Step 1. Open an account on electronic social networking platforms like Youtube and Facebook.

Step 2. Wear a Che Guevara t-shirt.

Step 3. Support a Presidential candidate whose campaign has a Youtube and Facebook account and whose staff and supporters display Che Guevara flags and posters alongside the candidate’s signs.

Behold, the most shockingly faulty logic to ever enter a human mind:

How do you spell blowback?

Maybe this technically isn’t blowback. More like creating terrorists. I suppose now the argument for indefite [sic] detentions will be something along the lines of:

We can’t release the prisoners because, if they weren’t actually terrorists before we locked them in our gulag and tortured them for information, they almost certainly will become terrorists if we let them go.

Future generations will study Jeff’s words with an equal mix of befuddled amusement and disgust.

They will wonder how anyone could possibly come to posit the theory that an otherwise disinterested young Middle Eastern man decided to blow himself up in Iraq as retribution for a brief stay in an American military prison, nearly three years after being released to his home country, after having said this during his hearing:

“I don’t blame the Americans for what they did by bringing us over here and detaining us over here. If I were in their place I would go out and look for terrorism all over the world like they did but I have a feeling it is going to be a just decision by the Americans. That is my feeling. I would do the same thing if I were in their shoes. I would capture the bad people, the terrorists and bring them over here and detain them.”

They will wonder how Jeff instinctively rushed to the defense of a soldier who went AWOL from the Kuwaiti military in order to join forces with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and later became a suicide bomber in Iraq, over the testimony of his own country’s defense agencies, who correctly deemed the suspect a “continued threat to the United States and its Allies.”

They will wonder how Jeff came to take the final piece of evidence of the man’s terrorist proclivity as proof of his innocence.

And then they will question why such thinking had become so commonplace among liberal Democrats at the turn of the century, and why so few were willing to call them on it.

The CA adds a few new details to the Mahmoud Maawad account:

Mahmoud Maawad, who was convicted in a Memphis federal court in 2006 for fraud and deported to Egypt, ordered DVDs on pilot training, Memphis airport layouts and how to pass himself off as a pilot.

When authorities raided Maawad’s University of Memphis-area apartment they found a prayer rug, a desk, a computer and a model of a tanker truck — and a pilot’s uniform.

Maawad had used the computer to download information on ways to thwart airport security and to research terrorist Web sites.

“Was he the real deal?” [FBI special agent Eric] Jackson asked. “In my experience, I think he was.”

I’ll bet you $5 he’s already back in the United States.

VV points to a post at The Nation that is critical of Fred Thompson’s plan to strengthen and expand the U.S. military:

What is unfortunate is that Republicans lack a candidate with the wisdom of a actual military commander like, say, Dwight Eisenhower.

Then, instead of proposing exponential expansions of the Pentagon budget, they would be saying, as Republican Eisenhower did: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Actually, what’s unfortunate is that the passage quoted above is one of those that the Left likes to swap back and forth, stripped from context, and without ever linking back to an original source (do a quick Google search if you don’t believe me).

The quote is from an Eisenhower speech known as the Chance for Peace Address, which was delivered in 1953 and was intended to send a message to the Soviet Union, which was gearing up for a cold war with the United States.

It’s clear the author hasn’t given much thought to the way history played out following this speech, or what role Ronald Reagan and his strong defense policies might have played along the way.

It’s also clear the author hasn’t considered the position held by any of those populations aided by such guns, warships and rockets, specifically those across Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Eisenhower did not deliver this speech in the middle of World War II, when those munitions were being used to liberate France, rescue millions of Jews and defeat the armies of fascism on two fronts.

Nor would it have been delivered today, as these same forces are being used to liberate 50 million people and to wage war against Al Qaida and allied terrorist groups on two major fronts in the Middle East.

Unless, of course, it was intended for countries such as Iran, North Korea and China, just as the original encouraged the Soviet Union to stop their aggressive military buildup.

And, finally, it’s clear the author hasn’t familiarized himself with the entire speech, which also includes this warning to the Soviets, that their aggression had:

…instilled in the free nations - and let none doubt this - the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.

Hmm, that sounds like Fred Thompson’s plan, doesn’t it?

Of course, we couldn’t have expected much more from the post’s author, John Nichols, who was last heard offering Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton as the future PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Hi, my name is Samir Khan. I’m 21, and I cheer on the jihad from my parents’ basement in North Carolina. Watch my cool video. (And, no, I haven’t signed the letter.)

See also: this post.

It truly frustrates liberals when we take terrorism seriously. That’s why John Edwards considers the war on terrorism a “bumper sticker” and local blogger autoegocrat thinks of terrorists as cavemen or insects and prefers that we pay them no attention.

But if there’s one thing they consider even worse than that, it’s doing anything to actually thwart terrorism.

It’s no surprise, then, that the local liberal bloggers are completely losing it over what they consider Democratic treason (which is essentially the opposite of real treason) on FISA reform.

Just a few months ago, Democrats in Congress agreed to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a temporary basis, allowing the NSA to intercept terrorist communications routed through the United States.

The Protect America Act of 2007 passed with the support of 41 Democrats in the House and 16 in the Senate. The entire Tennessee delegation voted in favor of the bill, with the exception of Memphis Democrat Steve Cohen.

This reform became necessary after the FISA court ruled that our intelligence services could not monitor foreign communication if it has passed through U.S. networks, which is now common due to advances in technology:

Foreign-to-foreign communications now travel in diffuse packets of digital data through sophisticated networks, which route them not via the shortest route but via the least-congested terminals. Because American networks are the system’s best, a Peshawar-to-Kabul phone call or e-mail may pass through the United States.

Now some Democrats have sponsored a bill called the Restore Act of 2007, which offers some necessary concessions but is nevertheless opposed by the White House and GOP leaders in both chambers.

The liberal bloggers want no part of it. Peskyfly was the first to criticize the Democrats, exclaiming “fuck ‘em” if the party intended to cave in to the administration. Earlier this week, “Bob” of 55-40 chimed in to admit his embarrassment being associated with party leaders who are “soft on GOP terrorists,” and Jeff formulated a conspiracy theory, saying the move only makes sense if Democrats are trying to protect themselves:

Ever since they first got wind of the illegal NSA wiretapping, their main concern has always been what have they got on me? Thus - their silence. Thus - their compromises. Thus - their spinning of the wiretapping story as politically dangerous for Democrats…

We can be pretty sure that the Bush administration isn’t protecting it to keep Al Qaeda from learning the extent of our capabilities. They’re covering up crimes, which most likely means surveillance of political opponents and journalists. Democrats like Steny Hoyer are willing to trade immunity for those crimes in exchange for information that can’t be used to prosecute anyone. Therefore, their only interest in the information must be personal.

I’m glad some Democrats are at least willing to consider allowing us to listen in on terrorist communications. But I feel so bad for the liberal Memphis bloggers that I’d like to dedicate a song to them, embedded below the fold: (more…)

Here’s another love letter from a supporter of Hezbollah. This comes from “abdul,” cruising in from Amman, Jordan:

you are a bloody stupid wasteman. you have no idea who hizbollah is. they are a force thatis defending muslims from the jewish opresors. you in your lack of knowledge may call them ‘terrorists’ but in actual fact they are the saviours of islam. may god curse the soul that speaks and acts against them. in other words may you die a painful and diturbed death for acusing them of being terorists.

Previously: here.

Bob of 55-40 returns to the plate, after yesterday’s strikeout. On the points:

1. Bob responds by saying he needn’t provide support for his allegations because… I’m unwilling and unable to be satisfied by any such documentation. That’s convenient.

2. Bob argues that General Petraeus forfeited his “immunity from criticism” by testifying before Congress:

Petraeus is on active duty fighting a war. Any minute he spends doing PR for Bushwacker-in-chief is a minute away from his post. Petraeus’s Congressional flackimony was thoroughly debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it. In my opinion, leaving your post to be a political flack forfeits your supposed immunity from criticism.

a. Again, Bob provides no support for his allegation that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “thoroughly debunked.” But as we learned in point 1, Bob doesn’t need to support any of his allegations.

b. Bob alleges that the testimony provided by General Petreaus was “debunked before he ever even arrived at the Capitol to give it.” It’s not clear exactly how this happened, or who exactly is in possession of a flux-capacitor… but I suppose time travel is as immaterial to the supposed debunking as supporting documentation is for proving points. In fact, I bet Bob has already read and debunked this post, prior to my publishing it.

c. Bob alleges that General Petraeus is guilty of “leaving [his] post” and thus deserves criticism. Perhaps Bob was unaware of the fact that General Petraeus was mandated by Congress to testify:

H.R. 2206 — SEC 1314. (b)(3) TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS — Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

3. Bob concedes that he indeed does not understand the Vets vs Kerry / MoveOn.org comparison:

It’s not integral to my point, so I’ll give you that one.

How generous of you, Bob.

Bob, there are three major problems with your post:

1. You allege that General Petraeus “came back… to serve as Bush’s mouthpiece, reading from a script written, embellished, and edited by the White House.” But you fail to provide any evidence, not even so much as a link, to support that allegation.

2. You imply that by giving a news interview General Petraeus “left his post” and “entered the world of politics.” If talking to journalists and reporters is what constitutes leaving your post, it would follow that a large number of our soldiers has deserted. Simply put, that is not the case.

3. You mistakingly assume that a comparison was made between General Petraeus and the Vietnam Veterans who stood up against John Kerry’s Presidential campaign in 2004. In fact, the comparison was actually drawn between that group and MoveOn.org, in terms of their message and how it was treated by news media. Your confusion on that point signals your misconception of the whole.

Three strikes, you’re out, my friend.

UPDATED: Here.

What happens when a soldier from a U.S. Representative’s district dies in Iraq, but his name is not published in any of that district’s major newspapers? Does his death become legitimate fodder for a political gotcha question? Lots and lots and lots of shameless liberals say yes. I say they’re full of crap.

“My heroes are the soldiers that have gone before me and died. And the ones that came home.”

- Jeremy Bohannon

UPDATE: It turns out the soldier mentioned actually wasn’t from the Rep’s district, and the reporter had to apologize. Don’t hold your breath waiting for our liberal friends to do the same.