NBC’s Brian Williams compares the new Iranian president to our Founding Fathers: 1st Presidents “‘might have been called terrorists”.

Bill Clinton’s “My Life” is set to become a “huge hit” in Iran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi wants the Middle East to be a “WMD Free” zone.

Life at Guantanamo Bay to be revealed in a UK docu-drama.

And finally, its a sad day for Saudi males: lingerie shops in Saudi Arabia are to employ women from now on.

Update (Chad):
I did not see the Brian Williams debacle therefore I cannot confirm he said the following as reported by World Net Daily.

“What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ by the British crown, after all.”

Assuming this is true, and again I did not see it, what kind of historical facts does Williams have? Seriously. Does he actually believe Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and even one of my ancestors stormed a British embassy and held those inside hostage?

I am quite the history buff and I have yet to see any type of mention where this happened or anything even remotely close. During the Revolutionary War, the British burned homes of settlers, executed ‘traitors’ and ransacked the nation. We gave the British soldiers quarter for the most part and eventually shipped a large number of Red Coats back to England . . . alive. Never did American soldiers storm into buildings and take everyone inside hostage. Never!

Excuse me, but where in the hell does Brian Williams get off calling someone a terrorist whose blood flows through my veins?

Update (Chad):
Through Michelle Malkin I found Brian Williams’ blog. He covers this topic above a little bit. Here’s what Williams had to say prior to his newscast.

It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I’ll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England.

By the way, the story which Williams alludes to is whether or not newly ‘elected’ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was part of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis (covered here and here). According to Williams’ comments on his blog, the topic if our founding fathers were terrorists might not have come to him but from other NBC execs. Frankly, who cares who it came from. It is completely inaccurate and extremely offensive to me.

Leave some feedback and maybe the NBC News crew will figure out it is not the job of a news organization to make the news, but report it.

Update (Chad):
Professor Bainbridge makes the argument that you could call the Founding Fathers traitors. I make no qualms with this remark because in the definition of the word, they were guilty of treason. It was treasonous to declare independence from a sovereign nation, England.

There is however quite the difference between traitors and terrorists and when Williams made this analogy, he was using the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis as the point of interest. At no point during the American Revolution did Americans hold Tories hostage or parade them around the streets. The equivalence of the two is nonexistent and any comparison between the two I believe is morally bankrupt.

At no time during the buildup, during or aftermath of the Hostage Crisis were the United States and Iran at war. It was an embassy of another sovereign nation which was attacked through terrorist methods, not an Iranian government building. This is apples and oranges.

UNCoRRELATED linked with The Founding Terrorists
Obviously Right linked with Brian Williams: Crushed Like a Tiny Bug!
Ideas In Progress linked with A Man is Known by the Enemies He Keeps
Michelle Malkin linked with BRIAN WILLIAMS SAID WHAT?

Syria has been sticking its nose into the Lebanese government for years and it has not eased since Syria once and for all abided by the agreed upon UN Resolution to withdraw soldiers from Lebanon. Recently many countries of the international community have accused Syria of having a Lebanese ‘hit list‘ to assassinate politicians and opinion makers. Syria of course denied such a list exists, however they have been blamed by many for the assassinations of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rufik Hariri and a Lebanese journalist who was openly critical of Syria’s involvement in Lebanese affairs.

The United States State Department believes there are still members of Syrian intelligence inside Lebanon despite Syria saying the contrary. While the United States has only issued stern warning against Syria for it’s continued complacency with jihadists using Syrian soil to enter Iraq, now it has ordered the assets frozen of two Syrian intelligence officials for their work in Lebanon and ties to Hezbollah.

The two men, Ghazi Kanaan and Rustum Ghazali, are pillars of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and they served successively as Syria’s de facto rulers in Lebanon during the two-decade occupation that ended in April. The Treasury Department took the step under an executive order issued by President Bush 13 months ago, and the action marked the first time the United States had singled individual members of the Syrian government as complicit in misconduct.

Administration officials would not say whether any specific accounts had been frozen. But they noted that, as a result of the action, Mr. Kanaan and Mr. Ghazali would now be financially isolated from the United States, with all Americans now prohibited from engaging in any financial transactions with them.

What effect, if any, this will have on trying to curb Syria’s influence in Syria is not known. The Lebanonese people elected a majority anti-Syrian party over this past month and today announced Emile Lahoud would head up the Lebanese government. Hopefully this news combined with the frozen assets will once and for all send a clear message to Syria not to interfere into Lebanese affairs.

A brand new 45-minute propoganda video released by Al Qaida in Iraq is out. I have the video but I have not had the time to watch it yet or post any screen captures of it.

SITE reports upon what is included in the video. According to SITE, the video is a narration of sorts regarding Al Qaida in Iraq’s mission and how it fits in with Al Qaida goals. Yes, there is a connection between the war in Iraq with the same enemy that has attacked us numerously included on ‘the day we shall not mention.’

Not surprisingly, the video also depicts human rights reports which claim prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were tortured. Way to go Amnesty International!

Since the video is 150 MB and I have neither the space nor the bandwidth to host the video, does anyone else have the ability to host it and is willing to do so? I’ll probably watch the video later tonight or over the weekend and report back on anything that is different than most videos, though I imagine it is more of a compilation of several rather than a brand new video.

Update 7/1:
I have given a small review of the video. It is nothing like what I’ve seen before in terms of these videos.

Iranian participants in the 1979 Hostage Crisis are denying Ahmadinejad played any role in the siege and the subsequent 444 day hostage ordeal. As reported here yesterday, a picture that is believed to be of Ahmadinejad walking an American hostage has been released to the press.

As Robert Spencer says, “If it ain’t Ahmadinejad, it’s his twin brother.”

What I find most striking about this denial is that Ahmadinejad was a leader in the same student movement that took the hostages, yet now we are to believe he had nothing to do with it. Was he the sole conscientious objector? That’s very doubtful since he has publically said he wants to revive the Islamic Revolution, the same revolution which climaxed with the hostage taking.

The new 10-year defense agreement between India and the United States seems not to be commented upon much, however this is historic and strategic in a variety of ways. Joe Katzman tries to explain why this agreement is necessary and what this means for the future.

My first opinion I had when I read this news yesterday was that such an agreement between India and the United States is to help confront China because this agreement will help act as a counter-balance of sorts. Not only is the United States supporting India’s inclusion into the UN Security Council, India has also experienced numerous battles with jihadists involved in the Kashmir conflict. While India and Pakistan are working towards a lasting peace where both governments say there is no turning back, jihadists trained in Pakistan continue to launch attacks.

India has a fast-rising ecnomy based upon intelligence and many shared values between the United States and India exist. I am hoping this defense agreement opens the door to more cooperation with India on numerous issues.

Following-up from my post yesterday, MSNBC (with video) quotes the former Iran hostages saying Ahmadinejad was indeed a 1979 captor:

SAVANNAH, Ga. - Almost a quarter-century after they were taken captive in Iran, five former American hostages say they got an unexpected reminder of their 444-day ordeal in the bearded face of Iran’s new president-elect.

Watching coverage of Iran’s presidential election on television dredged up 25-year-old memories that prompted four of the former hostages to exchange e-mails. And those four realized they shared the same conclusion — the firm belief that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been one of their Iranian captors.

“This is the guy. There’s no question about it,” said former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel who lives in Jonesboro, Ga. “You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I’d still spot him.”

Scott and former hostages David Roeder, William J. Daugherty and Don A. Sharer told The Associated Press on Wednesday they have no doubt Ahmadinejad, 49, was one of the hostage-takers. A fifth ex-hostage, Kevin Hermening, said he reached the same conclusion after looking at photos.

Some ex-hostages disagree:

Former hostage and retired Air Force Col. Thomas E. Schaefer said he doesn’t recognize Ahmadinejad, by face or name, as one of his captors.

Another former hostage, Paul Lewis, said he thought Ahmadinejad looked vaguely familiar when he saw a picture of him on the news last week, but the former Marine embassy guard said he could not be certain.

“My memories were more of the gun barrel, not the people behind it,” Lewis said.

Three of the former hostages say Ahmadinejad was “extremely cruel”:

Scott, Roeder, Daugherty and Sharer said they have been exchanging e-mails since seeing Ahmadinejad emerge as a serious contender in Iran’s elections.

“He was extremely cruel,” said Sharer, of Bedford, Ind. “He’s one of the hard-liners. So that tells you where their government’s going to stand for the next four to five years.”

After seeing recent newspaper photos, Sharer said, “I don’t have any doubts” that Ahmadinejad was a hostage-taker.

[snip]

One of the guards, whom Scott called Akbar, would sometimes let Scott and Sharer out to walk the narrow, 20-foot hallway outside their cells, he said. One day, Scott said, the man he believes was Ahmadinejad saw them walking and chastised the guard.

“He was the security chief, supposedly,” Scott said. “When he found out Akbar had let us out of our cells at all, he chewed out Akbar. I speak Farsi. He said, ‘These guys are dogs, they’re pigs, they’re animals. They don’t deserve to be let out of their cells.”’

Scott recalled responding to the man’s stare by openly cursing his captor in Farsi. “He looked a little flustered like he didn’t know what to do. He just walked out.”

[snip]

Roeder said he’s sure Ahmadinejad was present during one of his interrogations when the hostage-takers threatened to kidnap his son in the U.S. and “start sending pieces — toes and fingers of my son — to my wife.”

“It was almost like he was checking on the interrogation techniques they were using in a sort of adviser capacity,” Roeder said.

Ahmadinejad denies:

Rowhani, the aide to Ahmadinejad, said Ahmadinejad said during the recent meeting that he stopped opposing the embassy seizure after the revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, expressed support for it. But the president-elect said he never took part.

“Definitely he was not among the students who took part in the seizure,” said Abbas Abdi, the leader of the hostage-takers. Abdi has since become a leading supporter of reform and sharply opposed Ahmadinejad. “He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure, let alone being responsible for security” for the students.

Yesterday a United States Chinook helicopter reportedly carrying 17 servicemen responding to a call for backup crashed in Afghanistan. It is believed that all aboard perished.

The military has been investigating the incident, and today military brass said they believe the Chinook crashed due to hostile fire.

U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts said the helicopter was fired on as it was approaching a landing zone while rushing reinforcements to a battle in an area known to harbor “terrorist organizations.” It flew on, but crashed about a little over a mile away at dusk, he said.

Extremely sad news and a stark reminder to many that the GWOT still wages on in Afghanistan. The Taliban has claimed the Chinook’s downing and is now promising to release a video of the attack.

If there is a video relase, Infovlad is sure to have it when it becomes available. A quick glimpse through jihadi and Taliban message boards tonight has not yielded any new footage related to this incident.

Hmm…not quite sure what to make of this, from today’s Washington Times:

Sunni “fence sitters” in Iraq say they would be willing to take on master terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi and rid the country of foreign saboteurs if the Shi’ite-run government’s new political structure is acceptable to them, according to a senior U.S. official.

“The Iraqis will kill every foreigner who comes into their neighborhood when they’re ready,” said the senior official who has spent months in Iraq. “They don’t want foreigners in Iraq.”

The official, who has held numerous meetings with what he called “influential fence sitters,” said the representatives have told him they are only tolerating foreign terrorists because they are a “pressure tool” to force the Shi’ites and the U.S. to consider Sunni political demands for more representation in the Baghdad government.

“We’ll catch him when we’re ready,” the official quoted one Sunni as telling him, referring to Zarqawi.

Well, I’m ready for Zarqawi to be caught/killed. Could this be some wild claim by the Sunnis used for leverage in talks with US officials?

Update (Chad):
One thing to keep in mind through this though is that there are many Sunni leaders in Iraq which have publically called the new Iraqi government a paper government, or something to that effect. While Mac may be right that this is a political ploy, I’m not certain that these particular Sunnis know enough about politics in a Democratic government to know what is a good ploy versus a bad ploy.

I also believe this would effect the further inclusion of more Sunnis into the Iraq Parliament instead of talks with the U.S. military. After all, it was the Sunnis whom controlled Iraq under Saddam. Many of the Sunni leaders are going through power-withdrawal and desperately want some of that power back.

To the new Iraqi government’s credit, they have bent over backwards to try to include Sunnis though I have no doubt there is still work to be done. It would definitely be an interesting turn of events if even more Iraqis turned against Zarqawi and Al Qaida in Iraq. Already we have the majority of the Shiites and Kurds against the group, but having more Sunnis would be a wonderful added bonus.

It should also be mentioned that Zarqawi and Al Qaida in Iraq reportedly travel through heavily Sunni areas as the majority of Al Qaida as a whole are in fact Sunni. All it takes is one tipster to locate Zarqawi and hundreds of Coalition soldiers would be knocking at the door.

It should be perfectly clear by now that Democrats hate it when President Bush, or any Republican for that matter, mentions 9/11. For Democrats the the words September 11th or 9/11 are about as worthy of mentioning in public discourse than the hundred or so ‘four-letter’ words all of our parents taught us not to say.

The fallout among Democrats following President Bush’s speech last night has been very interesting to watch as Democrats try to salvage their reputation as being weak on national security. Of course their actions and words do not strengthen their cause, but I cannot think of one more plausible scenario why Democrats are spewing venom just over the mention of that tragic day . . . errr 9/11.

The Democrats have compiled a page of sorts with different spokesmen being outraged, outraged I tell you, over the mention of ‘the day we shall not mention’ and it’s quite interesting as it s the normal Democratic nonsense.

In the President’s speech last night, he clearly linked the 9-11 attacks with the war in Iraq, implying that Saddam Hussein was involved and responsible for September 11th.

[snip]

“I was troubled and offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11, because as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam and there has been this myth for a long time that is not true that Saddam is somehow responsible for 9/11 . . . ” [said David Gergen.]

Now let’s look back through the transcript a bit and see what mentions of ‘the day we shall not mention’ were said in the President’s Speech.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face . . .

Ok, this quote is slightly inaccurate as the terrorists which we are fighting in Iraq actually declared war against us long ago, but we did very little about it. Bush is still correct that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorists in Iraq of the same ideology as Al Qaida. One of the groups is even a branch of Al Qaida. As a quick refresher course for Democrats, Al Qaida attacked us on ‘that day we shall not mention.’

After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Thus far that commitment has held true and, God willing, it will continue to hold true. In the months following ‘the day we shall not mention,’ the nation was relatively united behind taking the fight to the terrorists, yet, strangley, now that the terrorists are in Iraq many in this nation want to retreat. I will not go as far as say detractors wish attacks occured in this country, but right now the only military strategy in the GWOT is to confront terrorists abroad so we do not have to at home.

How many military strategies have come from the Left side of the aisle? (crickets)

The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 … if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

‘The day we shall not mention’ awoke the nation that we are not invincible and that the virtual pacifism ways of the Clinton Adminstration were not the way to prevail against radical Islam. Yet here we are, less than four years after, and a good portion of this country wants to retreat from fighting people with the same ideology that killed nearly 3,000 Americans on ‘the day we shall not mention.’

If the United States were to leave Iraq when the Iraqi military cannot secure its own country, there would certainly be a radical Islamic threat especially now that Iran has a new hard-line president wanting to rejuvenate the Islamic Revolution. As always, this is an easy concept to comprehend, yet much of the Democratic caucus can’t figure this out for the life of them.

They are trying to shake our will in Iraq – just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001.

For the reading impaired, they means radical Islamic terrorists. You know, the same kind we’re fighting in Iraq!

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult – and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing.

Democrats though fail to understand the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT. Saddam did harbor, train and finance radical Islamic terrorists prior to the invasion. This is not a war in which you can kill Bin Laden, freeze his carcass on ice to display to the world, and proudly project “We’ve won!” It is an ideology we are fighting, not a singular mass of people sitting in some far-away country.

The long hall will be tough. It is tough. There is still a war being waged in Afghanistan on the fields and throughout the world with minds. A retreat will only signal one thing to the millions living under tyranny, our enemies, our allies and other nations; we cannot carry through to our promises.

Total mentions = 5
Direct implications Saddam was involved with the attack on ‘the day we shall not mention’ = 0

The Jawa Report linked with Democrats Continue to Harp on 'The Day Which We Shall Not Mention'

This sounds like trashy gossip that might be coming from a Kitty Kelly book, but its actually from an Iranian MP:

TEHRAN (AFP) - Perplexed by the vitriol of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s attacks on Iran, one lawmaker believes he has uncovered the secret of her enmity — that she was spurned by an Iranian boyfriend at college.

“The reason that the US secretary of state attacks Iran is because she had her heart broken by a young man from Qazvin while they were students,” a confident Shokrollah Attarzadeh was quoted by the ISNA agency as saying.

Somewhat mysteriously, he added: “This is the result of an investigation by a woman MP, who cannot be named.”

Those crazy Iranians. As a side note, I’m currently reading Jerome Corsi’s Atomic Iran. Pretty good so far, its scary what is transpiring in Iran right now. Well worth the price of the book. On a related note, I was in a coffee shop a while back ordering my coffee and I set the book on the counter. The girl behind the counter saw the book, picked it up, and asked “Is this fiction?” Granted, I know not everyone follows politics, the GWOT and Islamofacism closely like I do, but still! I politely said it was a new book on Iran and their quest to attain nuclear weapons. She said, “Oh…ok.”

Sigh…

UPDATE: Hottie conservative pundit Gabrielle Reilly from Australia has an exclusive interview with Jerome Corsi.