Poor summary of Intelligence report

This is a more detailed account of the infamous CIA report saying the we are creating more terrorists because of the Iraq War:

More of What You Won't Read in the NYT

Yesterday, we noted that the MSM (along with their fellow travelers in the intel community), had apparently "cherry-picked" information from a recent National Intelligence Estimate, making their case that the Bush Administration's War on Terror had actually made the problem worse. In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.

Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the Times and WaPo would have us believe. According to members of the intel community who have seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced (to coin a phrase), noting both successes and failures in the War on Terror--and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists. The quotes printed below--taken directly from the document and provided to this blogger--provide "the other side" of the estimate, and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the War on Terror (comments in italics are mine).

In one of its early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have "seriously damaged Al Qaida leadership and disrupted its operations." Didn't see that in the NYT article.

Or how about this statement, which--in part--reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists: "A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

The report also notes the importance of the War in Iraq as a make or break point for the terrorists: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight." It's called a ripple effect.

More support for the defeating the enemy on his home turf: "Threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq." President Bush and senior administration officials have made this argument many times--and it's been consistently dismissed by the "experts" at the WaPo and Times.

And, some indication that the "growing" jihad may be pursuing the wrong course: "There is evidence that violent tactics are backfiring...their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution (shar'a law) is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims." Seems to contradict MSM accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community..

The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East: "Progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances jihadists exploit." As I recall, this the core of our strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quite a contrast to the "doom and gloom" scenario painted by the Times and the Post. Not that we'd expect anything different. But the obvious slant of their coverage does raise an interesting question, one that should be posed to their ombudsman or public editor. If sources used by the papers had access to the document, why weren't they asked about the positive elements of the report? Or, if sources provided some of the more favorable comments regarding our war on terror, why weren't those featured in articles published by the Times and the Post?

The ball's in your court, Mr. Keller and Mr. Downie. We'd like an answer to these questions, since they cut to the heart of whether your publications can actually cover a story in a fair and objective manner. We won't hold our breath waiting for a response.

100% lifted from Spook86, at In From The Cold.
Hat tip RightWingNews.



Update: Opinion Journal says declassify the entire report. Or as Fox might say "You (White House) declassify, We (The People) Decide."

More Racists in Dem than GOP?

(click to enlarge)



Whatever the actual number is, when it comes to the ratio of racists with the Dems or the GOP, one thing is clear. If racist tendencies end your affiliations then you can be alligned with neither one. This July Article from John Hawkins is a great place to start when considering which national party is racist--- or not.

Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans

by John Hawkins
Posted Jul 05, 2006

Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.

Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C., where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually "sent troops" to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the "complete desegregation of the Armed Forces." Noticing any trends?

But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the '60s, didn't they? Yes, Americans -- particularly black Americans -- really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket -- by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock.

Remember George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat.

But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That's where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.

But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas.

Who's the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice.

Who's one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place.

Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Maryland's black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele and black Republicans being called "Uncle Toms" and compared to "Aunt Jemima."

Moreover, let's take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that:

"...(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. ...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."

It would have been interesting for them to poll black Republicans and Democrats as well, for comparison's sake, but however you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate.

Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford -- of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina -- and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn't:

"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority...." Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

---

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Don't Sleep on Lupe!

When a bruvah gets backing from JZ (Big Money) and Kanye (Producer Unparalled), then can rap about skateboarding, without sounding like Candyman, Nice and Smooth (yes, I just dissed them) or Kid Frost, then I'm down. Kick Push Video.

Lupe Fiasco was on 'GCI last night where they played some tracks from his new album. In the spirit of Chicago Style hip hop, he's not a criminal. I really dig that. He also uses fat hype beats This is an interview with him in the Sun-Times. Interesting guy. Groovin jams. I will be coppin it soon.

Buy his album here.

Hugo is a piss-ant.

That's all for now.

I'll bitch more later.

WVON-AM 1690 Goes 24 Hours!

After 43 years of broadcasting from 10pm until 1pm (no afternoon, no evening programming) WVON-AM Chicago moves to a 24 hour format starting September 18. Along with the expanded hours, Chicago's only Black Talk Radio station increases power from 1000 to 10,000 watts, now broadcasting to listeners throughout the entire Chicagoland area.

This is great news for Black Chicago. Here's the spin from Chicago's legendary Defender Newspaper.

I called in this morning to say Congrats, and to denounce some victimology.

I told my wife about it, and SHE agreed with me. That's a first!
Ooooooooo it felt good.







Clik da pik, visit their bogus site. (Great station, bogus website.)

or LISTEN LIVE.

2nd Place, or Not First place???

Yesterday in the news, I heard the spin that 2006 was the second hottest summer on record. It was said in one sentence with obvious implications that we should concern ourselves with global warming. It's getting hotter than ever --- right?

Today a Drudge headline answers the only question remaining in my mind.

SUMMER 2006 TEMPS FAIL TO BREAK RECORD SET IN 1936.

Was global warming to blame for that as well? Could we have stopped it then too?

Convert or die?

Okay, I'm late to the column. Thank you, Tom Roeser, for the reminder. Mark Steyn is a genius. again.

Just trust me and read it.

What are you ready to die for?

Luis Lopez Lived--- We are glad.

I have joined a project to memorialize the victims of the demons. I was able to find nothing on the victim I was randomly assigned. I found a note by someone who said she is his niece. On July 19 of this year (2006) she had this to say about him: (here)

He was my uncle
And he was a very good person
He married my aunt and my mother and him were very close
It was hard to deal with his death
It seemed to affect my mother most
She would dream of him
And cry so much
It hurt us all alot
He was such a good man
And it bothers me
That he died
For he wasnt a bad person
In Fact one of the best persons i have ever met
They did not find his body
But found his leg
I miss him very much
and love him alot
May He Rest In Peace
Infinite Love,
Andreina

His name was Luis Lopez. He died because of our Freedom. Keep him in our prayers.

We celebrate the glory of his life. Though it has been unsung, we must remember to honor him with the same passion we honor those whose lives we know. Rest in peace, Luis.




This is a part of the 2996 project. We Celebrate the Victims.

OUTRAGE - - - Five Years Later

I couldn't let today pass without typing out some of my thoughts on the events of September 11, 2001. I have been too busy to blog lately, but when days like this come, and I say nothing, I wonder why I have this public listing of my thoughts.

Where was I on Sept 11?
Well I was awakened by a phone call on Sept 11, 2001. I worked a shifted schedule at the time, and didn't usually get up until about 9:00. My girlfriend (Later Mrs.Jiggity) called some time earlier than that to tell me that some planes had crashed into the WTC in New York. She knew I was interested in politics, and expected this to be something I would probably want to see. I initially thought the pilot had been drunk and would really be in trouble --- trouble? Hell the guy was dead now. It didn't take long before I turned on the TV and radio, and learned that there was a lot more happening on that day.

I don't really remember whether both towers had been hit when I started absorbing information, but between the time when I started watching and the time when they collapsed, I was weakened, and stunned. The death count was told, and they kept climbing. I remember thinking that each number I heard would eventually be wrong again. "People will be dying from this event for days, or maybe even weeks, " I thought.

The big question in my mind was simple, "What if one of those things falls down?" I wondered how many people were trapped inside. Listening to commentators, I heard a number of 50,000.

WHO DID THIS?
Who tried to kill 50,000 people in one blow?
Who thought their movement would be helped by this?
Who didn't understand that the USA is the wrong beehive to poke a stick into?

I was convinced that whoever it was had sealed their own fate, and the fate of their ideology. At the time, I knew very little about the subjects we all pretend to be experts on today; bin Ladin, Islamic Fundamentalism, the Taliban, and the term "weapons of mass distruction." How could this great nation respond in any way other than rigid defiant outrage? Somebody's gettin' nuked. Fast!

Then the thing happened for which I could find no words.

One of those skyscrapers dropped.

AAAARRRRRHHHHHGGGGGHHHHH!!!
WHY?
I DON'T CARE WHAT WE DID; WHATEVER YOU THINK WE DID; THIS CANNOT STAND!
I couldn't catch my breath. I could only exhale. My face contorted, and my chest caved in. My lips flexed into a cramp, and I wanted it to stop.

One of those skyscrapers dropped. It didn't make sense. and five years later it still doesn't make sense. Of course all things end, but I never expected to see the death of a 100+ story building. Hailing from Chicago, I have always hoped the skyscrapers would last as long as the pyramids of Egypt. Combining this inconceivable spectacle with the death of up to 50,000 (eventually reduced by mercy from God) melted me to spontaneous tears for days.

I also remember the sight of people who jumped to their death. Imagine that choice. "How will I create my own death?" Maybe I run to the stairwell filled with smoke, and crowds of people. Maybe I look for a letter opener, and stab my throat. Maybe I jump and feel the euphoric rush of "flight." Death is here today. I retain my free will and still have some say in how I go. Even if I exercise nothing, I still chose. Waiting in a corner where no phone lines connect me to the rescue crews is a choice as well. What fate is this?

EVIL.
Only evil could do this on purpose. Insanity. The word "fanaticism" seem too romantic for these demons.

OUTRAGE!!!
That was exactly what I thought on the day of the 11th. I was outraged. Appropriately, the next day, the Chicago Sun-Times ran that single word as its headline.

By now, it seems like that day should be history. Today it's ripples still wash over us. It is not yet history. It is still a current event. It still stabs.

Today, again, we cry.





























Update 9/14: Check out this string of e-mails from 9/11, from PARLANCHEQ. Nothing spectacular, just very interesting to see what people did on that day.