One reason I could never be a muslim is Islam's utter lack of a sense of irony:
Via Gateway Pundit, who has more about Indonesian muslims being all peaceful n stuff about Geert Wilders and Fitna.
One reason I could never be a muslim is Islam's utter lack of a sense of irony:
Via Gateway Pundit, who has more about Indonesian muslims being all peaceful n stuff about Geert Wilders and Fitna.
By Ken McCracken at 3/31/2008 07:07:00 PM
Via Hugh Hewitt we find at this adult-themed site as Hugh puts it, that Obama is on the verge of huge problems with another 'reverend' by the name of James Meeks, who is already well-known in Illinois as a state senator with a flair for outrageous statements, such as:
As with the 'Reverend' Wright, one has to wonder what Obama means by 'unity' and 'racial healing' when he forges close political ties with a bigot like Meeks. Either Obama is willing to put political gain ahead of his values, or Meeks views do not conflict with Obama's.
It is hard to think of any other explanation for this.
By Ken McCracken at 3/31/2008 05:50:00 PM
foreign policy advisor campaign co-chair Air Force General Merrill A. McPeak (retired) said this in a 2003 interview with the Oregonian:
The other reason I would have put it ahead is I don't think we have anything like a strategy for the Middle East. And what we're doing in Iraq ought to be a piece of a larger undertaking. And it has all the aspects of a kind of a slapdash pickup fight, you know, where - I mean you always call audibles in war, but we're drawing the plays on the ground in the huddle here. We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that.
So where's the problem? State? White House?
New York City. Miami. We have a large vote - vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.
Actually I was thinking of the larger lack of a Middle East strategy. Does that emanate out of the State Department or out of the White House, combination of both, is it a personality struggle, what's - what's going on?
I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. So that means we can't . . . you can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible.
Do you think . . . there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?
McPeak admits that Hamas and Hezbollah want to exterminate Israel, yet believes that Jews in New York and Miami are the ones foiling middle east peace.
Is it smart for Obama to keep this dunce around much longer?
P.S. McPeak is the guy who drubbed Hillary by saying that Obama "doesn't go on television and have crying fits; he isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60."
Don't say the guy doesn't speak his mind.
By Ken McCracken at 3/25/2008 12:34:00 PM
Stubborn Facts informs us that John McCain is doing stunningly well at the polls:
* 67% of Americans have a positive view of McCain and only 27% have a negative
* His positive/negative numbers are better than both Obama (62%/33%) and Clinton's (53%/44%).
* McCain's approval rating jumped 26 points from what it was last summer, and 11 points since he won the party's nomination.
* McCain has a 52% favorable rating from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, 13 points higher than Obama's favorable ratings among the GOP and right leaning independents.
* McCain has an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, which is better than Obama (79%) and Clinton's (80%) ratings among Democrats.
Indeed, the Gallup surveys show McCain whipping the Democrats as their fratricidal primaries drag on.
That old warrior McCain seems to have learned the lesson well that when your enemy is beating himself, get out of his way.
By Ken McCracken at 3/25/2008 11:03:00 AM
This is the kind of garbage analysis of race and elections that might lose the White House for the Dems:
When the controversy over Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright reached critical mass last week, it was the political equivalent of the green flag at a NASCAR race. The conservative strategists and talkers had been slowly circling the track, feet itchy on the accelerator, just waiting for the signal to floor it. But now, as The Politico reported in a story titled "GOP sees Rev. Wright as path to victory," the Republican strategists know exactly what must be done, starting with famed ad man Alex Castellanos:
"All the sudden you've got two dots, and two dots make a line," said Castellanos. "You start getting some sense of who he is, and it's not the Obama you thought. He's not the Tiger Woods of politics."
Got that? If you even hint that Obama is not as pure in thought and background as Tiger Woods, you are guilty of playing the Willie Horton card. The author of this piece, Paul Waldman, who is a 'senior fellow' at the execrable Media Matters then goes on to say this:
As Castellanos knows well, these kinds of attacks have their greatest power when they tap into pre-existing archetypes voters already carry with them, and the deeper they reside in our lizard brains the better. So they will make sure white Americans know that Obama is not Tiger Woods. He's not the unthreatening black man, he's the scary black man. He's Al Sharpton, he's Malcom X, he's Huey Newton. He'll throw grievance in your face, make you feel guilty, and who knows, maybe kill you and rape your wife.
For a guy who claims to be against 'hate' he sure has some hateful things to say about Republicans here. Of course none of it is true - where have conservatives been claiming that Obama is Malcolm X? The conservative critique of Obama over Wright is that Obama showed extremely poor judgment and taste in choosing this man as a pastor, and that Obama passively or tacitly agrees with Wright. I have not seen any conservatives arguing that Obama himself is another Wright or Malcom X. Waldman's perception and judgment on this matter is so skewed and warped, he can't even admit that it was the liberal MSM that opened up this can of worms for Obama, not the 'right-wing attack machine'. The American people right away saw for themselves what a fraud Obama is when he claims to be a racial healer while holding fast to his black racist preacher. Waldman needs to somehow blame white racism for all this, while refusing to recognize that it is black racism that is causing all of these problems for Obama.
Waldman comes up with a lot more silly liberal gibberish, basically amounting to "hey whitey, shut up, or we will tar you as a racist." And that is exactly what Waldman and Media Matters intend to do, because they are losing the argument here and losing it badly. They are desperate to somehow turn this Wright thing around. So they fling themselves into brainless liberal attack mode, which is to screech at anyone they disagree with in the hopes that their foe will slink away out of annoyance at the sheer noise of it all, and ultimately shame them into voting for Obama.
When are liberals ever going to learn that trying to scold someone into voting a certain way simply does not work?
By Ken McCracken at 3/25/2008 09:24:00 AM
This is a real man-bites-dog story. What is remarkable here is not that Hillary Clinton lied about something - William Safire didn't call her a 'congenital liar' for nothing - but that she actually admitted that she lied about facing hostile fire when landing at Tuzla during the Bosnian crisis. What is so stupidly ironic here is that Clinton lied about something that doesn't really bolster her credentials at all. If she really thinks facing phantom gunfire in a plane qualifies her to be president, then all she has done is bolster John McCain (who faced the real thing).
Once again we see that the Clintons are still reading from the old playbook in this YouTube day-and-age. Let's go to the CBS report that exposed Clinton's lie:
By Ken McCracken at 3/25/2008 05:23:00 AM
From the always reliable Truthout.org:
As Ohio election officials investigate illegal crossover voting in the 2008 primary, questions arise on Limbaugh's role.
As the board of election in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where Cleveland is located, launches an investigation into illegal crossover voting in the state's 2008 presidential primary, a big open question remains unanswered: Will county officials go after the ringleaders of apparently illegal electioneering where thousands of Republican voters swore - under penalty of law - allegiance to the Democratic Party in order to vote for Hillary Clinton?
In case you missed it, Rush Limbaugh, the nation's top-rated talk radio host, was urging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to skip their party's primary on March 4 and instead cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the fight between her and Barack Obama. And that Tuesday, as media in both states reported, thousands of Republicans did just what Limbaugh and others had suggested - they changed parties to vote for Clinton.
"I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura," Limbaugh told Laura Ingraham on Feb. 29, near the start of his Hillary crusade. "This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know."
Hey, Truthout . . . where's that secret Rove indictment we were promised?
The article mentions the prosecutions of ACORN volunteers who fabricated voter registration signatures, which is actual fraud. Ohio voters, the real ones that is, are entitled to switch parties or vote for whomever is on the ballot for any reason or no reason at all. "My dog told me to vote Democratic" is as legitimate a reason as "Limbaugh told me to vote Democratic".
Prosecuting political thought crimes in the critical battleground state of Ohio would be dumb, dumb politics. Funny, too, how the left is all over this, but Kos' similar electioneering in Michigan falls quietly by the wayside . . .
By Ken McCracken at 3/24/2008 12:04:00 PM
I hate to be flip about this topic, but I am addressing the way the press handles it more than the actual tragedy of losing our four thousandth brave volunteer in Iraq. I had to create a jpeg here to show in graphic detail how unimaginative and welded to their narrative the press is when it comes to Iraq. Mentioning the overused and tired phrase 'grim milestone' not once, but three times within the headline and first two grafs of the story?
Oops! When I created the jpeg I missed those fourth and fifth grim milestones up at the right under that video.
I'd say this is almost Onion-like as a self-parody of what our press has devolved into. Except it isn't the least bit funny.
By Ken McCracken at 3/24/2008 07:40:00 AM
As Jeremiah Wright's church website puts it, "the vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cones book, Black Power and Black Theology," wherein Cone stated:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
Just substitute the word 'white' for 'black', and you have a founding statement worthy of the Ku Klux Klan.
Update: Well how about this. Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, received a letter from Barack Obama senior's father in Kenya stating that he "didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman." Poor Barack, jr. had it thrown at him from all directions, didn't he.
By Ken McCracken at 3/19/2008 06:52:00 AM
Why does Obama so disrespect his white heritage by subjecting it to abuse by a person like Jeremiah Wright? This is what disappoints more than anything about Obama. Not because white heritage is some precious thing that needs protection, but because it reveals that Obama's paeans about racial harmony and unity were nothing more than a series of opportunistic lies.
This is also disappointing:
I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Is Obama saying that he must accept Jeremiah Wright because Wright is part and parcel with the black community? Well, the KKK is part of the white community I suppose . . . that doesn't mean I am going to run out and attend a cross burning. No one forced Obama to attend Wright's church; obviously the church had huge appeal to Obama. Unfortunately, that church is founded on black racism, and so one must conclude that black racism also appeals to Obama. Many are saying that Obama does not need to agree with everything his pastor says. Well it appears that nearly everything his pastor says is tainted with overt racism, crazy conspiracy theories, or glee over the catastrophes that hit America. It doesn't seem like Wright ever says much that isn't controversial. And there sat Obama for twenty years, lapping it all up.
It is hard to think of a speech that could undo the harm Wright has done to Obama's image. Whatever that speech could have been, the one delivered by Obama in Philadelphia yesterday morning wasn't it. It merely teased out more hypocrisies and raised more questions.
By Ken McCracken at 3/18/2008 11:48:00 PM
First it was Keith Olbermann, now it is Kos going hammer and tongs against Hillary and her supporters, as Hillary's diarists go on 'strike' over at DailyKos.
According to Kos, Hillary "cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care."
Now with Obama possibly imploding in Pennsylvania and the Democratic primaries dragging . . . on . . . endlessly . . . with a brokered convention knifefight looking more and more likely, one has to wonder how Karl Rove continues to work these miracles on behalf of the Republican Party.
Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard.
By Ken McCracken at 3/17/2008 10:19:00 PM
Only me and my copy of Photoshop Elements know for sure:
I didn't think Obama deciding not to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem or his decision not to wear a flag pin was a big deal. Hell, I don't do either of those things myself.
Hanging that Cuban flag with Che Guevara's puss on it in a local campaign office was tacky. I'm sure they know better now.
Michelle Obama's statement that Barack's candidacy was the first time she was 'very proud' of America was an arresting thing to say, but I thought maybe she misspoke. Context and all that, you know.
Knowing that Obama's pastor was a pal of Farrakhan was no big deal . . . all three of those guys are South Siders and well-known community activists. Eh, so what if the guy gets up in whitey's face sometimes.
And okay, so Obama had a fleeting acquaintance with one of the Weathermen. Who hasn't?
But . . . all of these things added together did raise questions. The Rev. Wright thing is pretty damn shocking though. I mean, I've never heard Farrakhan say stuff that inflammatory, let alone Jackson or Sharpton. Imagine if Obama wins. Will Wright have access to the White House when Obama is in a crisis and needs his 'mentor'?
Are we ready for a Black Panther Party in the White House ballroom?
By Ken McCracken at 3/14/2008 09:28:00 PM
Just breaking in the Chicago Tribune:
Indicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko was a more significant fundraiser for presidential candidate Barack Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known. Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought, the senator told the Tribune on Friday.
The article notes that Obama said that voters should see it as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." Obama is a lawyer and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, yet he failed to see the potential conflict of interest in having substantial dealings with one of his fundraisers who was already before a grand jury.
Was he naieve, or very well-versed in the 'Chicago way'?
By Ken McCracken at 3/14/2008 05:02:00 PM
It's coming. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination for president and you don't support him, you are racist. Period. Speaking the truth about Obama does not absolve you, truth is no defense. Just ask Geraldine Ferraro, who uttered the indisuptably true statement that Obama would not be where he is today if he were white. How do we know this is true? Just ask John Edwards, another lawyer who ran for office on marginal political experience and a left-wing platform.
How ironic that a political pioneer like Ferraro could be excoriated like this, by Democrats of all people. The Democratic Party is built upon racial identity groups, affirmative action, and special rights for special groups . . . but Ferraro had the nerve to point out maybe Obama's candidacy is not purely meritocratic! The Dems can't have it both ways, and they would have been more honest to say that what Obama represents counts for perhaps as much as what he has achieved. It is fair to do that; Obama does in fact represent a racial coming of age for America, and that shouldn't be downplayed. To say it has nothing to do with Obama's success thus far just stretches incredulity, however.
What Ferraro said was pretty tame stuff, yet now the word 'racist' is being affixed to her. Expect much more of this type of thing to follow if Obama is nominated. It won't come from Obama himself - he is too savvy for that, and he has plenty of minions to speak for him. But they will speak, and they will try to bully, shame and silence anyone who does not support Obama, and they will happily tar anyone with the brush of 'racism' whether that person deserves it or not. Many people, like Obama's mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, seem to think that racism is inherent in white DNA.
What people like this do is completely debase the term 'racist'. The knee-jerk charge of racism is rendering the word meaningless and trite. Here is a an example, an article in Slate by someone whom seems so upset that the term racist doesn't seem to stick that well, and asks "who does a guy have to lynch around here to get called a racist?" Quotas for racists. That's a new one right there.
So the next time someone calls you a racist, admit to it. They are going to call you a racist regardless of your response, so why fight it? Why submit to the bullying? Just shrug your shoulders and watch the magic of the word 'racist' just evaporate before their eyes. Chances are great that you are no more racist than the person hurling the charge at you in any event. Would you even trust someone who claimed they never had a racist thought in their whole life?More: Here is an odd quote from a Hillary supporter who has now shifted to Obama at least in part because of what Ferraro said:
When a kid, the sight of black people being mowed down with water hoses in Alabama made a Democrat out of me before I knew what a Democrat was.
Funny, considering that the guy who turned the hoses on the black people was a Democrat. This is like a German Jew saying that Kristallnacht turned them into a Nazi. Makes about as much sense.
By Ken McCracken at 3/14/2008 04:01:00 PM
Is this the type of 'unity' and 'bringing America together' that Barack Obama believes in? 'Cause Obama's minister sure sounds like an old-fashioned racial bigot to me.
By Ken McCracken at 3/13/2008 11:20:00 AM
Keith Olbermann nearly gets weepy as he considers Hillary Clinton's 'suicide pact' that is destroying the Democratic primaries. Keith seems a bit more reserved this time out, because instead of fighting the Third Reich armed with nothing but his coif and the ghost of Edward R. Murrow, this is his first ever 'special comment' targeting a Democrat.
Blue-on-blue is the richest, most savory schadenfreude there is my friends.
By Ken McCracken at 3/12/2008 11:52:00 PM
The scales fell from Mamet's eyes when he realized that humans are more self-interested than good, and that our capitalist Republic is designed to work with this reality better than any other arrangement:
I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this presidentwhom I, a good liberal, considered a monsterwere little different from those of a president whom I revered.
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporationsthey are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.
And he commits the ultimate apostasy here:
I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
By Ken McCracken at 3/12/2008 12:50:00 AM
Of course she is. If she doesn't make stuff up, it becomes painfully obvious that she has no more foreign policy experience than Obama does.
She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
Craig goes on to chronicle Hillary's many and various lies when it comes to her foreign experience:
Lie #1 - Hillary Clinton said, I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
Lie #2 - 'Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone.' Sinbad, of all people, has shown this is a lie.
Lie #3 - On Kosovo, Hillary Clinton said, I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.
Lie #4 - Hillary Clinton pressured President Clinton to intervene in the Rwandan genocide.
Lie #5 - Some speech she gave in Beijing in 1995 shows she has experience handling foreign crises.
Her real foreign policy experience? Serving tea to the wives of visiting dignitaries. Visiting refugee camps. Performing onstage with a guy who won 'Star Search'.
By Ken McCracken at 3/11/2008 08:57:00 PM
There should be a new rule added to all stylebooks: whenever a politican makes the news, their party affiliation should be the very first word of the story. As in, "Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York . . . " It would just be a consistent and fair way to do it.
But his stint as governor has been marred by several problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear Spitzer's main Republican nemesis.
See? They added a clue to the guessing game.
By Ken McCracken at 3/10/2008 08:01:00 PM
Barack Hussein Obama's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, resigned from Obama's campaign today for saying that Hillary is a decitful 'monster'. Whatever happened to truth being an absolute defense?
Now we find that, on that same UK book tour, Power also said that Obama "will, of course, not rely on some plan that hes crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator." Meaning that Obama will not necessarily stick to his firm timetable of all U.S. troops out of Iraq with 16 months of his inauguration.
Most odd, considering that Obama's economics advisor Austan Goolsbee not long ago told the Canadian government that Obama doesn't really mean all that anti-NAFTA-ness he has been touting lately, either.
Obama cannot afford to look as-light-as-helium on these issues. But now, when he makes a rookie mistake, his advisors can just say 'he didn't mean it!'
By Ken McCracken at 3/07/2008 04:26:00 PM
First of all, it is no longer just 'Hillary'. All references to presidential candidates will now include their middle names. Just to be fair to everyone.
HRC has stemmed the hemorraghing in the polls in Ohio, and may have climbed back into the margin-of-error in Texas. Mark Penn is naturally crediting the 3 a.m. phone call ad that seems to have made people question, rightly or wrongly, whether a noob named Barack HUSSEIN Obama should be the one to pick up the call. The photos of Obama in vaguely sort-of-Muslim-looking attire didn't help. We all know that the success of that ad isn't due to HRC actually having been tested handling disasters.
There is this thing called NAFTA-gate coming out that makes BHO look like some kind of inside-the-beltway panderer who changes his message depending upon what crowd he is performing miracles upon.
He seems to be a little two-faced when it comes to Israel, as well.
And of course there is that old-school Chicago corruption problem that isn't going away soon, either.
Not to mention, BHO just needs a new speech. Touting HOPE and CHANGE might still work on swooning teen girls, but even those who don't pay much attention to politics are now wondering what it will actually mean for the future.
I am so torn! Yeah, like Rush Limbaugh says, when you have a chance to show the cross to the vampire, you do it. I would love to see HRC finally get doused with Dorothy's bucket of water. But she is also so eminently beatable in the general election compared to BHO, and so whatever happens tomorrow it is a big win-win.
By Ken McCracken at 3/03/2008 08:18:00 PM
Is there any lower life form than a Marxist narco-terrorist?
How about the guys who bankroll them, such as Hugo Chavez. Colombia has proof that Chavez gave $300 million to FARC in the wake of the death of their caporegime Luis Edgar Devia Silva, aka Raul Reyes. Reyes was killed inside Ecuador last Saturday by Colombian forces, along with 20 other guerrillas.
Evidence found in computers seized showed that Ecuadoran President Correa "has a relationship and commitments with Farc", and that "other evidence in the computers suggests FARC purchased 50 kilograms of uranium this month." For peaceful research purposes, no doubt.
This has led to Chavez taking South America to the brink of war. War? It sounds like Chavez has been waging war against Colombia ever since FARC took him on as a stooge while planning his next coup against the government of Venezuela.
P.S. I wonder what Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are planning to do about this. Check that . . . I wonder if they even realize what a serious situation this is. If they are even aware of it, that is.
By Ken McCracken at 3/03/2008 06:57:00 PM
Can you blame them? Considering how horribly so many of the religious types have acted in Iraq, it seems many young Iraqis are developing a healthy skepticism of Islam.
These kids have seen what al-Qaeda means up close and personal, and naturally they reject it. Perhaps they now even see Islam as unreformable.
By Ken McCracken at 3/03/2008 05:22:00 PM
When I saw that Homeland Security had identified Mr. Ricin, I immediately thought to myself "I bet it's a middle-aged white guy!" See, ricin is just a little too esoteric for al-Qaeda, who only seem to believe in things that go boom. My pundit perspicacity was immediately rewarded when I saw that the alleged perpetrator was a 57-year-old guy named Roger Von Bergendorff. For real? That sounds like one of the antagonists from Die Hard. I didn't realize there were still junkers out there using 'von'.
By Ken McCracken at 3/01/2008 04:23:00 PM