SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FaultLine who wrote (8280)9/16/2003 11:01:40 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793809
 
It seems that Ashcroft doesn't allow boobs in government buildings.

:o)



I knew there was a reason I missed you.

lindybill@goingoutonthatbit.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (8280)9/17/2003 12:40:06 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793809
 
"Follow the Money!"



Flow of Saudis' Cash to Hamas Is Scrutinized
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. with TIMOTHY L. O'BRIEN - NEW YORK TIMES


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 16 — Nearly a year ago, Khalid Mishaal, a senior leader of Hamas, the militant Palestinian organization, attended a charitable fund-raising conference here where he talked at length with Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto Saudi ruler.

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing "to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them."

"This is indeed a brave posture deserving appreciation," the Hamas officials said, the document said.

Today Mr. Mishaal, who was recently added to the United States Treasury Department list of what it calls terrorist financiers, controls a wing of Hamas that advocates violent confrontation with Israel, including suicide bombings.

As relations between the Israelis and Palestinians continue to deteriorate, in no small part because of recent Hamas-sponsored suicide bombings, Saudis have come under fresh scrutiny by American and European investigators here and in Israel for their political and financial support of the group.

At least 50 percent of Hamas's current operating budget of about $10 million a year comes from people in Saudi Arabia, according to estimates by American law enforcement officials, American diplomats in the Middle East and Israeli officials. After the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Saudi portion of Hamas financing grew larger as donations from the United States, Europe and other Persian Gulf countries dried up, American officials and analysts said.

The estimated donations coming from Saudi Arabia — about $5 million a year — are a significant sum for Hamas but a very small portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into Saudi charities each year, officials said. Nearly all the donations are given in cash, making it extremely difficult for Saudi and American authorities to track the money.

"It's a ridiculous accusation; no Saudi government money goes to Hamas, directly or indirectly," said Adel al-Jubeir, the foreign affairs adviser to Prince Abdullah. "Why on earth would we not stop this kind of funding? Why on earth would our crown prince say we do not want to support Hamas and then allow people to do this under the table?"

Saudi officials say their government's support for Palestinian causes goes solely to the Palestinian Authority, about $80 million to $100 million a year.

Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, has denied that his government has financially supported Hamas or charities that serve as front organizations for Hamas. Prince Saud has said the government aids the Palestinian Authority because it is "the sole representative of the Palestinian people."

The American Treasury secretary, John Snow, who is to arrive here on Wednesday on a trip through the Middle East and Central Asia to address the financing of terrorism and economic development, said a major theme was to press Palestinian and Saudi authorities to crack down on Hamas by choking off its funds.

During two days of meetings in Israel, which ended today, Mr. Snow conveyed a message of caution from the White House to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, urging him not to carry through with the threatened "removal" of Yasir Arafat and to halt construction of a barrier around Palestinian territory. But Mr. Snow aimed his strongest criticism at Hamas.

"The terror has to be stopped because the terror lies at the very heart of the region's troubles," Mr. Snow told Palestinian political and business leaders. "Hamas is clearly identified with terror. You have to go after it."

He said the White House was also asking Syria to crack down on Hamas. Mr. Mishaal and other senior Hamas leaders are based in Syria.

The document that outlined Mr. Mishaal's visit with the Saudis, in October 2002, was seized by the Israeli military during a raid in Gaza last December, and a copy was recently given to The New York Times by a former Israeli official. The summary is written in Arabic on paper with a Hamas letterhead and was translated into English by the Israeli military.

Four senior American law enforcement and diplomatic officials who reviewed the document did not dispute its authenticity, but declined to discuss its contents.

A Saudi official who was provided the document in Arabic and in English said it did not prove the Saudi government had contributed to Hamas, and he strongly criticized its contents as conveying a distorted view of the events.

"This document is trash," the official said. "If the purpose of the document is to prove Saudi funding for Hamas, it fails miserably. There is nothing in it except the views and perceptions of Hamas members who attended this conference. The Israelis have made a big fuss about this document, and there is no there there."

Several Saudi officials acknowledged that wealthy Saudi citizens have made sizable cash donations to Hamas. But they said the government is working to curb such contributions.

Saudi leaders, facing increasing pressure from the United States, say they have done much to stem the flow of donations to charities linked to terrorism. They have barred Saudi charities from sending money out of the country and have prohibited individuals from making anonymous wire transfers of cash.

A senior Treasury Department counter- terrorism official said Bush administration officials had repeatedly raised their concerns about Hamas financing with Saudi leaders. American officials have also begun to work closely with the Palestinian Authority on the issue, including meeting with Amin Haddad, governor of the Palestinian Monetary Authority.

Some terrorism and political analysts say Hamas is divided into two wings: one carries on social work, like hospitals and schools; a military wing engages in armed attacks and suicide bombings against civilians.

Other analysts say there is no longer a clear distinction between Hamas's social and military operations. Members of Hamas, Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad often work within one another's organizations, they say, and all three groups were born of an older group, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Earlier this month, after intense lobbying by the United States and Israel, the European Union placed the political wing of Hamas on its blacklist of terrorist organizations, which means the 15 members of the European Union can freeze Hamas's assets.

In the Hamas document, drafted last November before the war with Iraq had begun, Hamas officials concluded that "among many echelons in Saudi Arabia, there is clear, tangible and conspicuous mistrust of the United States, particularly in view of its succumbing to the influence and incitement of the Zionist lobby."

"They consider the expected American attack on Iraq as only the first step, which will have ramifications for everyone, especially for Saudi Arabia," the document added.

A senior American diplomat in the Middle East pointed out that wealthy Saudis contribute at least 2 percent of their annual income to charitable causes, and that charities that assist hospitals, schools and orphanages in Gaza and the West Bank are flooded with donations from Saudi citizens. Names of charities often change, and it sometimes takes years to determine whether a charity is a front for Hamas, the official said. "It is considered rude in the kingdom to inquire about the motives behind a charity, and so Saudis don't do it," the official added.

The conference that Mr. Mishaal attended last year was held by the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, a Saudi charitable organization based here. The charity's American branch was incorporated in Virginia in 1992 by Abdullah bin Laden, a relative of Osama bin Laden. Members of the Saudi royal family have contributed large sums to the charity, which has publicly stated that one of its educational goals is to "arm the Muslim youth with full confidence in the supremacy of the Islamic system over other systems."

Although the World Assembly, which is known as WAMY, has not been charged with a crime in the United States, law enforcement officials in India and the Philippines have accused it of financing terrorism in their countries.

According to the Israeli military, Hamas's spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, in a speech last month in Gaza, thanked the World Assembly and another Saudi charity for their continued financial support. On Sept. 6, Sheik Yassin narrowly escaped assassination when an Israeli Air Force jet dropped a bomb on a building in Gaza City where he and other Hamas leaders had gathered.

Saleh Sulaiman al-Wohaibi, the secretary general of the World Assembly, has adamantly denied that his charity provides contributions to terrorist organizations.

"WAMY has been publishing annual reports detailing expenses, humanitarian aid extended to different organizations," Mr. Wohaibi said in an interview published on Sept. 11 in The Saudi Gazette. "Hence, an organization with such lofty aims and objectives cannot be deemed to have a relationship with terrorism."

nytimes.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (8280)9/17/2003 4:46:29 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793809
 
Here is one that will "Frost" our Liberals



Political Virility
Real men vote Republican.

BY JAY NORDLINGER
Jay Nordlinger is managing editor at National Review. This article appears in the September issue of The American Enterprise.

Many years ago Chris Matthews--now famous on TV--hit on an interesting formulation: He said the Democrats were the "mommy party" and the Republicans the "daddy party." That is, the Democrats were "nurturers," concerned with health policy and day care. The Republicans were "protectors," taking care of national security and other manly matters. This notion is obviously galling to some. But Mr. Matthews was on to something, and we now find ourselves in a "daddy party" time.
Republicans have seldom shied from an embrace of manliness. The New York Times recently ran a report on the new Bush re-election headquarters. It explained that the offices display two large photos: one of President Bush "sweating and looking rugged in a T-shirt and cowboy hat"; another of Ronald Reagan "also looking rugged in a cowboy hat." And all this was before Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for governor of California. Yup, that's the Republican Party.

Of course, George W. Bush is famous for his "compassionate conservatism." He is capable of great tenderness of expression, much of it related, no doubt, to his triumph over alcohol and his religious awakening. But Bush as hombre has been the dominant theme of his post-September 11 presidency.

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, likes to tell a story about Mr. Bush out in Iowa, early in the 2000 presidential campaign. A group of Hell's Angels rode into town, and Gov. Bush simply waded into them, hugging them, bonding with them, relishing them. Not every American politician could manage this, without affectation. Mr. Bush was also, in that campaign, known to have a much better time with the rough 'n' ready cameramen in the back of the plane than with the (much more effete) reporters who also accompanied him.

His ranch in Crawford says a lot, too. President Clinton enjoyed swilling with the swells on Martha's Vineyard (except for 1996, when a poll instructed him to go camping out West). President Bush, much to the dismay of the White House press corps, would rather spend August in boiling central Texas, wielding a chainsaw.

Mr. Bush's personality grates on some. On many. He is accused of machismo, belligerence, cowboyism. For Europeans, in particular--and for European-like Americans--he is the very model of the swaggering, heedless, vulgar right-winger. He said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." About Saddam holdouts in Iraq, he declared, "Bring 'em on"--meaning, our boys are ready to confront them. This prompted a hue and cry among Mr. Bush's critics. As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank commented, "It's the sort of thing that sounds pretty shocking," although "often this sort of Old West rhetoric appeals to the American people."
In a June 2002 speech, Mr. Bush gave his description of the country he leads: "I like to use the word 'tough,' because we are." "Tough but compassionate," he has said on other occasions, a phrase that may apply as much to himself as to the country. In his State of the Union address of 2002, he said something remarkably blunt, even astounding: "For too long, our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.' " (Of course, this is an evocation of the famous words spoken aboard Flight 93 on September 11.)

The last couple of years have been replete with Bush toughness--tough talk, tough action, toughness in a tough job. "They've got a problem on their hands," he said of the terrorists. "We're gonna find 'em. And if they're hidin', we're gonna smoke 'em out. And we'll bring 'em to justice." He is quite taken with this "smoking out" business. Standing in the White House with the governor of Louisiana, he said, "I know the governor likes to hunt rabbits down in Louisiana. Sometimes those rabbits think they can hide from the governor. But, eventually, he smokes 'em out and gets 'em. And that's exactly what's happening to Mr. bin Laden and all the murderers that he's trying to hide in Afghanistan."

He can be cocky, certainly--sort of defiant-cocky, righteous-cocky. In March 2002, he told an audience, "Obviously, as you well know, we found some of them [the terrorists] bunched up in the Shahikote Mountains [of Afghanistan]. And we sent our military in. And they're not bunched up anymore." Badda-bing.

So, that's our president. What of our vice president? Is he, too, a "daddy politician"? You bet, as Donald Rumsfeld would say. Dick Cheney is a laconic Westerner, exuding an aura of competence, strength and dependability. You get the feeling that things are going to be all right if Mr. Cheney is on the case. Like his boss, he talks straight, in matter-of-fact tones. His detractors enjoy reminding us that he received a deferment in the Vietnam War--he is on the liberals' list of "chicken hawks." But few serious people consider him anything other than a prime example of the tough-minded conservative.
Then there is the secretary of defense himself. Donald Rumsfeld is almost a riot of manliness, and his moment indeed arrived on September 11. He was in his office--briefing congressmen on, among other things, the threat of terrorism--when Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon's walls. Against the advice of some, he rushed to help the wounded. Not long after 9/11, I talked to some friends of his, in preparation for a piece. One of them said, "Look, we're not playing pitty-patty anymore. We have a foe that's proven deadly. People look for a different kind of person to run Washington--as far away from the Clinton type as you can get."

Mr. Rumsfeld, it is true, is the anti-Clinton. We see this in his authenticity, his trustworthiness and his frankness. He is so direct, he practically assaults the modern, spin-accustomed ear. Mr. Rumsfeld freely uses what my colleague Kate O'Beirne has dubbed the "K-word"--kill. When a reporter asked him why U.S. forces were using such heavy bombs in Afghanistan, the secretary replied: "They are being used on frontline al Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill them." Oh.

Rather unexpectedly, Mr. Rumsfeld became a kind of sex symbol as the weeks and months after 9/11 unfolded. Women of all sorts were open about their attraction to him. On CNN, Larry King was moved to ask him about his new status as a heartthrob. "Oh, come on," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "For the AARP, perhaps. I'm pushing 70 years old." But that was beside the point--or maybe it was the point itself. Mr. Rumsfeld is, in fact, a throwback: to a time of crewcuts, stiff upper lips and moral clarity. He seems a character out of a World War II flick. Bill Clinton, by contrast, was more a Richard Gere kind of leader. Where Mr. Clinton feels pain, Mr. Rumsfeld is more likely to inflict it--on the country's enemies.

Sometimes viewed as insouciant, the defense secretary is resolutely clear-eyed about war. Over and over, he describes it as a "dirty job," a "tough, long, grinding, dirty business." Columnist Maureen Dowd twits him as "Rip Van Rummy"--a guy who went to sleep sometime in the '70s and woke up to find himself in government again. The old values, however, are in. Of necessity.

Rudolph Giuliani is another man whose stock has risen. After September 11, he loomed as a hero to the entire country, and his legendary toughness seemed exactly right. This was a man who took charge of hell on earth and bucked a shaken city up. He had never been a cuddly mayor--but the people of New York hadn't wanted a cuddly mayor. They wanted crime defeated and their city livable once more. To be sure, Mr. Giuliani has had some less-than-heroic moments. He held a press conference to announce that he was separating from his wife; he told both the world and her at the same time. On a lighter note, I might mention that Mr. Giuliani, as mayor, enjoyed dressing in drag. He did this on several festive, campy occasions. It takes an exceptionally manly man to appear in makeup, wig, frock, and pumps and still keep his reputation.

Since September 11, many Americans have rediscovered the virtues of manliness in office. The Democrats have a job to do if they're to challenge the "daddy party" in this respect.
They've been making an effort. Dick Gephardt, the former House minority leader and current presidential candidate, has been acting macho--or at least blustery--on the stump. He has been pounding lecterns, shouting, making his veins bulge.Mr. Gephardt seems to have lifted a page from Al Gore, whereby if you rant and rave, you're a man--indeed, an "alpha male." In his third debate versus Gov. Bush, Vice President Gore strode across the stage and got right in the face of his opponent.

Barbara Bush, mother of the Republican nominee, later commented, "I thought he was going to hit George." It was a bad move on Mr. Gore's part: He simply looked like a bully--and a pretender, at that--rather than a tough guy. Mr. Bush's parry of him--an incredulous nod--was masterly.

Again, the Democrats will have to acquire a bit more testosterone if they're to compete with the GOP. This is, indeed, no time for "pitty-patty." As for the Republicans, if they had any more testosterone, they'd be The Incredible Hulk. House Speaker Denny Hastert was a wrestling coach, for crying out loud. That's almost overkill!

opinionjournal.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (8280)9/17/2003 5:36:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793809
 
Wientraub is probably closer to right than anyone. BTW, FL, my deepest sympathy for being caught in the middle of this California mess.

lindybill@onthebeach.com


Daniel Weintraub: Decision will surely change campaign - but how?
By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist - (Published September 16, 2003)
The federal appeals court decision stopping the California recall election in mid-stream is sure to have many effects on the outcome of the contest, some of them perhaps more significant than any that would have resulted from allowing the election to continue with the use of punch-card voting systems in six counties.

Several possible scenarios will play out over the next weeks or months, and some might counteract each other by election day, whenever that might be. But even "election day" is a misnomer since this election, with mail-in ballots expected to exceed 25 percent of the votes cast, is already well under way.

In the short term, watch for a significant voter backlash. Voters like to vote, they like choices and they don't like courts stopping them or overturning what they do. Many voters will see the federal court ruling as part of the same institutional arrogance that they already hate in their state government. This frustration could well increase support for the recall.

It also won't be lost on voters that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in general is known as the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, and that all three justices on this panel were appointed by Democrats.

Although Gov. Gray Davis was not a party to this case, he filed a similar lawsuit over the summer and has supported the idea of delaying the election.

Backers of the recall have already asked why, if the current voting technology was good enough to elect Davis to statewide office five times, it is not good enough to recall him. Some will think the fix is in.

As the parties wait to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will intervene to reverse this ruling, the campaign will be in a state of suspended animation. The candidates must continue as if nothing has happened because they cannot afford to lose a week of campaigning with just three weeks to go. But the voters might tune them out a bit, since they will be hearing on the news and reading in their newspapers that the election has been stopped.

If the election is scrapped and restarted, Davis will probably gain some advantage from the delay.

Early enthusiasm for the recall, to the extent that it was driven by anger, might well subside with time. And the composition of the electorate on March 2, when Democrats will be choosing a presidential nominee while President Bush runs unopposed in the Republican primary, should favor Davis.

But there are other factors that could work against him. A highly unpopular bill he just signed to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses is facing a referendum. If that qualifies for the ballot, the question will be put to the voters on March 2. It could become an integral part of the campaign debate and remind voters frequently of something they don't like about Davis.

Other reminders will be arriving daily in their mailboxes. The car tax increase Davis engineered this summer is just now taking effect. The tax bills go out on the anniversary of the first time motorists registered their cars. That means each month roughly one in 12 California car owners gets a bill with the car levy tripled. By March, more than half the voters will have felt this pain.

Then there is the state budget. Davis promised earlier this year not to sign a budget without significant reform to fix the structural problems in state and local finance. He also pledged to force the Legislature in August to deal with the remaining $8 billion to $10 billion gap between spending and revenues. He did neither.

Yet on Jan. 10, Davis is required by the constitution to propose a balanced budget for the next fiscal year, which he can only do by endorsing significant new taxes or deep spending cuts, or a combination of the two. That's not likely to endear him to voters who already blame Davis for allowing the state's fiscal mess to spin out of control.

If the national economy improves but California's does not, that will hurt Davis further. But if California starts to get healthy, the growth could help him. We won't know until it happens.

On the Republican side, a delay would mean that actor Arnold Schwarzenegger has to struggle with his last remaining major Republican opponent, Sen. Tom McClintock, for a while longer. Conventional wisdom is that Schwarzenegger will suffer because his campaign was designed to be a short-run performance. But the delay might also help him if he is able to use the time to show voters that he has a few substantive ideas about how to turn the state around.

It's far too early to tell which of these factors will emerge as the most important in the weeks ahead and ultimately shape the outcome of the election. The one thing we do know about this unprecedented campaign is that predictions tend to be out of date almost before they make it into print. Any made quickly based on Monday's court ruling will likely meet the same fate.

sacbee.com



To: FaultLine who wrote (8280)9/18/2003 4:55:52 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793809
 
How much is "Popeye?"

Liberals On The High Seas
by John Hawkins

A merchant ship cuts through the water off the coast of North Carolina in 1705. Behind them appears none other than Blackbeard himself! He's quickly closing the gap between their ships and time is getting short. Only the actions of new captain Jebediah Rall, the great-great-great-great-uh-great-and a bunch more greats grandfather of Ted Rall,http://www.rall.com/, can save the crew now with his liberal leadership! Let's look in....

First Mate: Captain, Blackbeard is gaining on us! Should we turn the cannon on him and fight? If we make a move now we'd have the advantage of surprise and we might be able to damage his ship enough to let us get away!

Jebediah Rall: Fire the cannons at him? We don't even know if he's hostile.

First Mate: He's Blackbeard! He's the worst pirate of em all. Murdering, raping, and pillaging is what he does for a living.

Jebediah Rall: Perhaps we should open up a dialogue with him...

First Mate: A dialogue?

Jebediah Rall: Hello, yes you, Blackbeard, hello! I am the honorable Jebediah Rall and I'd like to talk to you. It seems that we've had some miscommunication and are in some need of conflict resolution....

Blackbeard: Yarr! We're going to swab the decks with your blood ya pansy landlubbers! (Cheers go up from the pirates)

Jebediah Rall: See? Now we're talking, now we're getting somewhere...

First Mate: Getting somewhere? He's going to kill us. Let me order the men to fire the cannons.

Jebediah Rall: A preemptive strike? On my watch? Never!

First Mate: But captain (a huge ***boom*** is heard and there's a massive splash off the port bow). He's firing at us! We can't outrun him and he doesn't take prisoners! We better swing the ship around and start firing the cannons!

Jebediah Rall: Start firing? We don't even know if he shot a cannonball at us. Did you see the cannonball?

First Mate: No captain, I was talking to you, but what else could it have been that sounds exactly like a cannon and makes a large splash out here in the ocean?

Jebediah Rall: Perhaps it was a large fish.

First Mate: A large fish?

Jebediah Rall: ...Or some sort of previously unknown sea serpent. There are many mysteries of the deep my friend.

First Mate: Captain...

Jebediah Rall: There will be no cannonballs fired from Jebediah Rall's ship unless we're sure we're being attacked. We'll not risk and innocent lives...

First Mate: But captain, they're not innocent, they're pirates! They want to kill us, just listen to them!

Blackbeard: We're going to cut them into chunks and feed em to the sharks ladeys! Har, har, har!

Jebediah Rall: Oh, I wish I understood what we've done to make them hate us so. We're all culpable for their rage you know...

First Mate: Captain, we've got to fire or we'll all be killed! Maybe we should mutiny and get a new captain who'll defend us...

Crew Member: Yeah!

Jebediah Rall: All right, all right, I'll talk to him....

Excuse me Mr. Blackbeard, I just want to make sure you understand -- we are no threat to anyone who doesn't threaten us. We don't wish to fight you and we hope you'll leave us in peace.

There, are you happy? I think that'll deter him...

Blackbeard: FIRE! (a cannonball fires and almost hits the ship & another goes just over the bow of the ship).

First Mate: Ok, the captain warned him -- let's turn and hit him with everything we've got!

Jebediah Rall: Wait, let's think this through. Don't you think firing the cannons at him might make him angry?

First Mate: But he's already trying to kill us...

Jebediah Rall: Yes, of course he is. But imagine how enraged they might become if we fired a cannonball, killed Blackbeard and made him a martyr?

First Mate: Captain, they've already said they're going to swab the decks with our blood!

Jebediah Rall: It's very easy for us to sneer at that sort of language isn't it? But have we ever walked in Blackbeard's shoes? Would our actions be so different?

First Mate: We're merchants! We only defend ourselves if we're attacked! We've already saved the crews of two sinking ships this year! We gave some of our supplies to a poor tribe of Indians we ran into on the coast last week...

Jebediah Rall: It's all very well to talk about the good things we've done. But what if we ignored every good thing we've ever done and only considered all the things people complain about? I thought up a list of all the crimes against humanity we've committed. There are 943 items on it. Want to hear them? #1, we don't pay the poor indians who make our nets enough money. #2, We don't give enough of our profits to the poor. #3...

First Mate: Captain, we really don't have time for this now... (Huge crash). Captain they just put a cannonball through the hull of the ship. We're taking on water, but if we turn and fire just maybe...

Jebediah Rall: Aieeeeeee! Abandon ship, abandon ship!

(Two Days Later -- Both Jebediah Rall & the First Mate are sitting on a deserted island).

Jebediah Rall: How fortunate we were to get away while the other men were being butchered! Those pirates were animals! Well I've learned my lesson!

First Mate: And what lesson is that sir?

Jebediah Rall: That violence never solves ANYTHING & when two parties fight, there's no winner!

First Mate: Really sir? Is that why all our men are dead and we're sitting on this island while Blackbeard is sailing away with our cargo?

Jebediah Rall: Yes, exactly. Had we found some way to appease Blackbeard short of a fight, everything would have worked out OK. I hope all those warmongers out there will learn from our experience to give peace a chance!

rightwingnews.com