it is all in the wealth distribution, and also in the purchasing power parity. So what if many millions earn US$2 a day there if $2 a day buys them all their food, houses them and gives them leisure time.
Then there are the millions of millionaires in china, and the wealth of the state.
That 'poor' country is buying up all Australia's resources.
I live in the resource-rich Northern Territory. All the mining companies up here have forward sold their ENTIRE PRODUCTION for up to 30 YEARS IN ADVANCE to china. Gas, copper, iron, tin, lead, zinc you name it they buy it. And they are most interested in uranium.
Is this the action of a poor country?
They have money to throw around.
At bondi beach in the 80s we used to be swamped by busloads of Japanese tourists.
Then in the 90s it changed: by the late 90s the Japanese had stopped comming and busloads of Chinese started appearing.
They have money to travel.
They infiltrated Australia with 1000 spies. It sounds like the plot of a b-grade movie yet it really happened, was in all the papers. We didn't act like we cared because we can't: we are a fly to their elephant.
They want to pillage the south pacific for resources to feed their massive economic boom.
They are infiltrating Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, (recently triggering riots against Chinese: the chinese airlifted nationals back to china for safety) sending fishing trawlers to poach fish using cheap indonesian labour to trespass in Australia's northern waters.
they are wanting to expand expand expand.
there will be a war before too long i fear and i think this trend to expansion is not being recognised by most people, maybe because they have not seen it at grassroots level the way regional people have.
In an election year already rife with controversy, theres another one brewing, but this one doesnt really involved political parties. Theres a new film titled Death of a President making the film festival rounds that cranks the controversy all the way to 11 (because its, like, one higher ). The film shows doctored footage of President George W. Bush being assassinated in 2007, thus making Vice President Dick Cheney President. (At this point for the Soros Muppets, it turns into a horror film.) The rest of the film deals with various issues arising from the assassination, such as the impact of a stronger Patriot Act, the stifling of civil liberties, and whether Cheney is actually a cyborg sent back in time to prevent Democrats from winning the White House.
Okay, so I made up that last one. Besides, everyone knows its really Howard Dean who is the aforementioned cyborg.
Although the film is a drama, it hits a sore spot with me because of the premise. Assassinating a President is a shocking event, even in todays society where we consider politicians only a step or two above used car dealers on the scumbag ladder. I dont care if it hurts the realism of a film, you dont show stuff like that, period. End of story. Thank you for playing. Here are some lovely parting gifts.
Im not saying the subject matter of an America after the Patriot Act is verboten, but I have to question why the director felt the need to show the assassination, doctored footage or no. The same points could be made with a fictional President and Vice President. Granted, the Soros Muppets already believe Bush is a fictional President, but you get the idea.
Another problem I have with the film is the use of doctored footage. The director filmed Bush and Cheney in Chicago and told the Secret Service that he was filming a documentary, a little white lie. Not even considering the ethical dilemma that arises from showing the assassination of a current President for dramatic effect, this alone raises other ethical issues. Is it justified to film a President under a false premise when you know the real reason is going to be controversial? Is it still a docudrama based on current events if some of the footage is doctored? Is it right to make money off the misery of others? Then again, if its good enough for Jerry Springer
Defenders of the film say that we shouldnt judge Death of a President until we actually see it or else we run the risk of unfairly judging it on partial information. Normally, this would be a valid point, but the hype surrounding the movie has given us an insight into the movie that wouldnt be there if it were not as well known. And lets not forget the title, Death of a President. Maybe its just my Spidey sense tingling here, but I think the title gives away the films subject, at least in part. If theres a film titled George W. Bush Is a Poopyhead, youre probably not going to see a balanced discussion on Bushs Presidency.
At the heart of this controversy is bound to be a discussion of free speech. Let me save us all a bunch of time here by pointing out the real issue isnt whether the filmmaker has a right to make Death of a President; he does. The real issue is one of decency. Im not referring to the televangelist version of decency, either. I mean the kind of decency human beings are born with. Just because you can say or do something does not give you automatic license to say or do it. Somehow, weve lost
that concept and have reverted to acting on impulse without regard to the consequences. Need I remind you thats how we got the Macarena?
Im sure there will be a number of people who will go see Death of a President based on buzz alone, but I wont be one of them. And neither will actor Kevin Costner, who offered the following commentary:
theres a certain thing we cant lose as human beings, which is empathy for maybe the hardest job in the world .Whether we think its being performed right or not we cant, like, wish or think thats even cute.
Mr. Costner, that one line alone makes up for Waterworld. At least theres still one decent man in Hollywood.
The New York Times says of the debate over detainee rights: It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.
Indeed. And the fact that the debate is taking place almost solely and exclusively among Republicans and conservatives says volumes about the cynicism and lack of courage on the part of Democrats in both houses of Congress.
Perfectly content with throwing rhetorical bombs on the issue of detainee rights for months, not offering any solutions but rather tossing exaggerated epithets at the President and Republicans, Congressional Democrats are cowering on the sidelines as the most important debate in the War on Terror unfolds on the Hill:
Continued on Page 49
A poster at Free Republic posted this letter he received from Senator Hillary Clinton respecting her views on the Bolton confirmation:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Presidents nomination of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.).
We need a U.N. Ambassador who can work well with other nations on reform efforts and who is committed to the U.N.s central mission of bringing countries together to address global and multilateral issues and challenges. I believe a reformed U.N. can serve our nations interests.
I am concerned by the Administrations refusal to turn over documents requested by the Senate during the confirmation process that are critical to a proper evaluation of the Bolton nomination. I will be following the debate over the nomination of John Bolton closely to see whether these concerns are addressed.
Again, thank you for writing. For updates on this and other issues being discussed by the United States Senate, please check my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .
Sincerely,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Maybe Bolton should conduct a search of the White House private quarters where Hillarys subpoenaed billing records turned up long after the date they were to have been surrendered.
All this serves to undermine the war effort, and for what? One election. This shouldn't be about politics, but many Democrats don't seem to recognize this is World War III. And if they don't agree, they don't have to take our word for it.
"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War," bin Laden said in a special message to Iraq back in December 2004. "It is raging in the land of the two rivers (Iraq). The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
Those who don't understand this and refuse to fight basically would hand the war on terror to our enemies. This is as inexcusable today as it would have been in World War II.
Would Americans of the Greatest Generation ask their politicians on D-Day, "What does this have to do with Pearl Harbor?" Of course not. Yet, today, that's precisely what the Democrats seem to be doing.
Having seen exactly the same intelligence as the Bush administration, Democrats in October 2002 voted to go to war against Saddam Hussein. It was the right decision then, and remains so today. But when the going got tough, and the far left of their party started screaming, the qualms got the better of them.
We don't know if the next Congress will be Democrat or Republican. But we do know that all other issues pale in comparison to the war on terror .
If the Democrats win in November which we doubt they'd better stop posturing and get serious about a war in which our very civilization is at stake. If they don't, they risk disaster something for which American voters may never forgive them.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrats - A Party Adrift On National Security and Sinking Fast
There - fixed that one for ya' too.
No need to thank me - I live to serve. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/15/2006 4:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So Pelosi, et al, think that bin Laden, al-Zawahri, etc. are wrong?
So why doesn't she talk to them, instead of trying to convince us that she's right?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/15/2006 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...something for which American voters may never forgive them.
By Harvey Mansfield FIVE YEARS have now passed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and what have our universities been doing? I can tell you about Harvard, and the answer is not reassuring. Harvard has just welcomed the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami to give a little talk. Harvard thinks this is free speech, but in fact the university has allowed itself to be used as a platform for sweet-talk in the service of a regime that hates, and wants to bamboozle, America. Note, too, that Harvard professor Stephen Walt and a Chicago professor have just written an exposé of the Israeli lobby's influence on American politics. They encourage the belief that Israel is the main problem we face.
Nor has Harvard relaxed its hostility to ROTC on the campus. The pretext is the military's policy discriminating against gays by requiring them to keep silent about being gay. Never mind what would happen to gays or defenders of gays if the Islamic fascists took over.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At universities, little learned from 9/11
There - fixed that for ya'.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/15/2006 4:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
How long before Harvey gets shouted down at Harvard?
Free speach is for me
but not for thee
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/15/2006 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Universities has long passed their mythological front of being being about 'intellect'. It's one big paper mill with trappings of self-importance. Tenue, with its publish or perish standards, has created just another civil service backwater in which the quality of its output doesn't measure up to the real market place. Relying upon a name brand is quickly losing its value when the product sucks.
Do store clerks and managers really need a degree or advanced degree in Humanities? After you did away with 2 year teachers colleges back in the 60s , did education really improve? People hawking slavery or monarchy would be laughed off the stage of life, but you still keep the marxists around after the 20th Century demonstarted they were as useless and destructive as any of those institutions.
Clean your own house or you'll have someone clean it for you.
ONLY the Pakistan army could have created the Waziristan mess. No other force had the ability to put together the extraordinary combination of arrogance and lack of judgment which went into its making.
Only the Pakistan army could have executed the extraordinary somersault which is the essence of the North Waziristan agreement: a virtual instrument of surrender effectively ceding Waziristan to the neo-Taliban. A civilian government would have had its ears cropped had it even suggested, far less attempted, anything of the kind.
Call this the higher gymnastics: first starting a needless fire, then rushing in with the fire engines when the flames prove more destructive than anyone had thought. Fire-lighting and firefighting rolled into one, versatility of which any army would be proud.
This agreement commits the army to a set of concrete measures: abandoning check-posts, releasing prisoners, returning seized weaponry and, something dear to the heart of every Pakhtoon, paying compensation.
Posted by: john ||
09/15/2006 06:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Pakistani Army's inability to conduct any semblence of successful warfare in Waziristan has got to be sobering to the big chiefs when they look to the east. Mushie's in a tight spot - he needs US (diplomatic) help with regard to India, but the US has pressured him to fight the Islamists in order to get it, and now he's proven he can't deliver politically OR militarily. Sad for him, but also for us, because he's the best Pakistan has to offer.
#2
Of course he blames it all on us. I would, just once, like for one of these people to explain exactly how we are supposed to "... quelling violence but giving birth to more of it."
We did not reply to countless terrorist atrocities with violence until after 9/11. Why did that violence occur? This is nothing but anti-American propaganda.
I have come relunctantly to the conclusion that our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong.
We should have picked from two choices:
1) annihilate the regime and all its supporters and wannabes. Tell those left to get it right this time and then leave. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
2) The WWII model, annihilate the regime and all its supporters. Then give them their new government system and run the damn place as a real occupying force.
#3
The real issue is that we do not understand the history and extreme tribal instincts of these areas. We did not apply a sledgehammer in any way in Iraq. We should have killed most inhabitants of Sunni strongholds outright. This would have precluded most of the ongoing violence. A strong example of extermination, say the entire populace of Fallugha, would have set an example that had real meaning in the Muzzie world, just as Assad did in his country. Brutal force has meaning to these people. We should demonstrate we are more than capable. Same with these Pak tribal areas. Believe me, we have many methods to reduce populations over wide areas. If this is the only effective means, so be it.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikiwho spent years in Iran during his exile from the Saddam Hussein regimemade his first official visit to Iran Tuesday, September 12, 2006 five years and a day after the cataclysmic jihad terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. Mr. al-Maliki was greeted warmly by Iranian President Ahmadinejad. The meeting reflected growing economic ties between Iraqs Shiite-led government and the Shiite theocracy of neighboring Iran.
Last month Baghdad finalized deals for Tehran to provide it with gasoline, kerosene and cooking fuel amid a shortage in Iraq. Immediately prior to al-Malikis visit, a separate Iraqi delegation discussed additional petroleum deals, including possible Iranian investment in Iraqs fuel sector.
Accompanied by mutual expressions of brotherhood, the two Shiite leadersal-Maliki and Ahmadinejadpledged continued cooperation. Ahmadinejad stated,
This trip will strengthen bilateral relations. Iran and Iraq, as two brotherly neighbors, will stand by each other and unwanted guests (U.S.-led coalition forces) will leave the region.
Al-Maliki characterized the talks as very constructive adding that Iran is a very important country, a good friend and brother.
I found the meeting between al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad surreal, and profoundly depressing, juxtaposed with President Bushs speech commemorating the fifth anniversary of 9/11/01, which ended only hours earlier (9:18 PM EDT), in Washington, DC.
The President told us (sans Muslim references),
Al Qaeda and other extremists from across the world have come to Iraq to stop the rise of a free society in the heart of the Middle East. They have joined the remnants of Saddams regime and other armed groups to foment sectarian violence and drive us out.
But only hours later, the clearly extremist Shiite Muslim President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Shiite brother, our ostensible ally Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, pledged their own mutual cooperation against (Sunni Muslim) Al-Qaeda, Ahmadinejad affirming,
All our assistance to the Iraqi people will be to establish complete security in this country [i.e., Iraq]
President Bush also warned,
If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraqs resources to fuel their extremist movement. We will not allow this to happen. America will stay in the fight. Iraq will be a free nation, and a strong ally in the war on terror.
But what if the Shiite Iraqi government willingly allies itself to the jihadist Shiite theocracy of Iran, an erstwhile nuclear power? Iran clearly has designs on Iraqs resources (for the moment contenting itself with trade), which could be used to advance its own hegemonic extremist movement. And President Bushs not allow rhetoric already rings hollow as these unsettling developmentshighlighted by al-Malikis Iranian visitare happening now, despite America staying in the fight. Moreover, if Iraq continues its seemingly inexorable progression towards a Sharia state [Islamic State by the will of the people, in popular Islamic parlance], it will be neither a free nation, nor a strong ally in the war on terror. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
09/15/2006 14:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Could be disturbing.
Might also be that the discussions will reduce the Iranian funding and interference. Maybe it'll play well to the local Shi'ites, not that I care about Mookie. Maybe it dimishes him?
In between are another host of possibilities.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/15/2006 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why is this surprising? The main reason Bush Pere didn't finish the job in GWI was because of the commonly held opinion that Saddam was the only one on the Iraqi scene with the ability to prevent the Shi'ite south from being swallowed by the mullahs.
In his televised Sept. 11 address, President Bush said that we must not "leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons." There's only one such current candidate: Iran.
The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: "It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force."
"Before" implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option...
#1
For the umpteenth time (+ 1): Launch a 100 or so TLAMS along with a handful of sorties of our strategic fixed wings, and wipe out Iran's gasoline terminals and refineries. Case closed on Iran.
#3
Gotta agree with you, 'mouse. Iran's overwhelming dependence upon imports of refined gasoline is their glass jaw. Choke that off and their entire economy, including a lot of the equipment needed to drive their nuclear program, all grinds to a halt.
My only dispute with what you suggest is that we must also target the mullahs as well. If we can nail a majority of them and, perhaps, some of the basij civilian control brigades, then the Iranian people might have a chance to retake their government. No matter what, the mullahs' private residences need to be blown off of the map as a message of just how fragile their position is.
#4
Read here in the Burg somewhat earlier in this day, or yesterday, how about a low level flying formation of B1's, B52's, F22's, B2's, F15,16 18's (sorry guys, I love the airplanes but don't always know the names).
Always slept through the end of the movie, but there is one, "Thousand Planes Raid."
Heh -- Can see it now. Cruising across this troubled area known as the Middle East, our pilots and her/his team in all branches, flying in tight formation, cruising low, showing off in spectacle form, their flying skills. I got to believe, our pilots would view this as "spring break." Just doing my thing.
Regardless of where I lived, if I heard this incredible noise coming from the sky, and looked up, to see formation after formation of planes moving across my sky, I just might have the same feelings I had on 911, until, I spotted those USA markings.
Our enemy believes in a show of force. Maybe we could just kinda do a demo for them.
#5
The hammer is tracking right on schedule...T-3 months (right after elections) and counting.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/15/2006 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Gotta put the hurt on Tater and tots in the interim
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/15/2006 2:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If the MMs don't come to the party soon, I'd rather see Bush do the kickoff with Iran than wait for whoever comes next, who would have to give them the necessary grace period in which they would put together a few nukes. Combining Iran and Iraq under one roof will take a lot more troops, but perhaps we could use Iraqis by then.
#13
It is very difficult to make nuclear weapons without electricity. Destroy the dams, power plants, tranmission lines, generators, etc and let the mullahs party like it is 632. Take out the petrol too and it will get very dark in the heart of darkness.
#14
Such a show of force would work for Westerners, Sherry; but not in the Muslim world, where they believe fully that we have the capability, and equally fully that we haven't the intestinal fortitude to ever actually use even a part of our full strength. The only thing that will actually pursuade them is if we actually turn whole cities to rubble, bounce it, and make them clean up the mess -- as a demonstration, I mean.
#15
Oh! I assumed Sherry meant with a sampling of the live ordnance delivered by each plane.
You know - MOAB's from the C-130's, iron bombs from the BUFF's, JDAM's from the B-1's and who-knows-what from the B-2's.
The fighters were to demonstrate the folly of sending their pathetic excuse for an air force up into the sky.
Did I get that wrong, Sherry?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/15/2006 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"The only thing that will actually pursuade them is if we actually turn whole cities to rubble, bounce it, and make them clean up the mess -- as a demonstration, I mean."
At this late date, that's probably what it would take-- at least. And that's if they can be persuaded at all. Just as likely, I fear, is that the Muslim world will push and push and push, harder and harder, without adequate response from us until finally they do something to us so heinous that we decide to terminate them en masse.
I don't want to do that. I really, really don't. But if that's the only thing that will work, then so be it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/15/2006 17:37 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Ya know I don't want to do that either but Sherry's scenario is attractive.
Really I'm thinking we need to insult them.
Tell them they really aren't even good enough for the new stuff.
F-15's, B-52's SAC-Era megatonnage.
Couple drops and the message that we might repeat as necessary.
Just as a demonstration, of course.
#18
"1000 Planes Raid" > iff memory is correct, zabout WW2 + Allied effort to intensify DAYLIGHT BOMBING over Europe - read, mostly American bombers andor Brits wid mostly American fighter protection. Geez, I thimk the last time Hollyweird showed this flick on TV [on Guam anyways] was in the mid-1970's.
#19
The problem is, though, is that the Muzzies are right. We have the capability but not the will.
Rantburgers have the will.
Prez Bush has the will.
But large numbers of people don't have the will and Europe doesn't have the will.
And the struggle of Prez Bush to lead is to try to get these people on board before we attack because if you attack without majority support you end up with the vietnam phenomenon of mass demonstrations.
A nation divided in opinion cannot succeed at war despite military superiority, and that's the weakness the Muzzies have played on for years.
THe only solution is to crank up the war propaganda machine. It is necessary in times of war. You have to get the civilians behind you.
We need to chuck out the multi culti rhetoric and get behind a unified banner, need to publicise the attrocities of our enemies and flatter our own troops.
It sounds bad but there it is: it was needed in World War I and II. Without the propaganda effort the people at home wouldn't have had the stomach for the sacrifices required to win.
That is where we are failing at the moment. ONce we win that the rest is a military piece of cake. The real threat looming on the horizon in terms of military conflict is China.
#20
The Islamofascists can't help it -- they will keep constructing incidents to terrorize us, and with each incident more and more people will realize what we here already do. Watch the American elections in November, anon1. *If* I'm right, the attempted highjackings out of England will have turned the tide here enough that even Dave D. will feel more slightly more comfortable about the future.
Amnesty International has introduced a comprehensive report accusing a terrorist group of war crimes.In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon, Amnesty International has announced that in its opinion, Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes. Hezbollah purposefully and indiscriminately targeted Israeli civilians.
The AI report notes that despite Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallahs subsequent protestations to the contrary, he stated publicly and repeatedly during the conflict that he was firing his missiles at civilian areas to make Israeli civilians pay for their armys actions, and with his uncontrolled Katyushas, an indiscriminate weapon, he killed 43 of them.He had advised Israeli Arabs to leave those areas.He had provoked the war with a cross border attack in which some Israeli soldiers were killed and others seized.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/15/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"But perhaps we can look forward to this kind of evenhandedness becoming a trend."
At least until Middle Eastern countries become the major AI donors.
#2
AI did not address the issue of an estimated 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed when Israel attacked Hezbollah fighting and command positions that had been established within populated villages, or the use of civilian vehicles, buildings and clothing by Hezbollah fighters, who also sometimes fought in Israeli uniforms.That is still the subject of investigation, and AI announced those issues, unlike the Hezbollah violations, are too complex for immediate comment.
Well, you'd better comment real fast if you want to retain obtain any credibility.
#3
Sombeody should tell those leftist bastards that hiding betwen civilians while shooting IS a war crime, the enemey is therefater freed from restrictions on firing to the zones you are hiding in, that YOU, not the enemy, are guilty from all victims caused by enemy's retaliation. That is Geneva not tying the hands of thegood guys with the bad ones free to kill them while hiding behind their civilains.
#4
In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon,
Ah, but their funding is not dependent upon people who take offense of waiting weeks to getting around to a 'balanced' denunciation. What? Uncle Soro's check late in the mail and you have to rely upon the 'old' donor list?
Deliberate destruction or "collateral damage"?
Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure
Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow. The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than "collateral damage" -- incidental damage to civilians or civilian property resulting from targeting military objectives.--
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A poster at Free Republic posted this 
FIVE YEARS have now passed since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and what have our universities been doing? I can tell you about Harvard, and the answer is not reassuring. Harvard has just welcomed the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami to give a little talk. Harvard thinks this is free speech, but in fact the university has allowed itself to be used as a platform for sweet-talk in the service of a regime that hates, and wants to bamboozle, America. Note, too, that Harvard professor Stephen Walt and a Chicago professor have just written an exposé of the Israeli lobby's influence on American politics. They encourage the belief that Israel is the main problem we face.
Amnesty International has introduced a comprehensive report accusing a terrorist group of war crimes.In utter defiance of the predominant American left, European and United Nations view that Israel engaged in gross war crimes against civilians and freedom fighters in Lebanon, Amnesty International has announced that in its opinion, Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes. Hezbollah purposefully and indiscriminately targeted Israeli civilians. 
