Mainstream media most likely won't be highlighting what may be one of the most  articulate and passionate responses delivered by a visiting dignitary during a White House press conference. 

AP reporter (and identified democrat operative/spouse of a Clinton adviser, etc.) Jennifer Loven asked President Bush and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai two loaded questions. 

Their responses are best assessed, not by words, but by delivery .....  A link to a video is at the bottom of this post.

Loven:  Thank you, sir.

Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the national intelligence estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?

And to President Karzai, if I might: What do you think of President Musharraf's comments, that you need to get to know your own country better when you're talking about where terror threats and the Taliban threat is coming from?

Bush:  .... John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document [NIE] as quickly as possible -- declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself.  I want you to read the document so you don't speculate about what it says.

You asked me a question based upon what you thought was in the document -- or at least somebody told you was in the document. And so I think you'll be able to ask a more profound question when you get to look at it yourself...

(LAUGHTER)

... as opposed to relying upon gossip and somebody, you know, who may or may not have seen the document trying to classify the war in Iraq one way or the other.

KARZAI: Ma'am, before I go to the remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11. The president mentioned some examples of it.

These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.

They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.

We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.

Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?

Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?

That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated. Extremism, their allies, terrorists and the likes of them.

On the remarks of my brother, President Musharraf, Afghanistan is a country that is emerging out of so many years of war and destruction and occupation by terrorism and misery that they brought to us.

We lost almost two generations to the lack of education. And those who were educated before that are now older.

We know our problems. We have difficulties. But Afghanistan also knows where the problem is, in extremism, in madrassas preaching hatred, places by the name of madrassas preaching hatred. That's what we should do together, to stop.

The United States, as an ally, is helping both countries. And I think it is very important that we have more dedication and more intense work, with sincerity, all of us, to get rid of the problems that we have around the world.

 HOTAIR has the video.  It's a must-see.

Too bad the camera was not on Loven's face when Karzai spoke directly to her. 

Yeah, I'm referring to Chavez and the Alphabet Man from Iran.  I'm also referring to those who cower from engaging in a dialogue on religion and religious nuances -- a dialogue among and between followers of all faiths (especially Islamic and Christian) -- a dialogue that may well contain the keys to our survival.

A must read:  Realities of Religion by Michael Ledeen.  Here are two excerpts:

It’s a big question, not easily reduced to newspeak like “did the pope anticipate the reaction?” Or “did the pope go too far?” That sort of banter is embarrassingly silly. Of course the pope anticipated the reaction, he’s one of the smartest and most learned men in the world, and he’s spent a lot of time studying Islam. He wanted to draw a line. He is not prepared to extend total, blind toleration to people who use violence in the name of faith, and he’s challenging the Muslims to answer the real questions. That quotation he chose — the one that asks, Is there anything positive that has emerged from the expansion of the domain of Islam? — wasn’t generated at random. He picked it quite wittingly. Of course he knows that, for several centuries, Islam conserved the wisdom of the West, the same “Greek” wisdom he invoked as the indispensable partner of Christian faith. He’s defying the Muslims to admit that, because he knows that the jihadis don’t want to hear about it, and that an open debate about it may undermine the sway of so many dogmatic mosques, schools, TV stations, and Internet sites.

and

Ignorance of things religious is terribly damaging for other reasons as well, not least of all because it prevents us from understanding the nature of our most dangerous enemies. Michael Rubin wrote a fine piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day, listing some of the lies produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and noting that there was actually a provision in sharia that made such lying to infidels completely acceptable and on occasion admirable. Yet the Europeans, who preen themselves on their cultural superiority, continue to be gulled by the Iranians, and W. has now completely swallowed the notion that if the Iranians ignore one ultimatum, we must not act, but simply set a new deadline. Down this path lies ruin. Yet the self-proclaimed “realists” always color themselves “surprised” when the Iranians do it.

Read the full article by clicking the link above.

Then read Michael Rubin's full article, excerpt below:

Iranian lying should not surprise; what should is how often Western governments fall prey to it. The British government demanded that Tehran lift the bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head as a precondition to re-establish relations. On Sept. 24, 1998, the Iranian government said it would do nothing to harm Mr. Rushdie. No sooner had London and Tehran exchanged ambassadors, than Iranian authorities once again reversed themselves.

For U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of Iranian lying is high. While Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and, indeed, cooperate in its reconstruction, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to wrest control away from warlords, Afghan commanders intercepted a dozen Iranian agents and proxies organizing armed resistance.

In Iraq, too, Iranian diplomacy has been duplicitous. Prior to the Iraq war, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged Iranian noninterference to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Zalmay Khalilzad, then President George W. Bush's envoy to the free Iraqis. But, Iranian journalists now describe how, days after Saddam's fall, the Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards replete with radio transmitters, money, and supplies. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Kharrazi again pledged good behavior. He lied outright; his promise coincided with a new deployment of Iranian intelligence across Iraq.

I'd make at least one change in Nora Ephron's observations on Bill Clinton's meltdown on Fox News Sunday night:  

Bill Clinton has ALWAYS been about Bill Clinton.

I'm surprised Ephron would dare criticize Bill Clinton, however ....

What surprised me most about the Clinton meltdown yesterday was that no one told him to pull up his socks. This is a man who never goes anywhere without staff, lots of staff. Was there no one there to see that his pants were hiked up too high and his socks were pulled down too low and the flesh on his legs was showing?

Can no one say things like this to the former POTUS?

So Bill Clinton was sandbagged by Chris Wallace. By Chris Wallace? And he lost it. And he wasted a television appearance - when he could have been talking about taking back Congress - talking about (no surprise) Bill Clinton. Poor Bill Clinton. The victim of Fox News, the media arm of the right-wing conspiracy. The man who went after Bin Laden and was accused of wagging the dog. "I tried," he said. I tried? How lame is that? I haven't been able to listen to that since the sixties, when Werner Erhard, of all people, became famous for demolishing that excuse. When people said "I tried" to Werner Erhard, he would put a glass on a table and say to them, "Try to pick that up."

How does it happen? How does one of the smartest men ever elected president end up sandbagged by Chris Wallace? Is this what one docudrama does to the guy? I don't think so. I'm afraid this is classic Clinton, Clinton the monologist, Clinton the guy who used to keep his White House houseguests up until 4 a.m. while he went on and on about what the press was doing to him. What a waste. On top of which: Clinton calls George Bush "43"? Is he so confused about his role in the Bush family constellation that he has adopted their nicknames for one another?

Clinton should simply have answered Wallace's question. He should have said that he went after Bin Laden and that if Al Gore had been elected (which he was) we probably would have killed him and 9/11 would never have happened. And then Clinton should have moved on to his real subject, which is not rescuing his legacy from his self-inflicted wounds, but helping elect a Democratic Congress in 2006. In fairness, he finally got the conversation around to that subject in the final minutes of his interview with Wallace.

But until then, it was only about Bill.

Come on, guy. Pull up your socks.

Yeah.  What Ephron said.   Except for the part about Al Gore winning the election and what Gore would have done about Bin Laden ....

 to the good folks at Powerline on clarifying their reference to the Terrorist Rights wing of the Conservative corps -- led by the new-cowboy-in-town John McCain with Frist and Graham tagging along:

"... the reference is fair because all three want to expand the rights that terrorists and terrorist suspects have.

Yesterday, Senator McCain listed some of the rights that terrorists now have thanks to his work. According to McCain, they have the right not to be subjected to water-boarding, extreme sleep deprivation, and forced hypothermia. Terrorist organizations also have the right, thanks to McCain, to know in advance which practices apparently are off-the-table.

McCain defended his tireless and effective advocacy for terrorist rights by stating, "we have to have the high moral ground." It is revealing, I think, that McCain believes our nation lacked the moral high moral ground in the war on terrorism until he rode to our rescue."

(emphasis added)

McCain and his sidekicks should consider a longggg ride into the sunset.

On this day in 1789, the first Congress passed the Bill of Rights—12 amendments to the Constitution designed to protect the basic rights of U.S. citizens.

Only the last 10 of the original 12 were ratified by the states, including the First Amendment, which includes freedom of religion, speech, the press, and public assembly.

In case you've forgotten what they are ....

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

After all, it is your right to know these rights ...

Why rehash the mutilation/murder of three American soldiers that occurred over three months ago? 

Because terrorists released an updated video of their brutalized corpses again Saturday -- reminding us again that these deaths were in retaliation for the rape-murder of an Iraqi girl and her family.

Few believe this explanation, of course.  It's simply not the nature of Islamo-fanatics to avenge or protect women ....

The video also re-emphasizes the harsh reality that terrorists (in stark contradiction with our Supreme Court, which voted 5-3 that Geneva Convention protections must be extended to captured  terrorists) have absolutely no respect for these Conventions or the detainees they supposedly protect. 

A time-line surrounding these mutilation-murders still doesn't  quite qualify -- culturally or morally -- as "justifiable" revenge (if such a concept has credence -- but I'll leave that debate to others) for the rape and murder of an Iraqi family on March 12, 2006.

Of course, that's only my opinion. 

And since the revengers identified themselves as an umbrella organization of terrorists called The Mujahideen Shura Council -- consisting of at least eight Iraqi insurgency groups (al-Qaeda, the Victorious Army Group, the Army of al-Sunnah Wal Jama'a, Jama'a al-Murabiteen, Ansar al-Tawhid Brigades, Islamic Jihad Brigades, the Strangers Brigades and the Horrors Brigades) -- I concede that their virtual impact is much greater than my humble opinion.

Regardless --

Point 1:  Islamic law is not reputed to protect or seek revenge on behalf of rape victims in particular or women in general.  Rather, rape victims are more likely victimized by "honor" killings to protect the "integrity" of the victim's family.

Point 2:  The alleged rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the murder of her family occurred on March 12, 2006.

Point 3:  Initially authorities assumed they were killed by local insurgents.

Point 4:  Three American soldiers were attacked and kidnapped (one body was left at the check-point) on June 16.  Subsequent statements made by the terrorists claiming to have kidnapped the Americans made no reference to the March 12 rape/murder case -- which had not yet been revealed. 

Point 5:  Information on the rape and a criminal investigation were announced by the Military Command on June 30, following a witness "confession" on June 22 which implicated possibly six American soldiers in this alleged crime.

Point 6:  The first video of two soldiers' mutilated bodies "in honor of the young girl raped" was released by terrorists on July 10.

Point 7:  A second "re-edited" video was released by terrorists on September 23.

What does this time-line indicate -- if anything? 

It indicates that six American soldiers are now charged and/or implicated in the rape and murder of a young Iraqi girl and her family.  It indicates that regardless of the situation or location  -- justice will prevail.  Except, of course, in the case of the brutal murder of three American soldiers.

This post will be the first of several I pledge to write to review as objectively as possible (within the given context of biased MSM coverage and senatorial grandstanding):

1) the circumstances under which two (actually three) American soldiers were kidnapped, savagely mutilated and murdered in Iraq on June 16, 2006 -- allegedly in retaliation for the rape/murder of Iraqi citizens in March 2006; and,

2) decision(s) by Senators McCain, Graham, et al (on both sides of the aisle) and the U.S. Supreme Court to expand and expound the rights of combatant-terrorist detainees, pursuant to the Geneva Accords, and especially Section 3 of those Accords.

I will post graphic images, videos, reports and witness testimonies -- as available.  If you're offended --- don't look or read.

My premise in this review:  The Supreme Court, designated Congress members and the MSM have rendered our systems of justice and self-defense legally and unilaterally paralyzed against those who wish to destroy us -- who have absolutely no regard or respect for the Geneva Accords. 

I pray that my premise is wrong.

FROM Breitbart.com:  (September 23, 2006) 

An al-Qaida-linked group posted a Web video Saturday purporting to show the bodies of two American soldiers being dragged behind a truck, then set on fire in apparent retaliation for the rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman by U.S. troops from the same unit.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council _ an umbrella organization of insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq _ posted another video in June showing the soldiers' mutilated bodies, and claiming it killed them. It was not clear whether the video posted Saturday was a continuation of that footage, or why it was released.

It was impossible to identify the bodies, but the footage was believed to be of Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, 25, who went missing after being attacked by insurgents on June 16 at a checkpoint south of Baghdad. Their remains were found three days later, and the U.S. military said they had been mutilated.

The video showed masked men dragging the corpses, first by hand, then behind a truck, beheading one of them and then setting them on fire. Below the graphic footage is a subtitle: "The two soldiers belong to the same brigade of the soldier who raped our sister in Mahmoudiya."

The U.S military has charged four soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division _ Spc. James P. Barker, Sgt. Paul E. Cortez, Pfc. Jesse V. Spielman and Pfc. Bryan L. Howard _ in the March 12 alleged rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi in Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Sgt. Anthony W. Yribe is accused of failing to report the attack but is not alleged to have been a direct participant.

A fifth suspect, Pfc. Steven D. Green, was discharged from the army because of a "personality disorder" before the allegations became known. He has pleaded not guilty to rape and murder charges and is being held in a civilian court in the United States.

Mahmoudiya is an extremely violent region in Iraq in an area known as the "triangle of death" for the numerous attacks by insurgents.

The two slain soldiers also were from the 101st Airborne Division.

In the next related post, I'll try to identify time-lines for referenced incidents and the sequence of Judicial/Congressional/Executive actions on combatant detainee rights. 

Why? 

Because I want to know who began this current circus of events that holds the US accountable for the humane treatment of terrorist detainees  -- while the unbridled massacre and mutilation of American captives is deemed "acceptable" or at worst, "expected."

 Scrappleface has the scoop -- errrrrr .... the inside info on the latest Osaami-Been-Laid2rest rumors. 

And then some.

  Jeeeze, Louise.  How many times is this human-slug gonna die? 

I had in mind a "thousand deaths" for him -- but I didn't want the bugger to kick the bucket and miss all the pain.

The French are reporting his death this time.  Nevermind.

  Move the United Nations?

No -- move the members and wanna-be's.   Lebanon would a good place.   Room service might not be as good, but ....

We'll keep the name and the building in NY, thank you. 

Nations who want to remain "united" may remain under a renewed charter, of course.  Those who want to continue to re-write their own version of "unity" are welcome to leave.

Let dictators and vengeful 3rd world nations who want to bite the hands that feed them have their own arena.   Their new "unity" could be renamed the International Non-Aligned Nations Enclave. 

I.N.A.N.E. for short. 

First require all current U. N. delegates to pay their bills and turn in their visas.  They must re-apply for membership.  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Load all their personal possessions on an empty 9-11 debris barge and send them to Venezuela or Tehran or Lebanon or wherever they want to go. 

Offer to foot the bill.  (It will be less expensive than refurbishing the current U. N. building.)

Re-issue invitations to nations who actually WANT to be united in effecting change and freedom and peace, etc.  Require that renewed-members pay applicable dues before admission.  REPEAT:  Terrorist-sponsoring nations need not apply.

Oh yeah.  Save Kofi Annan a seat on that barge.

And be certain that before leaving the Harbor --  ever damn barge circles the Statue of Liberty.   At night. 

And turn on the WTC memorial lights.

  Update:  Guess who supposedly left the U.S. in the dark of night????  Last night, even. 

Seems the "good will" tour Chavez had planned in Harlem was canceled when Joe Kennedy et al suddenly developed "family obligations." 

Too bad.  

A few thousand REAL Americans were planning to greet el presidente Chavez in the streets of NY .....  

Update #2433718:  Huey didn't leave after all.  His bro' Danny Glover took him to a church down in Charlie's district.  Then he left town.  Thank God.