Is the Fox TV show “24” unfair in their portrayal of Muslims?

“It’s disgusting,” [Yosry] Bekhiet said after watching an episode with an Associated Press reporter. “My own kids, if they see this show, they might hate me.” “It seems like on television, everybody has their turn as the bad guys: It happened to the Italians, the Russians. Now it’s our turn,” he said.

Is there justification for this criticism?

Mr. Bekhiet was complaining about the portrayal of the Araz family who were part of a terrorist cell that tried to meltdown dozens of nuclear power plants. The father, Navi was so dedicated to the plot that when his son wasn’t measuring up, he tried to have him killed. When his wife Dina discovered this, she turned against him in an effort to save her son. She ended up being shot by her husband for her trouble.

Certainly not your typical family. But is it unfair? Here’s Robert Spencer of Frontpage Magazine:

24 is a drama about terrorism. Episodes have featured Bosnian terrorists, German terrorists, South American terrorists, and terrorists from a Halliburton-like conglomerate. And, most famously, 24 has featured Muslim terrorists -or at least terrorists with a vaguely Middle Eastern aspect. But while no Bosnians, Germans, South Americans or Halliburton execs contacted the network to complain about the way they were portrayed on the show, when Fox ventured into Islamic terror territory, the network immediately aroused the ire of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Mohamed Heva, a computer network administrator also watched the episode at Bekhiet’s home. He suspects this season’s plot line was intended not only to entertain, but to validate the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Sometimes I feel like it’s being done on purpose, to instigate things and to let people know what the administration is doing is right,” he said. “It makes people look at every Muslim as a terrorist. These guys want to melt down reactors and kill Americans. That makes people hate us even more.”

Why this hypersenitivity? Clearly, there’s no evidence that such portrayals make people look “at every Muslim as a terrorist.” But by embracing victimhood, the American Muslims insulate themselves from criticism.

This is the doing of CAIR. There has been no greater advocate of Muslim victimhood in the United States than this shadowy so-called civil rights group who has consistently failed to condemn terrorist acts on Israel and even the United States.

As an example of what CAIR does, this is what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:

In September of 2001, just following the worst terrorist attack ever suffered in modern history, CAIR placed on its website, under a picture of the World Trade Center in flames, a plea for donations. It read, “Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.”

Yet, when people clicked on the link, it did not take them to any NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund. No, it took them straight to the website of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, an Islamic ‘charity’ that was soon to be shut down by the United States for “raising millions of dollars annually for HAMAS.”

And there are other, more sinister connections between CAIR and terrorism. Three of its top officals have been charged with aiding terrorist organizations. And the Holy Land Foundation itself was finally shut down by the government and its assets seized in 2003.

Then, late last year CAIR met with Fox executives to air their complaints about the story line for “24.” And Fox caved in shamelessly. They altered the story line and promised to run CAIR-made anti discrimination commercials around the country.

Was Fox aware of the CAIR-terrorist connections?

But why was Fox playing ball with CAIR in the first place? Were the execs who met with CAIR representatives aware that three of its officials have been arrested for various terrorist-related activities? Yes, said the source, that is a matter of public record. Are they aware that CAIR founder Nihad Awad helped establish CAIR after working at the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), where he was public relations director -and that former FBI counterterrorism official Oliver Revell has called the IAP “a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants”? Did they know that Awad himself has declared: “I am in support of the Hamas movement”? Well, yes, said the source, they were aware of allegations that CAIR had some links, however tenuous, with Hamas, but they judged the organization’s complaints on their merits. That’s what Fox always does, he said: it considers not the source of a complaint, but the worthiness of the complaint itself.

So if the Ku Klux Klan called with a complaint, that complaint would be judged on its merits, not its source? That’s a question that only Fox’s cowed executives can answer, and they aren’t talking.

The idea that the American people are too stupid to differentiate between a TV program and real life is ridiculous. All it proves is that CAIR and the American Muslim community in general have discovered that the best way to promote your agenda and deflect criticism of your positions is to play the victim card.

Liberal guilt will take care of the rest.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

Ever since FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith made some remarks in a C-Net.com interview about the potential regulation of blogs by that agency, the blogosphere has been roiling with a discussion of what such regulation could mean for the future of the new media and if there’s truly anything to worry about.

Recent statements by Commissioner Ellen Weintraub as well as a joint press release by Senators McCain and Feingold have not quieted the storm. Here’s a round-up from some of the larger blogs of what the thinking is among sites most likely to be affected by any new regulation.

John Samples believes the government is about ready to come down hard on blogs. Why? John compares the blogosphere with the relatively new medium of television in the 1960’s:

In 1968, uncontrolled political spending on a new technology threatened the political status quo.

Congress acted swiftly to meet the threat. In the spring of 1969, members introduced a bill to limit campaign spending on television advertising. The bill became law in 1971 and went into effect the following year. Congress had, in the words of one member, “tamed the television monster.” Yet the “monster” in question was a threat only to those who held power.

Mike Krempasky takes apart the McCain-Feingold press release piece by piece:

The scope of what is regulated may be limited to “paid advertising” or it may not. The judge’s opinion sure doesn’t offer any such limits. After this last week, it is less likely that the regulations will be broad, but that doesn’t mean that sounding the alarm was unnecessary or unwise.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. (Actually, I did say the same thing here)

The Captain quotes from the court decision in question and looks in askance at the “Remain calm…All is well” theme of the pro-reform crowd:

While McCain and Feingold protest that their lawsuit only targets paid advertising, their action and the decision points out that they are being dishonest about it. The decision forces the FEC to regulate unpaid communications, including the Internet. How exactly do they propose on doing that? By going after those sites which repeat the candidates’ positions—or link back to them—and declaring them in-kind contributions, the only way possible to regulate it.

Now they want us to trust them not to go after bloggers with this power which they wanted to hide from people by issuing this misleading statement. Do you trust them? Have they been honest with you so far?

The Captain makes the excellent point that the decision mandates some kind of action by the FEC. While the reformers are busy pooh-poohing the idea that blogs will be regulated, the fear is that the bureaucrats will have no choice.

The guys at Powerline link to a Jim Geraghty blurb from TKS and fisk Ms. Weintraub’s screed right smartly:

Weintraub’s statement seems particularly lame. She hides behind the fact that a U.S. District Court ruled that the internet isn’t exempt from McCain-Feingold. But she doesn’t explain why the FEC didn’t appeal that ruling. Fellow commissioner Bradley Smith says that the Democrats on the commission blocked the appeal. Weintraub also notes that the FEC hasn’t drafted its rules yet. But she offers no assurances that the FEC’s thinking isn’t headed in the direction Smith described. She implies that bloggers will get to “use their electronic soapbox to voice their political views.” That’s big of the government. But our concern is not that blogs will be eliminated, just regulated.

And that’s the bureaucrat’s blind spot. They just can’t imagine someone not wanting to be regulated. Their reassurances about making sure that everyone has a say and that they’re not going to impose any regulations that haven’t been publicly commented on misses the point:

NO REGULATIONS ON BLOGGERS. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. NYET. END OF STORY!

But is all of this an overreaction? Are bloggers making way to much out of something that will never, can never come to pass? Here’s Hugh Hewitt who has remained pretty much on the sidelines in this debate for this reason:

I have been teaching the First Amendment for a decade, and it isn’t going to happen because it would be patently and obviously unconstitutional to classify the content of a political blog—which is essentially a cyber-newspaper—as within the purview of the FEC. If I direct someone to Mark Kennedy’s website and suggest a contribution to Mark Kennedy (give early and often!), there is no difference than if I had done so in a column in a newspaper or in a private letter. It is beyond the reach of the government, period.

The keyword, I would point out to our mentor and leader, is “essentially” a cyber-newspaper. I will gladly cede Hugh both his point and the fact that he’s an expert in matters pertaining to the First Amendment. But the fact is that advocacy blogs like this one do not currently have an exemption. That’s because the FEC has not yet defined what a blog is for purposes of regulation. The court, in essence, struck down the internet exemption. It’s up to the FEC to decide what internet sites (if any) would fall under the FEC’s purview. And given that most government agencies when given half a chance will seek to expand their purview, I still see cause for vigilance.

Roger Simon agrees with Hugh:

But to restrict the free speech of bloggers by loosely interpreting some already discredited legislation would be a boneheaded maneuver by these or any other pols, not to mention the bureaucrats at some government agency. They would be under endless bombardment by the blogosphere, which is filled to overflowing with lawyers. And we would win. A good portion of the mainstream media would even defend us. The attack on Dan Rather would seem paltry by comparison.

Mr. Simon seems fairly sangiune that the blogosphere can beat back any challenge to its independence. I would add that the attention paid to this issue has already given Commissioners who may have leaned towards regulating blogs second thoughts.

What next? Nothing short of holding the Commissioner’s feet to the fire to insure that their assurances aren’t just empty promises will do. In the meantime, write your elected representatives imploring them to exempt the internet permanently from FEC regulation.

And ask them to repeal McCain-Feingold now!

UPDATE:

Here’s a link to a CNN piece yesterday by Howard Kurtz on the controversy. It’s pretty straightforward reporting, but Kurtz does highlight Commissioner Brad Smith’s comments in the C-Net interview.

The recent tragic murder of the husband and mother of a US District Judge here in Chicago had the left all atwitter because, at first glance, it appeared that the Republican party…er White Supremecist groups may have been responsible.

In the mind of a moonbat, there was, of course, no difference. The hate-filled goofballs on the right were considered by the clueless kool-aid drinkers on the left as part and parcel of (depending on who you’re reading) the Christian right or the Neo-cons.

Sorry to disappoint:

Investigators early Thursday said a man who shot himself in the head during a traffic stop in Wisconsin had a suicide note claiming responsibility for the slaying of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow’s husband and mother last week.

Members of the task force of Chicago police and federal agents said the man’s van was stopped in West Allis, near Milwaukee, about 6 p.m. As officers approached the vehicle, the man killed himself with a gunshot to the head.

Investigators said the man had a suicide note that included an admission that he shot the judge’s family. The note included details in the case that were not released to the public, investigators said.

While it was fitting and proper for the police and FBI to concentrate on looking for suspects in all logical places, including white supremecist groups where the judge was a marked woman, leftists all across the blogosphere (and in the mainstream media) saw the tragic murders as a way to bash conservatives by trying to connect the hate groups to conservative and/or Chirstian ideology.

It didn’t work out quite that way.

Sources close to the case said they were investigating whether the judge had ruled against the man in a civil matter. He was not immediately thought to have ties to any hate group.

The note indicated that the judgment had cost the man “his house, his job and family” one source said.

Chicago police and federal investigators were en route to West Allis late Wednesday to investigate. If the man’s suicide note is true, the investigation, which had moved heavily toward the organization tied to jailed white supremacist Matthew Hale, will have ended in a starkly different realm.

Comparisons will inevitably be made between this case and the case of the coptic Christian family in New Jersey who were murdered in December by, what was thought at the time, muslim extremists. When two men were arrested for the murder of the Armanious family with no apparent ties to islamofascists, the lefty apologists for the jihadists crowed that conservatives had jumped to conclusions.

Not so fast, One of the suspects had some curious relationships while in prison:

While incarcerated in the federal system, he reportedly associated with a group of inmates who were actively involved in Islamic counseling – receiving radical fundamentalist Islamic literature during his incarceration. The prison source told Northeast Intelligence Network director Douglas Hagmann that there is indeed a religious component to the murders….Investigators from this agency are continuing the investigation to determine the veracity of those claims.

And while it may yet turn out that the tragic murders of the Armanious family had no connection to terrorism, the on-going investigation shows that the idea has not been discounted.

As for the murder of the judge’s mother and husband, if this new development pans out and shows that the judge was the victim of a disgruntled defendent, I’m sure we’ll hear all sorts of effusive apologies from the left for sliming conservatives.

Jyah! Sure!

I have to confess that I don’t remember much about the day that John Kennedy was assassinated. I was all of 8 years old and, as I recall, Sister Mary Athanasius came on the intercom and told us to pray for the repose of the soul of the first Catholic President the country had ever had. We weren’t let out of school early nor did our teacher Sister Mary Carol talk about what had just happened.

But when I got home, I realized something was terribly wrong. First, my mother was watching television during the day. In our house TV wasn’t turned on until 4:30 pm when “Garfield Goose” came on.

I got bored after a couple of hours and went up to my room.

I came down about an hour later to watch Garfield Goose only to find the same men talking about the same things. The same movie clips (this is in the days before video tape) were playing showing a smiling, handsome Kennedy with his kids, with his wife, in a sailboat, at a press conference. They kept showing these images over and over again.

In those days, we watched CBS, the network of the newsgod Edward R. Murrow whose reports from London during the war (less than 20 years before this horrible day) and post-war tackling of liberal causes endeared him to my parents. Murrow had only recently been supplanted by Walter Cronkite, another war reporter whose brusque, no-nonsense style was somehow comforting to watch.

Only when CBS went to Dallas for live updates did you get the feeling that things were a little out of control.

I remember Dan Rather pretty well. CBS would occasionally cut to this youngish looking reporter who was breathlessly talking about something important. Unlike Cronkite, Rather was a “hot” personality on television, a barely controlled volcano of energy that you felt was just waiting to erupt.

Rather made his bones that day with CBS news on a national basis. Within months, he was the CBS “goto” guy on a variety of stories including civil rights, Viet Nam, and eventually, making it all the way to the pinnacle of his profession as White House correspondent for CBS news.

My purpose of this retrospective is not to bury Dan but to praise him. Because despite his obvious bias Dan Rather was a good reporter. Can you be both? Of course! The best reporters of the 20th century including Scotty Reston, Murrow, Merriman Smith, Hugh Sidey, and Theodore H. White to name a few were all horribly biased, liberal to a fault. But hey all had one thing in common; World War II.

The Second World War shaped and molded these men as both Americans and journalists in a way that the current crop of reporters and anchors could never understand or duplicate. Those men were mostly combat reporters, accustomed to living and working with the guys who fought and died during that horrible conflict. Eric Severeid, William L. Schirer, and Cronkite were known as “Murrow’s boys,” a label they wore proudly their entire professional lives.

Rather (like Brokaw) was too young for World War II but cut his reporting teeth at the feet of these giants. A certain kind of gruff honesty permeated their stories along with a well concealed, but very real love of America. That patriotism plus Dan’s middle American small town values gave him a dignity and courtliness so lacking in the cable anchors and other blow-dried, chipmunk-cheeked news readers of today.

Dan Rather is probably the last of the big-time news people to have their reporting and worldview shaped by the Second World War. This generation coming up had their reporting experience and worldview shaped during Watergate and the Viet Nam war. Does that make a difference?

If you watched Dan’s coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 you know that it does make a difference. His emotions were there for all to see, a refreshing change from the monotonous coverage on CNN (save Judy Woodruff’s tearful prayer. Woodruff made her bones at CBS with Rather and Cronkite). And here’s what Dan told Howard Kurtz just prior to the war in Afghanistan:

“What I want to do, I want to fulfill my role as a decent human member of the community and a decent and patriotic American. And therefore, I am willing to give the government, the President and the military the benefit of any doubt here in the beginning. I’m going to fulfill my role as a journalist, and that is ask the questions, when necessary ask the tough questions. But I have no excuse for, particularly when there is a national crisis such as this, as saying – you know, the President says do your job, whatever you are and whomever you are, Mr. and Mrs. America. I’m going to do my job as a journalist, but at the same time I will give them the benefit of the doubt, whenever possible in this kind of crisis, emergency situation. Not because I am concerned about any backlash. I’m not. But because I want to be a patriotic American without apology.”

Can you imagine Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, Brian Williams, or anyone else in an anchor chair saying that today?

Trust me on this; in five years, we’re going to long for the days of Brokaw and Rather. This new crop of news stars and their advocacy journalism will remind us that the simple patriotism and hard headed reporting represented by the Murrow-Cronkite-Rather lineage that’s ending tonight will be sorely missed.

And for me, one more sign that the days ahead are fewer than the days I’ve already seen.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE:

Wizbang has a link to the video of Dan Rather’s sign-off plus links to other commentary.

Pat over at Brainsters Blog has been doing yeoman work on an issue that’s hovered below the radar of the MSM in this country; the murder of Robert McCartney, an Irish Catholic, by the IRA .

The murder has caused a lot of problems for the terrorist group as it has highlighted other illegal activities carried out in the name of Irish independence including a bank robbery that netted the group $50 million.

Sein Fein leader Gerry Adams is going to make his annual fundraising pilgrimage to the US later this month. Given the still violent nature of the IRA and Sein Fein’s close ties to the group, Congress and the President should make it clear to Mr. Adams in no uncertain terms that continued progress towards peace on that troubled island will depend on the IRA’s adherence to the “Good Friday Accords” that disarmed the IRA and put the “troubles” on a firm political footing.

Read the updates on Pat’s blog and keep scrolling. He’s got some great links and good analysis.

Captain Ed has an excellent summary of the case along with some background.

Yes, I believe there are terrorists on both sides. But this kind of mafia-style justice has no place in a democratic society.

Two recent articles from proponents of campaign finance regulation have sought to ease the fears of bloggers that upcoming hearings will target on-line weblogs for regulation.

In an interview with C-Net.com FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub advises bloggers to “chill out:”

First of all, we’re not the speech police. We don’t tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet or anywhere else. The FEC regulates campaign finance. There’s got to be some money involved, or it’s out of our jurisdiction.

That’s disingenuous, but I’ll bite. Some of us consider money=speech.

For example, can paid advertisements on the Web, when coordinated with a particular campaign, be considered an in-kind contribution to that campaign? Context is important, and the context here has everything to do with paid advertising, and nothing to do with individuals blogging and sending e-mails.

“Nothing to do” with bloggers? If you say so. Frankly, I don’t think you understand what blogs are. There are plenty of advocacy blogs like this one that would love to accept campaign ads. What about that context, Ellen?

On Sunday, I went ahead and published what I was given to understand pictures of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena’s car after a run in at a checkpoint with the US military that resulted in the tragic death of an Italian Secret Service agent and wounding of Sgrena and another agent. The picture accompanied an Associated Press story of the tragedy. We found out later that the AP had casually placed a totally unrelated picture of another car with the story. Embarassed (and a little angry) I kept the post up but had to write an explanation of the mix-up.

Now we have some more pictures of Sgrena’s car, this time from the Italian daily La Repubblica.it courtesy of Little Green Footballs. I suppose I could wait and see if these turn out to be false as well, but this time they’re apparently the real thing.

ATTENTION YOU STUPID MOONBATS! Please look at these pictures and tell me that poor little Ms. Sgrena was “targeted” by the U.S. military when the windshield of this car is still intact not to mention that the condition of this car makes her out to be, as I said yesterday, a LIAR! First, the pictures:

This is the car that Sgrena told her editor had been hit by 300-400 rounds from “an armoured vehicle” or a tank, or…something! It’s obvious that the soldiers followed procedure here by firing at the engine block. It could also be that since the Italian driver wasn’t stopping that bullets went into the driver’s side window which could account for the tragic hit on the Italian Secret Service agent who was sitting in the backseat on the passenger side.

Kind of begs the question…How did Sgrena think she was going to get away with her lies and slanders? This is the 21st century baby! Ever hear of the internet?

If the Americans were truly interested in killing her she’d be…well, dead. They wouldn’t have gotten her medical attention. And after the car came to a stop they would have walked up to it and sprayed the car with bulletts until there was no one left alive to tell the story.

This is NOT a conpsiracy. You need two people for a conspiracy. This is simply the case of a publicity hungry far-left anti-American propagandist lying through her teeth to advance her political agenda.

Sickening…using the death of Nicola Callipari, the brave Secret Service agent who risked his life to make the pick-up with the terrorists.

For shame!

UPDATE

Rusty at My Pet Jawa has some good analysis using most of the quotes I used in this post of Sgrena’s version(s) of events and then contrasting the bloodcurdling descriptions of the communist propagandist Sgrena with the straightfoward description of the US military:

The 3rd ID issued a press statement last week saying the car was racing toward the checkpoint when they signaled it to stop, fired warning shots and finally shot the engine block of the car. The shots killed one and wounded two, including the journalist.

Wizbang has the original Italian Photo Gallery from La Repubblica-all six pics.

The Italian press should jump all over this moonbat. And while they’re at it, maybe they could investigate the strange circumstances of her kidnapping in the first place. Dr. Rusty has more on that here.

UPDATE II:

John Hawkins weighs in with a link to an ABC story that has a senior US Military official saying Sgrena’s car was travelling “in excess of 100 MPH.”

John also has a link to a story written by a Dutch journalist who used to write for a Dutch communist newspaper saying that Sgrena was warned to be careful while in Iraq but blithely said that because she was so anti-American, the insurgents would leave her alone.

More questions for the propagandist…

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Last week, my post on Washington’s Birthday needing to be made into a national holiday again came in second place. (The second time I’ve been a bridesmaid and not the bride.) BTW, to toot my own horn a little, that same post appeared in The American Thinker.

If you’d like to join in the fun, just follow the instructions here.

Marwan’s escape and the subsequent activation of another terrorist cell means that once again, America is on the terrorist’s clock. This time, with the hint that the attack will be at an Air Force base, you can bet dollars to navy beans that we’re looking at something really grim; probably something to do with nuclear weapons this time.

Speaking of weapons…I was a little skeptical of the “pulse bomb” McGlennon-Forster was using to wipe the computer files until I did a little research…fascinating stuff.

Electromagnetic pulse effects have been observed since the beginning ot the atomic age. They’re caused by the 2 million degree heat generated when a nuclear device is set off. That heat, which lasts for a couple millionths of a second, changes from thermal energy to electromagnetic energy after it cools down. This “pulse” is a line-of-sight effect; that is, the energy can’t penetrate the earth’s crust so it’s pretty much limited to wherever the horizon is. Obviously, if you set it off at ground level, the effect is very limited; about 22 miles from ground zero.

But suppose you send some nukes into low earth orbit? If you set them off in space over North America the effect would be devastating. Everything that uses a micro chip-from cars to toys-would be shut down. Only “hardened” or shielded devices would be exempt from the effects of the blast. It would pretty much destroy western civilization.

Currently, the only practical way to generate the enormous energies required for the effect is the detonation of a nuke. But the Pentagon is working on several non-nuclear alternatives, including something very much like the device on the first floor of the McGlennon-Forster building.

Feel better now? I knew that you would…

SUMMARY

Following Marwan’s escape, Jack and Paul head over to McGlennon-Forster to try and pick up the thread on the terrorist mastermind. Audrey has a request for Jack:

Audrey: Take care of Paul. He’s not like you Jack (a brutal, thuggish, torturer: Ed.). Please promise me you’ll look after him?
Jack: Yeah…I will.

And you know that Jack is willing die to keep that promise. Because when Jack makes a promise, it’s his blood-bond at stake. His word is his life.

Maybe in this case he’ll make an exception? NAAAAAWWWWW!

Meanwhile, as Erin descends into darkness following Maya’s suicide, it becomes apparent that she’s incapable of continuing as director of CTU. Now who should we get to replace her? MMMMMMMM…We need someone with experience, someone with courage, someone who can lead, someone with the cohones to stand up to division when necessary.

And someone with the smarmy good looks and great bod to make female fans keep watching the show!

As predicted by me here Tony is made interim director of CTU. After a brief skirmish with Curtis over turf, Tony jumps right in to help Jack and Paul who’ve arrived at McGlennon-Forster. They’re met by Security VP Dave Conlon (played by Tomas Arana who was Quintas in Gladiator) who promises “full cooperation.”

Meanwhile, Gene McGlennon (played by “Life Goes On” dad Bill Smitrovitch) is convinced by IT VP John Reese to try and cover up Marwan’s full involvement in the shady dealings of the defense contractor. As Paul manipulates the computer system trying to get at Marwan’s files, it becomes obvious to the corporate criminals that the jig is about up. And like the Republicans in Congress, the bad guys decide to go nuclear. They give the order to activate the “pulse bomb” that will wipe every computer in the building-not to mention affect the power grid and land lines for most of Los Angles county.

As the bomb builds up power, the phones go down preventing Tony from telling Jack about the EMP build up. They resort for the first time in television history (as far as I know) to the IM.

Note to producers: Please get some cool emoticons and better fonts for IM windows. And for God’s sake add a little color, will ya? And maybe some neat sound effects like cats meowing or birds chirping or something…

Too late, Jack tries closing the blast doors but the pulse bomb goes off…but not until after Paul has printed out some encoded files from Marwan’s computer. The cascade effect from the pulse knocks out power to most of the city while Jack and Paul try to make their escape from the building. Paul is caught by Conlon/Quintas while Jack, lucky to be alive, hurries towards him.

And Tony? Heller calls Tony into the conference room:

Heller: We got lucky. Division had someone available with the appropriate qualifications and CTU experience. I’d like you to stick around and assist Ms. Deschler.

Tony: Who?

Heller: Do you know her?

Tony: I was married to her!

Indeed…

BODY COUNT

It was brought to my attention by loyal reader Jasimine that I did not include Maya in the body count last week. That change is reflected below:

Jack: 18 dead
Show: 101 dead

We don’t know the casualty figures yet on the power plant meltdown. And since I included the 32 dead from the train wreck from the first night, I guess I’ll have to include however many bit the dust as a result of the meltdown.

LOOSE ENDS

No word on what happened to Baldy who was pistol whipped by Curtis last week. But then, the writers went 4 weeks without a word about Maya and then they killed her off.

Also, the President is still on the plane! Where was he visiting, the moon? He’s been flying for at least 8 hours (we saw him first after Heller had been kidnapped at 11:00 am). Better get on the ground soon or the press is going to have a field day with this.

Any policeman will tell you that one sure way to tell if a suspect is lying about committing a crime is if his statement changes in the retelling of it again and again. Italian communist journalist Giuliana Sgrena’s story of the attack on her car by American troops has changed so often in the last 72 hours that the only logical conclusion one can draw is that she’s a bald-faced liar who is padding her story with falsehoods to advance her anti-war, anti-American political agenda.

Sgrena has made several statements about the incident; an interview with RAI Radio, the BBC’s World Today, an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera , an interview with the Italian wire service ANSA, an interview with Italian LA 7 TV, and interview with TG 5 TV, and Sgrena’s story in her own newspaper the Il Manifesto. In addition, Sgrena has been interviewed by an Italian prosecutor and has told the story to her boyfriend and her editor.

A common thread that emerges from these various statements is inconsistency. Here are a few examples:

HOW FAST WAS THE CAR GOING?

The vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport. (Sgrena’s editor)

“The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them.” (Il Manifesto)

Somehow we go from “not particularly fast, to “not travelling fast,” to the car going “regular” speed” and ending up “almost losing control” they were going so fast.

Subtle differences? Yes, and significant.

WHO AND WHAT WERE FIRING?

“There was suddenly this shooting, we were hit by a hail of gunfire, and I was speaking with Nicola, who was telling me about what had been happening in Italy in the meantime, when he leaned towards me, probably also to protect me,” (RAI)

“The Americans shone a flashlight at the car and then fired between 300 and 400 bullets at if from an armoured vehicle. Rather than calling immediately for assistance for the wounded Italians, the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour.” (Her editor)

She also said her group had been fired on by an American patrol and not at a checkpoint.

“We thought the danger was over after my rescue. And instead, suddenly there was this shooting. We were hit by a spray of fire.” (RAI TV)

“It wasn’t a checkpoint, but a patrol that started shooting after pointing some lights in our direction,’’ (Prosecutor)

“We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us and he tried to cover me and he was shot. He died and, me, I was safe but he was dead. ” (BBC)

“They told me that we were less than a kilometer away…when…I only remember fire. At that point, a rain of fire and bullets hit us, shutting up forever the cheerful voices of a few minutes earlier.” (Il Manifesto)

Lights or no lights? Tanks, armoured cars, a patrol, a checkpoint? Finally, “I only remember fire.” Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt because of a life and death situation, is she trying to tell us she can’t remember if there were lights or not? Of course she would think there wasn’t a checkpoint because the car wasn’t stopping! And what happened to the bit about “the soldiers’ first move was to confiscate their weapons and mobile phones and they were prevented from resuming contact with Rome for more than an hour?” The only place that appears is in The Guardian, a notorious anti-American British rag.

WHAT DID THE TERRORISTS TELL HER?

The shooting was ``without reason,’’ Sgrena said yesterday from a Rome military hospital, where she is being treated for her wounds. “I cannot find any justification for it,’’ she was cited as saying. (Corriere della Sera)

“I can’t say it was deliberate because we can’t say if there was a lack of information. But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information. ” (BBC)

‘Giuliana may have received information which led to the soldiers not wanting her to leave Iraq alive,” (the Boyfriend)

‘’I believe, but it’s only a hypothesis, that the happy ending to the negotiations must have been irksome,’’ she said. ‘’The Americans are against this type of operation. For them, war is war, human life doesn’t count for much.’’ (TG 5 TV)

“They told me to beware because `there are Americans who don’t want you to return’” (Il Manifesto) (Note: This is the first reference to anything the terrorists may have said to her more than 24 hours after her release.)

I don’t know how much clearer it could be. I tried to place the above quotes in chronological order. However, since 3 of the interviews took place on Saturday, it’s impossible to tell which ones came in what order. It doesn’t take a genius to see the escalating anti-Americanism in her comments.

What to make of all this? Given that there have been other tragic incidents at military checkpoints, it’s very probable that both the Italian driver and the soldiers at the checkpoint made terrible mistakes. According to recently released documents this kind of tragedy has occurred approximately 30 times since the end of the war. Nor, I suspect, will it be the last.

The two questions on everybody’s mind would be; 1) Why would the US military want to kill some obscure leftist journalist, and 2) why didn’t they finish the job and leave no witnesses?

As to #1, no reason of course. Only in Sgrena’s fevered imagination would the US military care about anything a propogandist like her would write (Go here for review of her “articles”)

As for #2, the fact that she’s alive and well enough to postulate conspiracy theories gives the lie to the idea she was a target. Does she really expect anyone (besides the self deluded moonbats) to believe that if the US wanted her out of the way they wouldn’t hesitate to kill everyone and then blame it on the insurgents?

Communists believe that the rest of us are gullible sheep. Unfortunately, many in Europe and this country are proving them right.

Cross-Posted at Blogger News Network

UPDATE: HOW FAST WAS THAT AGAIN?

Michelle Malkin links to another story-this time from CNN that gives a different speed for the car yet again!

Not only is Sgrena a lousy journalist…she’s a lousy liar as well.

UPDATE II: WELCOME REV. MYKERU MOONBATS!

Welcome to all of you moonbats joining us from the Rev’s website. Believe me, I was honored and flattered to have the moonbat link to my humble abode.

Two rules to follow while you’re here, please:

1. Keep your dirty feet off the furniture.
2. Please use a coaster for your kool-aid glasses.

I’d mention that it’s not polite to wear your tin foil hats inside someone’s home except I know there’s no way you’re going to take any chances while in this House.

UPDATE III

Jeff Goldstien has some interesting thoughts and a pornographic challenge, that, if it pans out, will rock the DU moonbats’ world! And if it doesn’t pan out…well, I’d still love to see those pictures!