October 2006

Last count, 587 times! I relaxed a bit when they dragged out the Democrat’s conscience of the Senate, Robert “Sheets Byrd’ to shore up their un-ending stream of lies, distortions, mis-representations and outright treachery. You’d expect a slight attempt at balance. But then I remembered I was watching CNN, the people who think it’s just dandy to show terrorists killing American soldiers, the people who hid Saddam’s crimes so they could maintain a “news” presence in Iraq.


Anyone following the efforts of the left to undermine the President and this nation will know that George Soros has been using the fortune he made from currency speculation to finance those efforts.

We also know that he was a Hungarian Jew who escaped the holocaust. Sweetness and Light has posted some of the transcript of a 60 minutes interview with George Soros from 1998. I’ll quote a small portion:

KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.

Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that’s when my character was made.

KROFT: In what way?

Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that’s–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don’t–you don’t see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

Mr. SOROS: No.

KROFT: For example that, ‘I’m Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.’ None of that?

Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn’t be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it’s just like in markets–that if I weren’t there–of course, I wasn’t doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.

I suppose he thinks he had no role in what happened to his fellow Hungarian Jews, the ones who did not escape the Nazis, the ones who went up in smoke in the Nazi death camps. It wasn’t him, so he didn’t care. Millions of Jews perished. Millions more experienced deep guilt and shame because they could not save their families and communities from the Holocaust. Not Soros. I think Sweetness and Light is right:

But the statements he made in this interview to my mind are quite chilling. He forgives himself everything. He says that if he hadn’t done it somebody else would have.

All of which would seem to indicate that Mr. Soros has no conscience. A lack of conscience is said to be a common symptom of sociopaths.

Mark Steyn reports that:

Bush concluded with an exasperated: “If it’s not the Crusades, it’s the cartoons.”

Jihadists have become expert at exploiting our PC attitudes to our disavantage. Our President gets it.

Take the two Chechen women who brought down two Russian planes within minutes of each other. They used RDX, a detectable explosive, but smuggled it past lax Russian security. The Jihadists make common cause with the Chechens. They would no doubt share expertise.

Then we have Ramzi Yousef

who was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, concocted a plan a year later to attack 11 flights traveling from central Asia to the United States. The plot was uncovered in the Philippines in January 1995, two weeks before its execution date, after Yousef and others accidentally started a fire in their apartment and police showed up.

Before he was arrested, Yousef did a trial run with a lower-power bomb. He assembled it in the lavatory of a flight from Manila to Japan and left it on board after he departed on a connecting flight. The bomb exploded, but the Boeing 747 limped to an emergency landing with only one casualty.

Documents found on Yousef’s computer that emerged during his trial (Click here for PDF) showed that the plotters had filled bottles of contact lens solution with nitroglycerin and planned to use Casio digital watches as the timers, coupled with two 9-volt batteries in the bomb as a power source. The 9/11 Commission’s report said Yousef also had prepared dolls wearing clothes containing nitrocellulose, an explosive compound.

I’ve previously noted that Yousef may have had an indirect hand in the loss of TWA 800.

We know that the Jihadists have considerable expertise in using cell phones to trigger IED explosions. What would it take for them to smuggle a bomb in their checked luggage on board? Can they hermetically seal an RDX bomb so it can only be detected by X-rays? If they can do that then a passenger could trigger an explosive with a cell phone. But, why bother? Remember Pan Am flight 103?

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that terrorists could easily take down passenger jets. They’ve succeeded in the past. Why haven’t they tried more often? There are stable binary liquid explosives, such as Lixor, that they could smuggle aboard aircraft. Heck, all they have to do is infiltrate the crews who clean or maintain aircraft.

I tend towards the bigger bang theory. How do you top 9/11? Bombing a few planes wouldn’t be enough. All it would do is tighten airline security to the point where the terrorists themselves could not travel. The public would demand Muslim free air travel. Without relatively free air travel, terrorists could not attack Western targets.

So we see amateur efforts, such as the UK plot, that tie up resources and create public resentment at the authorities. But there is no concerted effort to bomb planes. The terrorist’s efforts are now directed towards bigger bangs.

Rove’s off the hook; they’re off the book.


I flew from Cleveland to Hartford and back over the weekend to run the Mystic Places marathon. It was a nice trip but there were large bottlenecks at both airports where travellers went through TSA screening. Everybody was checked for explosives using the “puffer kiosk”. Everybody had to take their shoes off. They are still checking fluids and one young woman was forced to ditch an expensive bottle of perfume because it contained more than 3oz of fluid. What are the chances that this woman and her boyfriend could construct a bomb on board using this perfume? Pretty remote. What are the chances that a woman could smuggle explosives aboard a plane using body cavities? Pretty good. It happened twice in Russia.

The shoe bomber plot was widely publicized so we now get to take off our shoes. The fluid plot was well also widely publicized so we can’t carry common fluids onto a plane. The Chechen plot that used body cavities was not widely publicised so body cavities get a free pass, despite the fact that terrorists were successful using that technique. Why the double standard? Maybe it’s because searching everyone’s body cavities would expose the TSA procedures for what they are: a useless sham that lulls everybody into a false sense of security.

Could the “puffer kiosk” have detected the Chechen women before they got on board? I’d feel a hell of a lot better if it could.

Via Pajamas Media we see this LA Times report that:

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra has suspended a Democratic staff member because of concerns he may have leaked a high-level intelligence assessment to The New York Times last month.

An aide to California Rep. Jane Harman, the committee’s top Democrat, did not have an immediate comment Thursday night.

The New York Times did not immediately answer a telephone message seeking comment.

I think water boarding would be the appropriate way to deal with leakers. In fact, singularly appropriate. They’d suffer no lasting harm but we’d soon find out how much damage they’d done to our nation’s security.

Next Page »