TIME reports on how Al Qaeda was going to poison the NYC subways:
Fearing that al-Qaeda’s engineers had achieved the holy grail of terror R&D — a device to effectively distribute hydrogen-cyanide gas, which is deadly when inhaled — the CIA immediately set about building a prototype based on the captured design, which comprised two separate chambers for sodium cyanide and a stable source of hydrogen, such as hydrochloric acid. A seal between the two could be broken by a remote trigger, producing the gas for dispersal.
Wow. A blueprint for how to poison us. Right there in the pages of TIME.
Thank God the terrorists don’t read TIME. They prefer NEWSWEEK:
Newsweek also acknowledges, albeit grudgingly I’m sure, that found among the debris of Zarqawi’s safe house was the May 2 Arab-language edition of … Newsweek magazine. The cover story was about Iraq. The title? “No Exit.” Something to bear in mind the next time our lefty friends claim that the media’s defeatism is lost on the terrorists in Iraq.
I sure hope NEWSWEEK doesn’t print any blueprints for terrorists. I hope they all stay in the pages of TIME!
Come on, it’s fun! If you don’t already know the names of the six Senators who voted to yank the troops from Iraq by the end of the year, guess them now.
Allah says he got four. So did I. I wonder if they were the same four.
Leave a comment with your guess. Then come back and check out the extended entry, which has all six names.
Because as soon as you do, then someone comes along and writes a great post like this one from Ace. Here’s a taste, but you really should just read the whole thing:
A lot of people seem baffled that I’d criticize Coulter. I would ask them how they can criticize Ted Rall’s “Terror Widows” cartoon, which made the exact same point Coulter did — that the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husband’s deaths — and then give Coulter a pass.
The two cases are indistinguishable. You can either criticize both, or justify both, but you can’t condemn one and justify the other. It’s blatant partisan inconsistency and hypocrisy to do so. It can’t be the case that Ann gets to say what Ted Rall can’t because she’s Ann, she’s on “our side,” she’s one of us. That’s the game the lefty moonbats play all the time, and I’m personally not playing that game.
I’m not looking for reasons to knock Ann. Quite the opposite. I consider (or did consider) Ann to be on “my side,” and looked for a way to distinguish the cases. I wanted to come up with a clever reason why her remarks were acceptable whereas Rall’s cartoon was not. I couldn’t. And it’s not just because I’m not smart enough; no one has come up with a good reason.
Ace also says:
And, you know, I continue bending over backwards to give Coulter a pass, but she just won’t let me do so. My first reaction with her “Jewish girl” comment was to defend. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I’d be all over someone from the Daily Kos making an equivalent remark.
Well said, sir.