- 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…
Morning Notes
About The Author
Kevin
Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site.
– 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,,,
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?
“…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.”
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.
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…