Well, not power, but insanity and murderousness.

I wrote previously of a courageous woman. Here is the video, in Arabic, with English subtitles.

And while I’m no big fan of Al Jazeera, props to them for showing it to the Arab world. I wonder why they did? Are they realizing that the jig is up?

And I think that if the Administration were smart, they’d provide SS protection to her.

Barbara Stock writes about a very courageous Arab woman:

Within Islam, there is no greater sin than to question the teachings of Islam or Mohammed, and to do so is considered heresy and blasphemy and is punishable by death. Dr. Sultan is now a marked woman and no one is more aware of this than she. She now receives daily death threats but takes them all in stride. She is a woman at peace with her decision to speak out.

As she put forth one accusation after another, the two Islamic scholars had no answers. Their only response was that they didn

A clarification on today’s festivities in Samarra:

I’ve received several emails this morning from people wondering why we’ve launched a “massive bombing campaign” in Iraq. And they’re saying, “won’t that kill a lot of innocent civilians?” But they are confused by the term, “air assault.”

An “air assault” is actually a helicopter-borne infantry assault. In this case, large numbers of helicopters are ferrying airborne-infantry soldiers to enemy targets.

The army of analysts has started to work on the captured Iraqi documents.

This document is a letter written by a member of Saddam Intelligence apparatus (Al Mukabarat) on 9/15/2001 (shortly after 9/11/2001) where he addressed it to someone higher up and he wrote about a conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani Consul. In the conversation the Afghani Consul spoke of a relationship between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11/2001, and that the United States was aware of such a relationship and that there is a potential of US strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan if the destructive operations in the US (most probably he is referring to 9/11 attacks) were proven to be connected to Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban.

I don’t understand why the administration hasn’t been working harder to get these documents analyzed and public. Also, this treasure trove just makes the actions of the government in firing Arab language experts for being gay look all the more stupid. We need all the translators that we can get right now. And what’s even dumber is that, with everything else they have to worry about, the White House continues this nonsense.

President Bush’s updated language says security clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.”

If sexual behavior is “strictly private, consensual and discreet,” that could lessen security concerns, according to the regulations that came as part of an update to clearance guidelines distributed in December.

This makes no sense. There are no intrinsic security concerns associated with someone’s sexual orientation. Security concerns arise only in the context of the potential for blackmail. If someone is openly gay, there is no security concern. Sexual behavior that is “private and discreet” is in fact the behavior of someone in the closet, which would be a security concern. I don’t often agree with the likes of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, but I’d sure like to see a better explanation than this.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

So says Max Boot. He makes a good case, though I doubt that Mr. Clooney will be thrilled.

That’s today. And we all know what that means, right? Up against the wall, Amerikkkan imperialists.

Errrrr…except that the original press release is no longer there. And when one does a site search for “storm in White House” a number of links appear, but nothing about actually restoring American democracy on March 15th by overthrowing the elected government and replacing it with Amnesty International.

Maybe they decided it wasn’t all that great an idea after all. Or they’ve just postponed the event until the national rage can build up a little more.

Sigh. I had so been looking forward to the show.

Tony Blankley writes about institutions in denial:

The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)

The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world — very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.

A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.

What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted “youth”? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women — who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?

The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch’s brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.

Mssr. Chirac may be starting to figure out who the real enemy is:

In the Middle East, France and America are working intimately on Lebanon. They are pointing a collective finger at Syria and forcing U.N. resolutions demanding that it stop trying to control its neighbor. Chirac was a close friend of the murdered Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, who kept a good chunk of his $6 billion fortune in France. Furious Hizbullah leaders in Beirut, supported by Damascus, denounce the French president as a poodle of Washington. Even more significant is the new joint front on Iran. Chirac has led Europe’s condemnations of Tehran’s threats against Israel and has been instrumental in referring its nuclear challenge to the Security Council.

Little of this is reflected in the French press, which cleaves to its diet of America-bashing pur et dur. But Chirac understands that posturing over Iraq has not protected France from Islamofascism. Militant Islamist preachers are active among the nation’s 5 million Muslim citizens, many of whom willingly believe that all their problems will get better if they follow Sharia and reject French secularism. Chirac also reacted swiftly when a French Jew was recently tortured to death after being kidnapped by a thuggish gang who believed that, because he was Jewish, his family by definition was rich enough to pay a massive ransom. This vestige of the very worst anti-Semitism shocked France and may serve to wake up intellectuals blinded to the excesses of radical Islamists by their own anti-Americanism.