the sina quo non of political existence: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.” Whew.
Bush has rather unconvincingly denied that he holds the end times view that Christ’s return will be heralded by a cataclysm in the Middle East. But there are signs that he may hold this apocalyptical idea of world history and that he may be both seeking to avoid the biblical cataclysm and to “bring it on.” In his Jan. 10, 2007, speech he called the Iraq war part of the “decisive ideological struggle of our time” and described the absolute catastrophe he is sure would ensue from “failure” in the Iraq war. He has said repeatedly that he believes he is engaged in a mission to “rid the world of evil” and told Bob Woodward that he would willing to “export death and violence to the four corners of earth in defense of this great nation,” which to him is clearly a Christian nation.
That reference actually has a citation, a foreign policy paper by Stephen Zunes:
Even more disturbingly, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was “called” by God to run for president. Veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan,” wherein he promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.”
But Zune doesn’t give his source (though he’s in turn quoted here).
The “Bush” quote also shows up here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and a host of other angry op-ed pieces, blog screeds, and sig lines.
In the meantime, what of those who argue otherwise (or, rather, provide a different citation for the quote, one that doesn’t include George W. Bush)?
Woodward’s book opens on the morning of September 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. But rather than start this review with the events of that day and their consequences I will quote the very last few paragraphs of Bush at War and then wind back the clock to the events of that day.
Woodward says: “On February 5, 2002, about 25 men representing three different Special Forces units and three CIA paramilitary teams gathered outside Gardez, Afghanistan, in the east, about 40 miles from the Pakistani border.
“It was very cold, and they were bundled in camping or outdoor clothing. No one was in uniform. Many had beards. The men stood or kneeled on this desolate site in front of a helicopter. An American flag was standing in the background. There was a pile of rocks arranged as a tombstone over a buried piece of the demolished World Trade Centre. Someone snapped a picture of them.
“One of the men read a prayer. Then he said, ‘We consecrate this spot as an everlasting memorial to the brave Americans who died on September 11, so that all who would seek to do her harm will know that America will not stand by and watch terror prevail.
“‘We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defence of our great nation.'”
A similar quote from the end of the book is given here. Slightly more summarized, the Afghanistan scenario is echoed here (again, not at all by a Bush apologist):
Woodward tells of a religious prayer meeting on February 5, 2002, attended by 25 men — including three different Special Forces units and CIA paramilitary teams. After a prayer and the invocation of September 11, one of the attendees — speaking for the group — pledged, “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”
Similarly, the Socialist Worker Online, claiming the book is actually meant to support Bush, quotes it similarly:
The book closes with a description of U.S. Special Forces and CIA paramilitary troops in occupied Afghanistan dedicating a makeshift monument to the victims of the September 11 attacks. After reading a prayer, a U.S. operative “consecrates” the monument with these words: “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation.” These words remind readers of what’s really going on in Bush at War.
And this article by G. Pascal Zachary — again, critical of the book — notes:
Oddly, the strongest parts of “Bush at War” take place on the ground in Afghanistan. Woodward intersperses his account of Washington meetings with the exploits of the first CIA team sent into Taliban territory. The team, codenamed Jawbreaker, is shown handing out cash to Afghan warlords. Woodward remains uncritical of these CIA agents, and of the Pentagon Special Forces units who later join them. He ends the book with a strange image of a group of them creating a 9/11 memorial in the Afghan mountains. One of the Americans vows, “We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation.”
Other Afghanistan citations can be found here, here, here,
Interestingly, the question of which source is correct is played out at Axis of Logic, where someone questions the quote and cites the Afghanistan locale. The site owner says the person who’d attributed it directly to Bush had, in turn, gotten it from several other “mainstream” sources, about as well-researched as the above blubs (in fact, including several of them), and so stuck by it.
Wikiquote, though, agrees in refuting the Bush sourcing of the quote, as does the late, lamented SpinSanity.
And what of the book itself? I don’t have a copy, but the contents are scanned by Amazon. Go here, and search for “four corners” and the “Back Matter” of the book. There it is, page 352, smack-dab in Afghanistan, Dubya present, if at all, only in spirit. (And if I’d gone there first, I might well have written a far shorter post.)
Even without the book, though, my judgment would be with the Afghanistan citation. It has full, contextual quotes from the book, it’s supported by more believable people, and it lacks the subtle variations in text (“defense of this great country” or “defense of our great country,” or “this great nation,” etc.) that make the others less credible.
And … what’s, then, the point of this way-too-much-Googling? Just this: the truth matters. When we fail to dig out the truth, or research it when there’s a question, or simply take the easy road of repeating what we’ve heard, we do the truth no service. Indeed, one of the great criticisms of George W. Bush has been his truthfulness, or lack thereof; using misquotations and half-truths to attack him does the cause no favors. Use his own words to hang him, if you will, not words you wish he’d used, or think he would have used if he’d thought of them.
I do understand the sentiment, mind you. There’s a lot of anger, and angst, and disgust, and discomfort with George W. Bush and his various actions, domestically and internationally. Finding him saying he’s going to “export death and violence to the four corners of the earth” (especially if you truncate the “defense” and “rid evil” parts) is a money quote that’s hard to resist, even when it’s refuted (and especially when everyone else is using it).
But, y’know, there’s tons of “I cannot believe Dubya said that” material out there. Why keep holding onto something we’re pretty sure he didn’t say when there’s so much other ammo lying on the ground? If you think Bush is a force for deceit and trickery in this country and the world, don’t use the devil’s own tools. Keep the moral high ground.
Don’t be about the truthiness, but be about the truth. In the long run, it prevails.
Though written after the 9/11 attacks, a quick review of the various partisans, pundits, and attention seekers after the Virginia Tech shootings shows that it’s still, sadly, relevant. Why the Bombings…
Though written after the 9/11 attacks, a quick review of the various partisans, pundits, and attention seekers after the Virginia Tech shootings shows that it’s still, sadly, relevant.
Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics
Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.
Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.
Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.
Of course the World Trade Center attacks are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.
It seems pretty likely that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a nice person, and has done some pretty nasty things. But if, after years in a CIA detention center, and…
It seems pretty likely that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a nice person, and has done some pretty nasty things. But if, after years in a CIA detention center, and then time in Gitmo, he’s now reportedly confessing to having been behind 9/11, various other attacks, and the beheading of Daniel Pearl … how much credence should we give that confession?
The alternatives:
He really did it.
He was involved in some fashion, and he’s trying to make a name for himself by confessing to it (I mean, it’s not like he’s going to be set free any time soon, so he has very little to lose and much to gain.) Either he was close enough to things to give a credible story, or else he knows enough to seem credible to intelligence and political groups who really want to show that they’ve caught a Big Bad Guy.
As #2, but he’s martyr-like covering from others.
After being subjected to various interrogation/coersion techniques (insert your own euphemism), known and unknown, he’s willing to confess to anything he’s asked about (and, as noted, various folks have plenty of incentive to either believe him or pretend they do).
Case #1 is the best, of course. But there’s no way to be sure. #2-3 are certainly possible, given the political pressure (within the intelligence community and in national politics) to catch a Big Bad Guy.
It’s #4 that’s the most troubling, and, of course, is the direct effect of the Administration’s tolerance and/or encouragement of coersive techniques that quite a number of people claim are torture. A lot of people defend torture using the “ticking nuclear bomb” scenario, but that’s not what’s applying here. Torture is possibly effective if you are trying to gather information you could not get otherwise, especially in a timed circumstance. “Where is the bomb planted?” Given that the main
weakness of torture is that, if effective, the subjects will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, true or not, getting verifiable data in a vacuum is a case where it can actually work. “The bomb is under the bridge!” You can go and confirm that.
But when it comes to “Did you do X?” where there’s no way to specifically verify the info given, torture is far less useful (we’ll set aside the moral dimension for the moment, as that’s a separate and more complex issue). If I say, “Yes, I planned the bombing,” am I telling you that because I did, or because I think you want to hear that and that if I say it you’ll take me off the waterboard? Sure, there can be confirming data — but info gathered under torture can’t make the confirming data any
more certain. At some point, it comes down to the believability or credibility of the subject, and under torture, nobody’s statements are credible.
So did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed actually do the things he’s now claimed to have confessed to? Who knows? But the believability of the information has been cast into doubt based on known cases of coersion, and in many quarters, domestic and international, it will be treated with as much credibility as the “confessions” of people from old Soviet gulags.
And that is the real shame of the Administration’s policies — even if they have the truth, nobody can be sure of it, and more and more people are willing to automatically doubt it.
See what happens when an F4 is launched against a concrete wall, as part of a test to see what would happen if an aircraft was used against a nuclear…
See what happens when an F4 is launched against a concrete wall, as part of a test to see what would happen if an aircraft was used against a nuclear facility. Gives a bit of a new spin to the questions about the jet liner that crashed into the Pentagon …
