- A UK Guardian reporter (Dilpazier Aslam) who reported on the London bombings is part of the Britain's most radical Islamist group Hizb Ut Tahrir. In an opinion piece Aslam chastises moderate Muslims who don't "rock the boat," and explains the London bombings as a "sassy" expression of opinion. The Guardian is non-plused by the revelations from Scott Burgess (The Daily Ablution).
- As always - there's plenty more going on in Iraq than terrorism. Arthur Chenkoff rounds up the happenings in Iraq.
- The FBI has files on ACLU and Greenpeace, which should surprise no one. Stop The ACLU blog is excited, though I think the mere fact that the FBI has documents related to those groups is not, in and of itself, an indication that they're actively being investigated.
- Sam Pender sends along this interesting pre-9/11 clip from ABC, documenting the ties between Iraq and al Qaeda [RealMedia].
- The Wayback Machine - Joe "Literary Flair" Wilson wins truth-telling award as his story crumbles...
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Noted Elsewhere
Comments (5)
- If we had a balanced pres... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | July 18, 2005 12:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
- If we had a balanced press instead of the liberal minions that infest the MSM, the really worrisome story behind the Novak/Wilson/Plame/Rove/? non-story would be - "Clinton administration/liberal plants in the CIA to blame for 9/11?"....The sub-graf might be - "... are CIA employees playing politics?..."
- If this very real possibility begins to gain traction, watch the Democrats suddenly suffer memory loss,,,
1. Posted by Big Bang Hunter | July 18, 2005 12:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2005 12:41
2. Posted by Lurking Observer | July 18, 2005 12:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The presumption in the Plame case is that there must be something afoot, otherwise, why would there be a grand jury investigating Karl Rove.
One wonders whether those who voice such an opinion will equally conclude that there must be something afoot with Greenpeace and the ACLU, since otherwise, why would the FBI be maintaining files and surveillance on them?
And lest one conclude that this is a politically motivate "hit" on these organizations, perhaps they could then explain what one was to make of FBI files winding up in the East Wing during the Clinton era, and whether that was indicative, as well, of high-level "hits" being ordered?
2. Posted by Lurking Observer | July 18, 2005 12:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2005 12:58
3. Posted by Bruce | July 18, 2005 1:05 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
“…why would the FBI be maintaining files…”
Of course this isn’t the 1960s, but I think it is helpful to remember that the FBI once had a file on Groucho Marxs – it said something to the effect of “We don’t have anything on this man, but we do know he’s for peace.”
3. Posted by Bruce | July 18, 2005 1:05 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2005 13:05
4. Posted by Jay | July 18, 2005 2:19 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
First of all, thank you for the link. You may be right. I may be overexcited. The FBI may not actually be investegating the ACLU...but I will say this. They should! And I'm wondering if those documents they shredded a while back have any kind of connection to this.
4. Posted by Jay | July 18, 2005 2:19 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2005 14:19
5. Posted by Thomas Galvin | July 18, 2005 4:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The definition of "nonplussed" (not "non-plused") is 'confused' not 'indifferent' as so many people mistakenly believe.
I just don't want liberals accusing you of failing Ebonics!
Keep up the good work...
5. Posted by Thomas Galvin | July 18, 2005 4:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 18, 2005 16:42