Al-Qaeda of Iraq's No.2 man is dead.

Abdullah Abu Azzam, the leading aide and the spiritual advisor to Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi, was killed during a raid by U.S. and Iraqi forces in a Baghdad apartment. It's hard to find news stories on this, so here is a short, sweet, to-the-point article from the World Tribune about the raid.

I did read about this in the Philadelphia Inquirer today on page A3, under the headline: "As Iraq toll grows, U.S. touts a blow to al-Qaeda". What made the front page of my beloved hometown newspaper today? First, you see an unflattering picture of former FEMA chief Michael Brown, with a quote by Republican Congressman Christopher Shays: "I'm happy you left. Because that kind of...look in the lights like a deer tells me you weren't capable to do the job". The story, we are told, is on A2. Next, we see a picture of a couple grieving over the loss of a Pennsylvania guardsman killed in Iraq. That story, we are told, is on B5. Next, we see the headline: "Consumer confidence nose-dives". Next, there is an opinion piece by Dick Polman predicting that conservatives may assail Bush over his Supreme Court nominees. Then we see an article about the importance of evacuating pets (yes, animals) from disaster areas like New Orleans. Then we are told that rate hikes are expected from Amtrak and the Philadelphia Gas Works.

As far as I'm concerned, the Inquirer (as well as the media in general) buried the story of Azzam's death as deep as they could.

Why is the death of a major figure in the ongoing Iraq conflict less newsworthy than all of those things that managed to make the Inquirer's front page? This newspaper loves to dwell on deaths of Americans in Iraq, but the killing of one of the key figures who causes those deaths is no big deal to them. I suppose this is indicative of the way the media has treated the Iraq war in the last two-and-a-half years; they only seem to want to report the bad news. And I am not against the bad news being reported, because it is certainly important to know it. But their downplaying of major victories in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general reflects a serious lack of patriotism on the part of the liberal media in America.

By the way, the article about the fall in consumer confidence points out that:

"The closely watched monthly Consumer Confidence Index, released yesterday by the Conference Board, an independent economic research organization, fell almost 19 points, to 86.6 from 105.5 in August."

But...

"In the Mid-Atlantic region, defined by the Conference Board as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the index was even lower, falling from 72.4 last month to 69.7."

Why is consumer confidence so much lower here in the blue states than it is in most of the country? You figure it out.

Tom DeLay was indicted today on charges of criminal conspiracy in a campaign finance probe. DeLay was forced to temporarily step down from his post as House Majority Leader. Here is the AP story:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/28/D8CTE0IO6.html

The term "partisan witch hunt" comes to mind. Apparently, the prosecutor Ronnie Earle has a history of such activities. This statement was issued today by Kevin Madden, who is DeLay's spokesperson:

"These charges have no basis in the facts or the law. This is just another example of Ronnie Earle misusing his office for partisan vendettas. Despite the clearly political agenda of this prosecutor, Congressman DeLay has cooperated with officials throughout the entire process. Even in the last two weeks, Ronnie Earle himself had acknowledged publicly that Mr. DeLay was not a target of his investigation. However, as with many of Ronnie Earle's previous partisan investigations, Ronnie Earle refused to let the facts or the law get in the way of his partisan desire to indict a political foe. This purely political investigation has been marked by illegal grand jury leaks, a fundraising speech by Ronnie Earle for Texas Democrats that inappropriately focused on the investigation, misuse of his office for partisan purposes, and extortion of money for Earle's pet projects from corporations in exchange for dismissing indictments he brought against them. Ronnie Earle's previous misuse of his office has resulted in failed prosecutions and we trust his partisan grandstanding will strike out again, as it should. Ronnie Earle's 1994 indictment against Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was quickly dismissed and his charges in the 1980s against former Attorney General Jim Mattox-another political foe of Earle-fell apart at trial. We regret the people of Texas will once again have their taxpayer dollars wasted on Ronnie Earle's pursuit of headlines and political paybacks. Ronnie Earle began this investigation in 2002, after the Democrat Party lost the Texas state legislature to Republicans. For three years and through numerous grand juries, Ronnie Earle has tried to manufacture charges against Republicans involved in winning those elections using arcane statutes never before utilized in a case in the state. This indictment is nothing more than prosecutorial retribution by a partisan Democrat."

Media manipulation by the Washington Post.

A Monday article in the Washington Post carries the headline: "Bush Approval Rating at All-Time Low". For several paragraphs, it insinuates that the public is blaming Bush for hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. But way down in paragraph 14, the article manages to mention this little tidbit:

"But Americans were even more suspicious of Democrats' motives. Six in 10 said that Democrats critical of Bush for his handling of the hurricane were just trying to use the disaster for political advantage while a third said Democrats were genuinely interested in finding out what went wrong. A third of all Democrats were suspicious of their leaders' motives, as well as eight in 10 Republicans and six in 10 independents."

And buried even further down in the article is this:

"The new poll found that Americans are divided over the best way to pay for the cleanup effort, now estimated to cost more than $100 billion. Four in 10--39 percent--say the government should cut federal spending, while 17 percent support increasing the federal budget deficit, now estimated to reach $500 billion this year. Another 16 percent would raise taxes. Only 4 percent said the country should finance reconstruction by pulling out of Iraq."

Only 4 percent support that last idea? No wonder they snuck that in at the bottom of the page.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/12/AR2005091201158.html

Johnstown battled floods 116 years ago.

Here is an interesting story from the Associated Press about a flood in Johnstown, PA in 1889. The similarities to the current Katrina situation are startling. You can read it here:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK2HRO1.html

Al Qaeda master plan: world domination in 15 years.

I recently came across this article in the Australian publication The Age:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true

For his book Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation , Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al Qaeda's plan is laid out in seven phases:

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".

I wanted to pass this on, since I haven't seen it reported by the American media.

Democrats invoke Katrina in Roberts confirmation hearings.

The U.S. Senate opened confirmation hearings today on John Roberts, president Bush's nominee to be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court. We never know how a Supreme Court justice will rule on issues until he is on the Court. But Roberts' statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee makes him sound like a promising choice for the position. He had this to say:

"A certain humility should characterize the judicial role. Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around."

That statement alone is enough to ruffle the feathers of liberals who support activist judges. Predictably, two leading Democrats have evoked hurricane Katrina in statements on the floor today. Sen. Patrick Leahy from Vermont said this:

"Today, the devastation, despair facing millions of our fellow Americans in the Gulf region is a tragic reminder of why we have a federal government, why it's critical that our government be responsive. We need the federal government for our protection and security, to cast a lifeline to those in distress, to mobilize better resources beyond the ability of any state and local government -- all of this for the common good."

Uh, Senator? Our federal government was responsive (see previous post), and the federal government cannot micromanage everything that goes on in the country. That is why we have state and local governments. Here is what Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts had to say:

"The powerful winds and flood waters of Katrina tore away the mask that has hidden from public view the many Americans who are left out and left behind. As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality and the gross disparities that exist in our society."

Senator? Your party's policies have deepened the disparities and inequalities that exist in our society. Liberalism has created an entire class of Americans who have become dependent on the government. Your party's constant exploitation of class envy and racial differences has fostered the sense of entitlement that keeps so many people living in poverty. New Orleans is an example of what conditions result from liberal policies. If liberal social programs really resulted in less poverty, then there should not have been much poverty left in New Orleans. Democrats have run that city for more than three decades. Where are the results?

Besides, what do these two Senators' statements have to do with a Supreme Court nominee? Playing politics with this tragedy is going to backfire on Democrats, just like all of their other lowbrow tactics have in recent years. Don't they ever learn?

The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed. This article by Jack Kelly in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is priceless, cutting through the leftist propaganda by the mainstream media and the Democrats:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm

Here is a key quote from Jason van Steenwyk, a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

The date that lives in infamy is here again. Today is September 11th, 2005, the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed over 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Life has never been the same since then. Although most Americans seemed to return to their normal ways of life quickly (which is a good thing), the war on terror was begun, is still ongoing, and will probably never have a definite end. There has not been another attack on American shores since then, but the possibility of one still hangs over us. In fact, ABC News has broadcast a videotape of an American member of al Qaeda threatening terrorist attacks on Los Angeles and Australia. Details are here:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Investigation/story?id=1115448&page=1

We should not ignore such threats as this, but they are a telling sign that words are much easier than actions for the terrorists who wish to attack our homeland. To illustrate how well America rebounded from the 2001 attacks, a new Poll by AP-Ipsos concludes that nearly three quarters of Americans believe the government did a good job helping the economy recover from Sept. 11. There was general satisfaction with the economic relief efforts from Congress and the Bush administration among people in all gender, race, educational and age categories.

And, contrary to popular belief, we are winning the war on terror. Liberals claim that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the terror war. That couldn't be more wrong; the Iraq war is now the main front in America's war against terrorism. Before the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, terrorists needed to be tracked down before they could be killed or captured. Now, terrorists make their presence known in the region where our armed forces are fighting. The enemy that our military fights is constantly evolving, but the military has continually adapted to the changes and won key battles against the terrorists. A major phase in the terror war is going on as we speak. In the Iraqi town of Tal Afar, a major sweep for insurgents by U.S. and Iraqi forces has resulted in 156 insurgents killed and 246 captured. Forces have also discovered a tunnel network that terrorists have used for escaping. Also, most of the porous border region between Iraq and Syria has been sealed off. More details are here:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/93-09112005-539849.html

I am so proud of the U.S. military and the forces sent by our allies to aid them. (Yes, there are numerous countries helping us in this ongoing effort, despite the offensive claims by John Kerry and other libs that we are "going it alone". What a gross insult to our allies!). No one likes to hear about troop casualties. The AP says that at least 1,897 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003. It is tragic that so many fine men and women must die in the war on terror, a war that was declared on us by terrorists. But there can be no retreat from the war on terror, in Iraq or elsewhere. Either our military deals with the terrorists now overseas, or we deal with them on our shores later. There are no other options. The war in Iraq has claimed less than 2,000 American lives in two-and-a-half years. The 9/11 terrorist attacks killed over 3,000 Americans in a single day. No one likes the war on terror, but we can never give up, especially when we are winning.

Saying that you would punch Bush is fashionable right now. Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, said it to George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week. She said:

"If one person criticizes [Louisiana officials], or says one more thing, including the president of the United States, he will hear from me - one more word about it after this show airs and I - I might likely have to punch him - literally."

Oh! So, it's okay for everyone to criticize Bush's response to Katrina, but if anyone dares criticize a Louisiana official, they're gonna get punched by Senator Landrieu! And that goes for the president himself as well! The Secret Service has been provided with a transcript of the broadcast, and will decide if an investigation is warranted.

Sound like too much? Hey, if a Republican senator had said the same thing about Bill Clinton a decade ago, there would have been an investigation and an uproar. In fact, when Jesse Helms joked in 1994 that Clinton "had better watch out if he comes down here (to North Carolina). He better have a bodyguard", there was an investigation and an uproar.

Anyway...the other night I was sitting in a bar with some friends from work. One 21-year-old co-worker of mine said, "If your boy (Bush) were here right now in this bar, I would punch him!". I retorted that the Secret Service would be all over him. He replied, "I'd whip them, too!"

And why is Bush the object of his rage? Because of the Katrina disaster? No. Because of gas prices. I don't remember his exact words, but he said something to the effect that "Bush keeps raising these gas prices, and it's pissing me off!"

Bush is raising gas prices? It's bad enough hearing a 21-year-old say something like this. I know I knew better at age 21 than to think that the U.S. president controlled gas prices. But I also heard a 52-year-old say something similar. He said something to the effect that Bush is keeping gas prices high so that his family's oil company will make more money.

Are people really this clueless? Have they ever heard of something called OPEC? I know that it's fashionable to believe nonsense like this right now, but does a 52-year-old really not know better than this? Or is he simply forgetting everything he knows for the sake of Bush-bashing? Neither one of those possibilities is healthy. I hope it doesn't mirror any type of national trend.

New Orleans death toll may be far less than expected.

Previous estimates of 10,000 dead in New Orleans now appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Col. Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security chief, said:

"Numbers so far are relatively minor as compared to the dire projections of 10,000."

The news coming from New Orleans is mostly good. Police say they are regaining control. Relief efforts have been phenomenal, considering the way the situation looked a week ago. Private donations to relief efforts have topped $700 million. There are plans to reopen the French Quarter in 90 days, and to hold a scaled-back Mardi Gras in February.

Of course, liberals only see the bad side of things. Kanye West is not the only one who continues to blame Bush for the disaster. The state and local governments of Louisiana and New Orleans are generally escaping blame for anything. The Bush administration wants to investigate what may have gone wrong with the federal response, but Democrats are opposing such an investigation. Why? Because it's not bipartisan, they say. The real reason? Probably because too much of the truth would be revealed. Too many Louisiana Democrats would fall under investigation. Can't have that, can we?

First lady Laura Bush has defended federal responses to the multi-state disaster, and has criticized charges of racism against the president. She says:

"I think all of those remarks are disgusting, to be perfectly frank, because of course President Bush cares about everyone in our country. And I know that. I mean, I'm the person who lives with him. I know what he's like and I know what he thinks and I know how he cares about people."

Two liberals I know personally are saying that the war in Iraq is occupying the resources that would have made the federal response more effective. One of them said that National Guard troops should have been here instead of on the other side of the world. (If National Guard troops weren't in Iraq, terrorists would probably be over here instead of at the other side of the world). The other guy I spoke with was repeatedly calling Bush an "a$$#ole", saying "That a$$#ole has the military spread out so far and thin that we couldn't handle anything right now. If South Korea were invaded by the North we wouldn't be able to do a thing about it." Of course, I believe this person would be opposed to Bush doing a thing about that anyway. He next went into a Michael Moore rant, saying "We're only fighting this war for oil. We're fighting this war to prop up the house of Saud". If that were true, gas prices would be much cheaper right now. But anyway, this guy continued: "I served my time in the Guard. Bush didn't even serve his". I said, "Oh, yes he did". And my friend snapped back, "No, he didn't!"

Prove it! By the way, my question for liberals who point fingers of blame over the Katrina disaster is this: What are you doing to help the situation? If you haven't already donated to relief efforts, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is, instead of saying that it's everyone else's responsibility to help. I recommend donating to the American Red Cross or Catholic Charities . Good day.

Mandatory evacuation was ordered for New Orleans on Sunday.

While leftists like Kanye West and Randall Robinson try to blame George W. Bush and racism for the situation in New Orleans, the city's mayor Ray Nagin is similarly trying to shift blame away from himself. You can read a transcript here of Nagin's expletive-laced radio interview from Friday, where he blames the federal government for the tragedy and makes excuses for the looters:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/02/nagin.transcript/index.html

What people are overlooking is that local governments are primarily responsible for situations like this. That is the reason we have local and state governments. The mayor of New Orleans comes first in the chain of responsibility, followed by the state director of homeland security (who answers to the governor), the governor, the national director of homeland security, and then the president. Here is a telling news article from last Sunday, August 28th:

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?base/news-18/1125239940201382.xml&storylist=louisiana

A few key quotes from the article:

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

So why is Bush to blame, I ask you? Wait, there's more:

The storm surge most likely could topple the city's levee system, which protect it from surrounding waters of Lake Pontchartrain, the Mississippi River and marshes, the mayor said. The bowl-shaped city must pump water out during normal times, and the hurricane threatened pump power.

Really? The toppling of the levee was anticipated? Shouldn't there have been greater efforts to evacuate the city, both by the people and the (local) government?

Now, back to Mayor Nagin's radio interview. At one point he rants:

"You know, I'm not one of those drug addicts. I am thinking very clearly. And I don't know whose problem it is. I don't know whether it's the governor's problem. I don't know whether it's the president's problem, but somebody needs to get their ass on a plane and sit down, the two of them, and figure this out right now."

What about you, Mr. Mayor? It isn't your problem? You are more responsible for your city than the president and the governor. Shouldn't you "sit down" with them and "figure this out right now"? And he has some nerve making this statement:

"I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here. I'm like, 'You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans.'"

Well, here is a revealing picture: he had hundreds of buses! Look:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Why weren't these buses deployed during the mandatory evacuation?

The city government of New Orleans has more to answer for than other politicians.

The insanity of the far left is exposed

I cannot believe what I have read on the Huffington Post website. Civil rights leader Randall Robinson writes this outrageous and baseless claim:

"It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive. Four days after the storm, thousands of blacks in New Orleans are dying like dogs. No-one has come to help them."

What?!? Robinson fails to mention where this is "reported". This is even more outrageous than most attempts to make racial issues out of human tragedies. This is an illustration of just how nutty the far left gets when they are out of power. What is equally appalling is the number of people who posted responses to the article suggesting that they believe and/or agree with the article. You have to see it to believe it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randall-robinson/new-orleans_b_6643.html