Inside Blogotics

continued from page 1

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

While Chris Matthews accuses President Obama of “dithering,” his Justice Department didn’t dither on another front in the war with Islamist terror.

“Obama and his pro-Islamic Department of Justice (DOJ) have stabbed the families of the Beirut bombing victims in the back,” Christopher Logan wrote at Islam in Action.

Mr. Logan linked to a Boston Globe report that provided the details: “A federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution” for Iran’s role in the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 service members.

“But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent. In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims ‘can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings,’” Bryan Bender of the Boston Globe reported.

“Nice job Barack, choosing your sham ‘negotiations’ with the Mullahs over Americans who lost their loved ones to a Hezbollah suicide bomber,” wrote pseudonymous blogger Zip at Weasel Zippers.

Arlene Kushner at Israpundit noted that Mr. Obama had just issued a statement that Iran’s intransigence on the nuclear issue required “a consequence … Obama’s position is that Iran’s intransigency will increase the willingness of the international community to resort to punitive measures.”

“Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran,” she quoted the president as saying before concluding that the Marine bombing case proved talk about consequences was all hat and no cattle.

“But here’s the kicker … the Obama government is going to court to try to block this … Here’s a chance to zap it to Iran, big time, and Obama would rather not do it,” she wrote.

Sarah Pariah

Some San Francisco bookstores, particularly those not affiliated with major chains, are too open-minded to stock Sarah Palin’s book but not so open-minded that they won’t stock white separatism; Sept. 11 “Truther” books; the works of Ward Churchill, William Ayres and Lyndon LaRouche.

“Don’t jump to conclusions. It’s not that the retailers are closed-minded. It’s their customers who are closed-minded,” mock-explained AllahPundit at Hot Air, before backtracking: “Well, okay. Some of the retailers are closed-minded too.”

“Our customers are thinking people … They’re not into reading drivel.” Nathan Embretson of Pendragon Books in Oakland told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Anything like that we wouldn’t carry,” clerk Emily Stackhouse of Cover to Cover Booksellers in Noe Valley added. “We’re a small store, and it would probably gross us all out. Some things you carry because of freedom of speech, but a book like that is just gross.”

“AllahPundit” dryly noted: “If I recall correctly, the ‘that’s gross’ exception to free speech was articulated in the landmark case of Ohmigod v. Ewww.”

David Steinberg of Pajamas Media picked up on the “drivel” comment and looked to see what Pendragon Books considers to be “non-drively, thinky-type books … per the Pendragon Books Web site:

• ‘Inside Job: Unmasking the 9-11 Conspiracies’ (Paperback) By Jim Marrs. ‘Inside Job’ is the definitive journalistic account of the hidden role of the Bush Whitehouse in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks