From the (Vermont) Burlington Free Press:

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan cancels Vermont visit

July 28, 2006

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan has canceled her visit to Vermont because she plans a trip to Jordan for peace talks there, organizers announced today.

Sheehan was to have attended a rally Sunday at Montpelier’s Unitarian Church.

The rally will still be held, with Vermont organizers planning to address renewed efforts to end the war in Iraq and pursue impeachment of the Bush administration.

The event is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. and is free and public.

It’s sort of like Ike saying he would go to Korea. Only different.

Of course Eisenhower was saying what he would do if he were elected President. Mother Sheehan, being a private citizen would be (like John Kerry before her) breaking the law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 45 > Sec. 953.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

But as we all know, if you hate America enough you never have to worry about its petty laws.

The following is a translation of a newly posted Iraqi document done by an unofficial translator. The document, posted in Arabic, is from a Department Of Defense program.

In the document an Iraqi opposition source working in Syria reports on the movement of Iraqi trucks to Syria before the start of the US invasion of Iraq. It is his understanding that the trucks contained proscribed weapons of mass destruction.

The translation is dated July 13 — probably 2003. But the original document is dated March 14th, 2003. (Moharram 10th is the tenth day of the Muslim New Year, which in 2003 began on March 4th.) The International Coalition Forces attacked Iraq on March 20, 2003.

Enlarge

Enlarge

Here is one page from the pdf file showing the original document in Arabic:

Enlarge

I’m sure our one party media will have a field day investigating this development.

(Just kidding of course.)

  Update!

It turns out that the translation of this document was actually done by the heroically tenacious JVeritas of Free Republic. (And I had even perused the thread he posted about it. I thought it looked familiar.)

More of JVeritas’ excellent work can be found here.

The longest Mahatma Gandhi ever fasted was for 21 days, in a hunger strike for Hindu-Muslim unity in September 1924.

On July 4th, Cindy Sheehan began a proclaimed two month fast. She announced to the press that she would "drink only water" throughout the summer.

(Mother Sheehan has subsequently admitted to partaking of "smoothies" of fruit juice and protein powder.)

The following photos of Cindy Sheehan were taken while she was on days 21 and 22 of her "hunger strike."

Compare and contrast:

Surely it must be the righteousness of her cause that keeps her so in the pink.

From the Washington Times:

Hezbollah leader said to be hiding in Iranian Embassy

By Bill Gertz

July 28, 2006

Intelligence reports indicate the leader of Hezbollah is hiding in a foreign mission in Beirut, possibly the Iranian Embassy, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

Israeli military and intelligence forces are continuing to hunt for Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, who fled his headquarters in Beirut shortly before Israeli jets bombed the building last week.

"We think he is in an embassy," said one U.S. official with access to the intelligence reports, while Israeli intelligence speculates Sheik Nasrallah is hiding in the Iranian Embassy.

If confirmed, the reports could lead to an Israeli air strike on the embassy, possibly leading to a widening of the conflict, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Foreign embassies are sovereign territory and an attack on an embassy could be considered an act of war.

But other reports from the region indicate Sheik Nasrallah may be in Damascus. A Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Seyassah, reported from the Syrian capital yesterday that Sheik Nasrallah was seen moving through the city with Syrian guards in an intelligence agency car, Associated Press reported. He was dressed in civilian clothes, not his normal clerical robe.

The newspaper quoted Syrian government sources as saying Iranian national security council official Ali Larijani was in Damascus and was to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad and Sheik Nasrallah.

Hezbollah officials in Beirut said they did not know whether Sheik Nasrallah had gone to Damascus.

Asked about the reports of Sheik Nasrallah in Syria, a U.S. official said they are unconfirmed, but noted that because of the proximity, it is easy to travel between Lebanon and Damascus.

U.S. officials confirmed the existence of intelligence reports about Sheik Nasrallah hiding in a Beirut embassy after Israel’s Ma’ariv newspaper reported Wednesday that the Hezbollah leader was thought to be in the Iranian Embassy. The newspaper, quoting intelligence officials, said Sheik Nasrallah has set up an operations center in an embassy basement that is coordinating Hezbollah attacks.

However, the U.S. officials said the intelligence reports have not confirmed Sheik Nasrallah’s precise location.

Iran’s embassy in Beirut is located in the Shi’ite stronghold known as the Bir Hasan section, in the western part of the city.

The embassy also is a major base for Iranian intelligence and is used by large numbers of Ministry of Intelligence and Security agents, as well as by senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s shock troops that are linked to international terrorist activities.

President Bush said yesterday that Iran is linked to the problems in Lebanon. "Hezbollah attacked Israel. I know Hezbollah is connected to Iran," Mr. Bush told reporters after meeting Romanian President Traian Basescu. "Now is the time for the world to confront this danger." Mr. Bush said the root cause of the violence is "terrorist groups trying to stop the advance of democracies."

Israel has dispatched both military special operations units and intelligence personnel in an effort to kill the Hezbollah leader, who has continued to issue statements since the two-week-old war began, said the U.S. officials. In a Wednesday television broadcast, Sheik Nasrallah threatened more attacks throughout Israel.

On July 14, Israeli jets bombed the Hezbollah headquarters, also located in Bir Hasan, starting a campaign of "decapitation" strikes designed to eliminate the group’s leaders, weaken the organization and limit its military effectiveness.

Iran’s government has called for a cease-fire.

A Middle East diplomat confirmed that Israel is seeking out Sheik Nasrallah and that the Iranian Embassy appears mostly evacuated. However, the diplomat stated: "Wherever he is, he is a legitimate target," similar to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "He’s responsible for organizing attacks and killing Israelis," the diplomat said.

In Tehran, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman denied that the embassy in Beirut was sheltering Sheik Nasrallah and dismissed reports of his presence there as Israeli government "disinformation."

Hezbollah forces in the past were known for specializing in coordinated suicide bombings. The group, however, has shown a different military effectiveness in the recent fighting with Israel through its coordinated attacks with small bands of guerrillas.

The Shi’ite terrorist group was behind the 1983 suicide truck bombings that killed 241 U.S. troops and 58 French paratroopers who were deployed to Lebanon as peacekeepers.

I guess hiding behind the UN wasn’t as safe as he thought, so he tried an embassy.

If true, this is a very serious development. As Bill Gertz says, it could widen the war.

From a site seemingly ironically named BeliefNet:

Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals

The conservative pundit explains why liberals are ‘godless’ and why she considers herself a good Christian.

Interview with Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, a constitutional lawyer turned conservative pundit, makes her living saying outrageous things about what she deems the outrages of the left. She is the author of five best-selling liberal-bashing books, including her latest, ” Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” in which she argues that liberalism is a form of atheistic religion. Beliefnet editor Charlotte Allen recently interviewed Coulter via email.

You title your book “Godless.” Are all liberals atheists?

No, but it increases the odds.

What portion of liberals would you say are religious in the more conventional sense of the word: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, even Wiccans?

Hmmm, so you consider Wiccans “religious… in the conventional sense”? That would definitely get liberals’ numbers up! I’d have no way of knowing, but make no mistake: Liberals are everywhere, in every religion, denomination and spiritual practice–especially Wiccans!

We’ve done some polls here at Beliefnet, and a surprising number of Democrats at least say they are religious. Some 61 percent say they pray daily and 72 percent attend worship services once a month or more. How would you explain that?

Just curious: What percentage of them know which Testament the Book of Job is in?

When you say that most liberals don’t believe in God, what is your evidence? According to a Fox News poll last year, 92 percent of Americans believe in God. And nearly half of Americans voted Democratic in the 2004 election. So doesn’t that suggest that most liberals do believe in God?

First let me say that I think it’s terrific to hear a journalist citing a Fox News poll as authoritative evidence and would like to encourage this development. I don’t say “most liberals don’t believe in God”; I say liberalism is a godless religion. Some liberals don’t understand the underlying religious dogma and principles of liberalism–if they did, they would flee the building.

You write: “Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.” Yet our Beliefnet polls show that 58.7% of Democrats believe in life after death. Doesn’t that disprove your statement?

No, I think it proves it–58.7% of all Democrats? That’s pathetic. Also, you forgot to ask them the follow-up question: Is that because you hope to come back as a snail darter?

Will most liberals go to hell or heaven?

I really can’t improve on Jesus’ words: “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.”

You cite opposition to the death penalty as a key tenet of the Church of Liberalism. Yet Pope John Paul II stated that the death penalty should be rarely, if ever, applied: only “in cases of absolute necessity.” How do you square this with your assertion that “adoration of violent criminals” is the main factor behind opposition to the death penalty?

I agree with the pope. I also believe that it is an “absolute necessity” to execute cold-blooded murderers, rapists, and child molesters. As your own question indicates, opposition to the death penalty is not a “key tenet” of even Catholicism. That would be a difficult position to maintain inasmuch as God himself commanded the Israelites to go to certain cities and kill every living thing. If memory serves, the pope was also opposed to abortion. Liberals are not. How would you explain opposition to the death penalty for heinous murderers, but not for innocent children?

Do you think it is persuasive to trudge out long-dead horses such as Willie Horton (1988) or Piltdown Man (1912) and flog them one more time? Does anyone, even on the left, seriously regard Willie Horton as a “martyr,” as you call him? Tookie Williams, maybe, but Willie Horton? Does he really rate a chapter of his own?

The word you’re searching for is “dredge,” not “trudge.” No: I included a pointless chapter just to take up space. Yes, of course it’s important. The Willie Horton chapter illustrates how a religion untethered to the Creator exhibits all the bad aspects of religion–myth-making, self-righteousness, and preachiness–in defense of remorseless killers, while casually sentencing the unborn to death.

You say that the Episcopal Church is “barely even a church.” Why?

Because it’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video.

Are churches that don’t agree with your politics or religious beliefs not really churches?

Correct: They’re called “mosques.”

Actually, the answer to that question is contained in what those in the publishing industry refer to as the “title” of my book, which is: “Godless: The CHURCH of Liberalism.”

In a footnote, you say: “Throughout this book I often refer to Christian and Christianity…but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” Isn’t it odd to define “Christians” as including people who are Jewish?

Yes, that would be very odd, but I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m not defining Christians as Jews or Jews as Christians or zebras as elephants. I’m informing the reader that when I use the term “Christian,” I am using it to include anyone who believes in the God of Abraham because it got a little wordy to keep saying “Christians, Jews and anyone else who believes in the God of Abraham” throughout the book. I don’t know how that could be any clearer. If everyone who believed in the God of Abraham were a Christian, I wouldn’t have needed the footnote.

And don’t many people whom you would classify as belonging to the Church of Liberalism define themselves as Christian or Jewish? Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Michael Lerner of Tikkun claim to be applying authentic Christian and Jewish theology to political and social questions. Are such people not really Christians or Jews?

Yes, the percentage of liberals who define themselves as practicing Christians or Jews goes up in direct proportion to their proximity to elective office.

I cannot speak to individual cases–only God knows who is truly following Him–but claiming to be Jewish or Christian doesn’t immunize one from bad ideologies. Some slaveholders claimed to be Christians, too. Howard Dean, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry all belong to a church that believes it’s okay to stick a fork in a baby’s head. To the extent one is practicing liberalism, one is not practicing the religion of our Father.

Is it possible to be a good Christian and sincerely believe, as Jim Wallis does, that a bigger welfare state and higher taxes to fund it is the best way in a complex modern society for us to fulfill our Gospel obligation to help the poor?

It’s possible, but not likely. Confiscatory taxation enforced by threat of imprisonment is “stealing,” a practice strongly frowned upon by our Creator. If all Christians and Jews tithed their income as the Bible commands, every poor person would be cared for, every naked person clothed and every hungry person fed. Read Marvin Olasky’s ” The Tragedy Of American Compassion ” for further discussion of this.

You devote four of your eleven chapters to evolution, and say that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.” So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he “cause” evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?

These are unanswerable questions–except the latter. God did not “cause” evolution because evolution doesn’t exist. Thus, for example, He also didn’t “cause” unicorns. My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I’m not particularly interested in the details. I’ll find out when I meet my Maker.

Can there be such a thing as “intelligent design” without a divine designer?

Yes–you should read my book! As I describe in my book, Cambridge astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as well as Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, didn’t believe in God, but realized Darwin’s theory was a crock. In order to explain the vast evidence of intelligence throughout the physical world while excluding God, they concocted theories about intelligence being transported from outer space to earth on comets or spaceships. Of course, some might say that begs the question: Who’s the intelligent designer in outer space? Karl Lagerfeld?

Many arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution strike me as actually being arguments against the existence of God–that is, why would a creator create tapeworms, disease viruses, and other bad things? Why do you think such things exist in a world of intelligent design?

Your question is incomprehensible. I assume you are trying to ask me: “Why would God create tapeworms?”

My answer is: God also created mosquitoes, which I hate. But purple martins love mosquitoes and would probably all starve without them. It’s kind of a “big picture” thing. Of course that doesn’t explain why He created Michael Moore. For that, I have no explanation. My guess is that disease, pestilence, and Michael Moore are all perversions of the good that God created, a result of sin entering the world through Adam and Eve.

While I agree with you that the “Jersey Girls” turned themselves into political opportunists, one of your statements about them does strike me as over the top: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” By contrast, you admit the genuine nature of Cindy Sheehan’s grief, even though you’re pretty hard on her–and you haven’t been criticized for what you said about her. Is there anything you’ve said about the 9/11 widows that you wish you hadn’t said?

Well as long as you bring it up, I think Cindy Sheehan is enjoying the celebrity status her son’s death afforded her too. Thanks for pointing that out–I’ll correct it in the paperback edition.

You make fun of journalists who predicted that AIDS would become a heterosexual threat: “It’s been twenty years, and we’re still waiting for that heterosexual outbreak.” While it’s true that here in the U.S., AIDS is an overwhelmingly gay disease (about 80 percent), that’s not so true worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 40 percent, perhaps up to 48 percent, of those with HIV are women, according to U.N. figures. What do you make of that?

Same lie, different continent–with the same evil consequence: Millions of lives being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. (Could we get back to Fox News polls and dispense with U.N. studies?) AIDS is overwhelmingly spread by anal intercourse and dirty needles. In the U.S., dirty needles come mostly from junkies; in Africa, dirty needles come from medical workers. See, e.g.:

• Craig Timberg, How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated, Washington Post
• Michael Fumento, Why Is HIV So Prevalent in Africa
• Michael Fumento, The African Heterosexual AIDS Myth

By the way, those journalists I make fun of were talking about AIDS in the U.S. So the above information is merely for your edification.

You say: “The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind.” But in February the National Association of Evangelicals, including such signers as Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, etc., issued a statement urging Christian stewardship of the environment, “creation care,” and so forth. Are these people godless liberals who hate mankind?

Of course not–but I’m beginning to suspect you are. As Dobson and Colson say: God asks us to be good stewards–a statement that presupposes we are stewards of the plants and the animals, they are not stewards of us, as liberals prefer. We are commanded to worship the Creator of the environment, not the environment. As Jesus said, we are of “more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:21).

You say you’re a Christian. Do you think Jesus would want you to be nicer to your political opponents?

Who knows? Maybe He’ll say I was too tough or maybe He’ll chastise me for not being tough enough on those who hate Him. Ask the money-changers in the temple how “nice” Jesus was. Maybe He’ll say I needed more jokes or fewer adjectives. I’ll just apologize for not getting it right and thank him for dying for my sins.

If the Church of Liberalism lets you do anything you want, why do you think the divorce rate is higher in red states than in the godless blue states?

Assuming that’s true, probably because marriage is more popular in the red states than in the blue states and because of all the blue-staters living in the red states.

Is it important to you as a woman to be standing up for positions that many people (especially liberals) think are unrepresentative of women: opposing abortion, favoring the death penalty, and so forth?

The answer to any question beginning “Is it important to you as a woman” is: No. It’s important to me as a Christian and an American to take the positions I take, but I would hold the same positions if I were a man. And by the way, despite your nearly mystical fascination with polls in earlier questions, you have apparently not brushed up on the abortion polls if you think opposition to abortion is “unrepresentative of women.” No matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked, women almost always oppose abortion more than men do. Abortion is a convenience for men who want to be able to have sex with women without consequence. Women love and protect children. Godless men–like Herod in Jesus’ time, the Pharaoh in Moses’ time, and Bill Clinton in our time–target babies for destruction.

As a woman, do you long for that source of great fulfillment for many women: a husband, a family? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily in the public arena?

As a journalist, do you long to have a sense of decorum? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily asking strangers utterly inappropriate personal questions?

I found your book enormously entertaining. But when I finished, I asked myself: What was the point of this book? What would you say the point of “Godless” is?

It is a clarion call, a flashing neon sign warning people that liberalism is the opposition party to God. (And by the way, I had the same reaction the first time I read the Bible: Sure, it’s fascinating and wise and full of important information, but what was the point of it exactly?)

What does it mean to be a good Christian, and do you consider yourself to be a good Christian?

To believe with all your heart at every moment that God loved a wretch like you so much that he sent his only son to die for your sins. Most of the time, I’m an extraordinarily good Christian.

Do you attend church frequently? Do you pray, and whom and what do you pray for?

Yes and yes. I pretend to attend a giant church in New York City, where I pray for the souls of people who claim I’ve never been there. I pray for mercy and divine protection from God’s enemies. When I’m in a jaunty mood, I pray for Him to smite liberals.

What’s your favorite Bible verse, if you have one (besides “By their fruits you shall know them”)?

I don’t have a favorite, they’re all pretty good. Among some I like are:

So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 26-28)

Read more verses

Do you have a favorite prayer?

Yes, as our Creator taught us: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…” and so on.

The softer side of Ann Coulter.

From the Jerusalem Post:

A student supporter of Hamas speaks on her mobile phone during elections for the student council at the al-Quds university in Jenin.

New IDF tactic: The phone call

It was a phone call Ibrahim Mahmoud says he’ll never forget.

The woman on the other end, speaking in Hebrew-accented Arabic, accused the appliance store owner of being a member of Hamas and informed him the IDF would bomb his house. Hours later, after he had already moved 20 relatives out of the four-story building, she called back to tell him she had made a mistake.

"Be safe," she said and hung up, according to Mahmoud.

Dozens of other Palestinians have recently received similar phone calls, many of them on target, in a new tactic the army said is meant to reduce civilian casualties in its monthlong offensive in Gaza. Palestinian officials dismissed the army’s claim that the phone calls are meant to reduce deaths.

The military is also dropping leaflets from aircraft, warning people to stay away from terrorists. The army has also taken over Hamas radio frequencies for short periods of time for the same purpose.

Israel launched its offensive after a Hamas-linked group killed two soldiers and captured a third in a cross-border raid on June 25. Since then, more than 120 Palestinians have been killed. On Wednesday, Palestinians suffered their highest one-day casualty toll when the army killed 23 people, among then 16 terrorists as well as a mother and her two small daughters.

The army has said it regrets the civilian casualties, but accuses terrorists of operating from residential areas.

So this week, about 1,000 residents in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis answered their phones and listened to a recorded message by the IDF warning them against harboring operatives or hiding weapons.

Government officials said some of the calls reached hospitals and government offices.

The Palestinian phone company said the numbers were apparently picked at random. The army said the calls are to specific homes or areas, but refused to say how it picked the numbers.

Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad dismissed the army’s claim that the phone calls were meant to reduce casualties, calling them a "criminal act" meant to drive people out of their homes, paralyze the government, and "demoralize" the population.

Othman Shbeir, a Palestinian security officer from Khan Younis whose terrorist brother was killed in an airstrike recently, initially dismissed as a joke the telephoned warning he had received, until neighbors told him that a nearby house of an Islamic Jihad activist had been bombed the same night.

Days later, his three-story house is empty.

"It is better if they just bring the house down," he said. "We are living in terror and no one can come near the house."

I wonder if they have a "do not call" registry in Lebanon?

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Hezbollah was using UN post as ‘shield’

Canadian wrote of militia’s presence, ‘necessity’ of bombing

Joel Kom, with files from Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post — which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces — was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics.

"What I can tell you is this," he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

Those words, particularly the last sentence, are not-so-veiled language indicating Israeli strikes were aimed at Hezbollah targets near the post, said Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie.

"What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces)," he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It’s a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he’s seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the "Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base."

"It appears that the lion’s share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area," he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.

The e-mail appears to contradict the UN’s claim there had been no Hezbollah activity in the vicinity of the strike.

The question of Hezbollah’s infiltration of the area is significant because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, speaking Tuesday just hours after the bombing, accused the Israelis of the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the base near Khiam in southern Lebanon.

A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener’s e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.

"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don’t know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."

Even if Hezbollah was not firing rockets at the time of the bombing, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener’s e-mail indicates they were using a terrorist tactic of purposely drawing out enemy forces near a neutral site, said retired Capt. Peter Forsberg, who did two UN tours between 1993 and 1995 during the Bosnian war.

The UN’s limited mandate, meaning that its observers are unarmed and have few options, put the observers in a poor position, he said.

If indeed Israel was attempting to hit Hezbollah fighters in the area, it hasn’t yet used the excuse to explain its actions because it wouldn’t make it any less guilty in the world’s eyes, Capt. Forsberg said.

Several people have sent me variations on this story as it was developing. But this is the first article that I’ve seen that puts it into a more coherent report.

And if it is true (and it probably is), it is hardly surprising. But no less damning.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Sheehan buys plot in Crawford with son’s insurance money

By JACK DOUGLAS JR.

Thu, Jul. 27, 2006

CRAWFORD — As President Bush prepares to spend some vacation time at his ranch here, not all is peaceful within the peace movement that has doggedly criticized his war policies for the past year.

The Gold Star Families for Peace says on its Web site that its members will again flock to Crawford in August to protest Bush’s wartime decisions. Leader Cindy Sheehan is again demanding to meet with the president — a replay of a year ago — garnering worldwide attention and making Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier, the most familiar face of anti-war protesters.

But Sheehan and Mark Mattlage, owner of the 1-acre property where protesters have been allowed to gather, have had a falling out over scheduling and increased costs for liability insurance.

So, Sheehan has purchased a 5-acre plot in Crawford, saying she did so with some of the insurance money she received after her son, Casey Sheehan, was killed in Iraq.

"We decided to buy property in Crawford to use until George’s resignation or impeachment, which we all hope is soon for the sake of the world," Sheehan said in a newsletter, scheduled to be sent to her supporters today. "I can’t think of a better way to use Casey’s insurance money than for peace, and I am sure that Casey approves."

Now an official resident of Crawford, like Bush, Sheehan predicted in the newsletter that she and her supporters will "enjoy a cordial relationship with everyone."

The anti-war gathering in this tiny town, 20 miles west of Waco, is scheduled for Aug. 16 through Sept. 2. But there is a question about whether protesters will ever get within shouting distance of the president since he is scheduled to be at his ranch mainly during the first two weeks of August, before the protests get under way.

In an e-mail to the Star-Telegram, Sheehan called Mattlage’s family "heroic" for "their contribution to the peace movement." Referring to the property used last year, she added: "We left them with a better property and one with amazing positive and peaceful energy."

Mattlage, who no longer lives near Crawford, said he is a registered Democrat but has not opposed Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. He said he did not lend his land to the protesters for political reasons. Instead, Mattlage said, he was worried that someone would get hurt if anti-war advocates continued to assemble just off Prairie Chapel Road, leading up to the president’s ranch.

"We’re kind of peacemakers. We didn’t want to see anybody get run over on that road … and we knew nobody else would offer" land, Mattlage said.

He said he did not charge for the use of the land but did require the protest group to reimburse him for the cost of liability insurance, initially amounting to between $700 and $800. For subsequent gatherings, including Thanksgiving and then Easter, Crawford Peace House paid to put in electrical and water lines.

Mattlage said he had no idea so many Sheehan supporters would gather on his property, and he acknowledged some of what the protesters said about Bush and the U.S. in the war made him cringe.

"I did not want a Jane Fonda incident," he said, referring to the actress’s 1972 visit to a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft camp that earned her the famous nickname "Hanoi Jane."

Despite some misgivings, the business relationship between Sheehan and Mattlage was friendly and, at times, jokingly flirtatious, according to an exchange of e-mails between the two, provided to the Star-Telegram by Mattlage.

The relationship began to sour somewhat, he said, when he recently learned on the group’s Web site that protesters planned to return to Crawford in August. He said he did not agree to let them use the land at that time because it coincided with his family’s plans to hunt doves. He said he also did not want Sheehan to use his property when Bush was at his ranch. "I just didn’t want his vacation to be interrupted. It was out of respect for the president," Mattlage said.

He said he eventually agreed to let Gold Star Families for Peace use his land in August but only with the understanding that, because of the expected huge crowds, liability insurance costs were going to increase significantly to between $5,500 and $6,000. Mattlage said that, on the advice of his lawyer, he also told the protest group to sign a "hold harmless" agreement that would further free him of liability if something went wrong.

In a newsletter e-mailed to Mattlage and protest organizers on June 23, Sheehan told Mattlage, "I cannot in good faith accept the terms that you and your lawyers are holding us hostage with. … I fear we will have to find alternatives to using your land … "

Mattlage, in a phone interview, said Sheehan had initially agreed to pay the higher insurance costs. It made him mad, he said, when she later sent an e-mail to organizers suggesting he was holding her "hostage."

Mattlage sent his one-time friend an e-mail back that said, "You can go away now."

And Sheehan replied: "Okay. Bye."

And yet she refused to buy her son a headstone.

And why are so many of these people such liars?

Mattlage, who no longer lives near Crawford, said he is a registered Democrat but has not opposed Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. He said he did not lend his land to the protesters for political reasons. Instead, Mattlage said, he was worried that someone would get hurt if anti-war advocates continued to assemble just off Prairie Chapel Road, leading up to the president’s ranch.

"We’re kind of peacemakers. We didn’t want to see anybody get run over on that road … and we knew nobody else would offer" land, Mattlage said.

Here’s what Mattlage said last August, when he allowed Cindy and her merry band to use his property:

Crawford resident Fred Mattlage — described as an Army veteran who sympathizes with the demonstrators — this week invited Sheehan and her supporters to set up their anti-war, anti-Bush shop on his property, located about a mile from Bush’s ranch.

"I just think people should have a right to protest without being harassed," Mattlage told The Associated Press Tuesday night. "And I’m against the war. I don’t think it’s a war we need to be in."

You’d think the local reporters would remember him, since the media did numerous articles about him. They even claimed (probably falsely) that Mattlage was a cousin of the gentleman who fired a shot in the air to try scare the protesters off his property.

But our one party media never brings up anything facts that conflict with their agenda.

From the DNC’s Associated Press:

Al-Zawahri calls for Muslims to rise up

By WILLA THAYER, Associated Press Writer

Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements."

"It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims for more than seven centuries until they were driven from power in 1492.

He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. "My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit … and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies … make yourselves martyrs."

He also called for the "downtrodden" throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against "tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America."

"Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran)," al-Zawahri said.

Kamal Habib, a former member of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad militant group who was jailed from 1981 to 1991 along with al-Zawahri, said the al-Qaida No. 2′s outreach to Shiites and non-Muslims was unprecedented and reflected a major change in tactics.

"This is a transformation in the vision of al-Qaida and its struggle with the United States. It is now trying to unite Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and calling for non-Muslims to join the fight," he said.

Al-Zawahri wore a gray robe and white turban in the video. A picture of the burning World Trade Center was on the wall behind him along with photos of two other militants. One appeared to be a bearded Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks. The other was Mohammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs al-Masri, a former top lieutenant of bin Laden who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan in November 2001.

The Arab satellite station did not transmit the entire tape, using instead selected quotes interspersed with commentary from an anchor.

An Al-Jazeera official speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters said the full tape was about eight minutes long. The satellite channel aired only about half the message. It would not say how it received the tape.

"The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon are not only Israeli (weapons), but are supplied by all the countries of the crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price," al-Zawahri said.

"We cannot just watch these shells as they burn our brothers in Gaza and Lebanon and stand by idly, humiliated," he added.

The message was al-Zawahri’s 10th this year. Bin Laden has issued five messages in a particularly active year of messages from the top al-Qaida leadership.

Al-Zawahri last appeared in a video posted on an Islamic Web site on the first anniversary of the train bombings in London. In the July 7 tape, he said two of the four suicide bombers in London had spent time in an al-Qaida training camp, preparing themselves for a suicide mission.

The two top al-Qaida leaders also paid tribute in June to the slain leader of their Iraq network, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in separate recordings. Many of their messages this year have dealt with current events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia.

Another new audio or video message from bin Laden had also expected in the past week on the fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, according to IntelCenter, a U.S.-based independent group that provides counterterrorism information to the U.S. government and media. However, no messages have appeared on Islamic Web sites to announce the release.

Al-Zawahri said Muslims everywhere must rise up to attack "crusaders and Zionists" and support jihad "until American troops are chased from Afghanistan and Iraq, paralyzed and impotent … having paid the price for aggression against Muslims and support for Israel."

Israel began an offensive on Gaza days after Palestinian militants captured an Israeli soldier on June 25. It opened a second front in Lebanon after Hezbollah guerillas killed eight Israeli soldiers and captured two others on July 12.

It’s good that terrorists like Zawahri make these pronouncements so that we get reminded as to what this war is all about.

God knows our one party media will never tell us what our enemies really want.

From the Washington Times:

Hillary’s brother barred from bank account

By Jim McElhatton

July 27, 2006

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother Anthony D. Rodham has been barred from accessing his bank account while a bankruptcy trustee demands that he repay more than $100,000 in loans from a carnival company whose founder was pardoned by President Clinton, filings in federal bankruptcy court in Alexandria show.

Mr. Rodham, one of Mrs. Clinton’s two brothers, received $107,000 in loans from United Shows of America Inc. after its owners obtained the presidential pardon over the objections of the Justice Department.

United Shows went bankrupt in 2002, and control of its finances was placed in the hands of court-appointed trustee Michael E. Collins, who has sought to garnish Mr. Rodham’s wages.

A consent order filed Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said Mr. Rodham is barred from taking money out of a bank account containing about $142,000, pending a hearing next month.

Last year, Mr. Collins won a default judgment against Mr. Rodham in a complaint filed in bankruptcy court in Nashville, Tenn. The trustee sought repayment of the loans, plus more than $40,000 in interest.

Mr. Rodham "received the benefit of the loans without making any repayment," said a document filed last year in Nashville.

Mr. Rodham, known as Tony, declined to comment yesterday on the United Shows matter. The Vienna, Va., resident questioned the relevance of the case as a news story.

"I just happen to be the brother-in-law of a person who became president," he said. "I’m not a public figure."

His naming in the bankruptcy case is the latest distraction to Mrs. Clinton’s political aspirations caused by her two younger brothers. Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat, is seeking re-election in November to her Senate seat from New York and is weighing a presidential bid in 2008.

In August 2001, Mr. Rodham became involved in a brawl at the Rodham family’s summer cottage in Pennsylvania with a man who said he caught Mr. Rodham having sex with the man’s girlfriend.

Mrs. Clinton’s other brother, Hugh E. Rodham Jr., intervened in that fight.

Hugh Rodham, 56, also came under scrutiny for his role in Mr. Clinton’s pardons. A lawyer, he returned about $400,000 he received for lobbying for a presidential pardon and prison commutation for two clients.

Both brothers were criticized in 1993 when they sought corporate contributions to pay for festivities surrounding their brother-in-law’s first inauguration.

United Shows’ owners — Edgar Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo Gregory — won a pardon from Mr. Clinton in March 2000. They were convicted of bank fraud in 1982 for illegally giving loans to friends. Mr. Gregory died in 2004.

Legal filings show Mr. Rodham received $107,000 in loans from United Shows in 16 checks issued by the company from May 2000 to February 2002, about six months before United Shows filed for bankruptcy protection.

To collect the money, Mr. Collins last month filed a writ of garnishment in bankruptcy court in Alexandria against Mr. Rodham. He also filed a judgment lien against Mr. Rodham in D.C. Superior Court.

Todd J. Zywicki, a bankruptcy specialist and law professor at George Mason University, said the consent order isn’t unusual in cases in which a bankruptcy trustee is trying collect on a judgment.

"It’s standard debt collection to be able to freeze a bank account to protect the garnishment rights," he said. "Basically, the bankruptcy can reach out and grab the assets wherever they are."

Mr. Rodham did not respond to the complaint filed last year in Nashville, but papers filed Monday by his attorney in Alexandria say he plans to fight the judgment.

The filing raises questions about whether Mr. Rodham knew of the proceedings against him.

A summons in the Nashville case was sent to a D.C. address at which "Mr. Rodham had not resided for a considerable period of time," said the filing by Rodham attorney Steven B. Ramsdell, who declined to comment yesterday.

Mr. Ramsdell’s motion asks U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert G. Mayer to quash the garnishment summons filed against his client.

Since Hillary Clinton is the all but anointed candidate for President from the Democrat Party these kind of shenanigans get no mention in our one party media.

And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg for the Clinton/Rodham crime syndicate family.

Remember how Hillary’s brother got so much money from the huge tobacco "settlement" — just for starters.

From Dean's own wire service, the DNC's Associated Press:

Dean calls Iraqi PM an 'anti-Semite'

By BRIAN SKOLOFF, Associated Press Writer

Wed Jul 26, 10:42 PM ET

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean on Wednesday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an "anti-Semite" for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel.

Al-Maliki has condemned Israel's offensive, prompting several Democrats to boycott his address to a joint meeting of Congress and others to criticize him. Dean's comments were the strongest to date.

"The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite," the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

On Tuesday, leading Senate Democrats said in a sharply worded letter that Al-Maliki's "failure to condemn Hezbollah's aggression and recognize Israel's right to defend itself raises serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East."

The Republican National Committee rejected Dean's criticism of Al-Maliki, saying, "It is incredibly troubling that Howard Dean would seek to score cheap political points by attacking the democratically elected prime minister of Iraq."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said: "I dismiss Howard Dean. Really, he's a disappointment, even to Democrats. I don't care to deal with that."

Dean also used the Florida appearance to criticize President Bush, calling him "the most divisive president probably in our history" as he complained that Republican policies of deceit and finger-pointing are tearing the country apart.

"He's always talking about those people. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the gays' fault. It's the immigrants' fault. It's the liberals' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's Hollywood people," Dean said. "Americans are sick of that. Even if you win elections doing that, you drag down our country."

Dean spoke to about 240 business leaders in Palm Beach County at a gathering of the Democratic Professionals Forum. It is part of a nationwide grassroots campaign to get voters involved in politics on a local level ahead of the November elections.

Republicans welcomed Dean's appearance in Florida, criticizing him for the same divisiveness he accused Republicans of creating.

"Howard Dean's divisive rhetoric has done nothing more than drive the Democrat Party further to the extreme left of the political spectrum," said Carole Jean Jordan, head of the Republican Party of Florida.

I thought Howard Dean always claimed Maliki was a tool of the (Jewish) Neo-Cons? Mr. Dean needs to pick a conspiracy theory and stick to it.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time the head of a major US political party was in the hands of a madman?

(Thanks to Jack for the heads up.)

You would never know it from our one party media, but the "disruptor" at Prime Minister al-Maliki’s speech was not just a random protester.

She was none other than the professional anti-America agitator (and Hugo Chavez’s paid foreign agent) Medea Benjamin.

From a Code Pink press release:

Medea Benjamin is arrested on July 26 for interrupting a speech by the Prime Minister of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin Arrested For Disrupting Iraqi Prime Minister’s Congressional Address

Fasting co-founder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange says Iraqis want war to end

CODEPINK and Global Exchange cofounder Medea Benjamin is arrested on July 26 for interrupting a speech by the Prime Minister of Iraq.

WASHINGTON – July 26 – This morning, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki addressed a joint session of Congress. During a segment of his speech in which al-Maliki said that Iraqi’s ink-stained fingers evidenced their desire for democracy, Medea Benjamin, cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and Global Exchange, stood up from the gallery and shouted, "Iraqis want the troops to leave, bring them home now! Listen to the Iraqis!" Benjamin repeated the statement several times before she was forcefully lifted from her seat, handcuffed, and escorted out by Capitol police. Benjamin was wearing a pink shirt with the statement "Troops Home Now" written on it.

Benjamin, 54, of San Francisco, CA, is currently on her 23rd day of a long-term fast for peace called the Troops Home FAST (www.troopshomefast.org). She is charged with disrupting Congress. Whether Benjamin will receive a simple citation or will be booked at jail is still being determined by Capitol police. If she is not booked, Medea Benjamin will be available for comment and interviews. If you would like to speak with her, please call her cell phone 415 235 6517.

This disruption follows two days of requests for a meeting with Prime Minister al-Maliki. Since al-Maliki’s arrival in Washington DC, women and men who are fasting for peace as part of CODEPINK’s Troops Home FAST have been trying to arrange a meeting with the prime minister and the Iraqi Embassy. Fasters have been waiting for a response to a letter requesting a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss an Iraqi reconciliation plan that includes a timetable for the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraq. Benjamin stood outside the Iraqi embassy for the past two days waiting for a response to this letter.

Yesterday evening, fasters were ordered by police to clear the sidewalk in front of the embassy in preparation for al-Maliki’s arrival. Five fasters refused to leave, thus risking arrest. The Iraqi Ambassador spoke with Benjamin by cell phone and asked that she and the fasters move aside, in exchange for the possibility that she and peace mom Cindy Sheehan would get a personal audience with al-Maliki during the evening reception. Sheehan and Benjamin also agreed to break their fast if granted a meeting with the Prime Minister. He promised to call should any challenges arise and this not be possible. However, Benjamin was denied entry to the embassy that evening, and waited for an hour outside, where she watched the prime minister arrive and leave without acknowledgement of their agreement.

After witnessing Benjamin’s disruption, Maxine Waters, member of Congress and chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, stated, "We are going to witness more and more public outrage as the violence in Iraq escalates in this ongoing occupation."

Benjamin’s public statement is in line with recent polls from Iraq saying that only 1% of Iraqis trust U.S. forces with their security. Despite these numbers, Prime Minister al-Maliki is in Washington to request additional U.S. troops in Baghdad. Also in opposition to public opinion in both Iraq and in the U.S., the Bush administration has rejected and gutted the peace plan proposed by the Iraqi government.

Iraqi blogger and analyst Raed Jarrar of Global Exchange and Foreign Policy in Focus, who is also participating in the Troops Home FAST, said, "Medea Benjamin is speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqis and the Iraqi Parliament who want the troops out of Iraq." A recent World Public Poll shows that 87% of Iraqis want a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan stalking outside of Maliki’s residence on day 22 of their withering "fast."

Why the media refuses to admit that the anti-war leftwing protesters are the same handful of people, is beyond me.

It’s almost as if they want to create the impression that there are more of them than there actually are.

But why would they want to do that?

(Thanks to Voice Of Reason for the heads up. And thanks to the Age of Hooper for the Cindy photo.)