Does this thing still work?

Well I think I will resume blogging again. It's been a good break and it time to smite the leftists with my blog's volcanic power.

BU-WHA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

WTF????

The American Thinker cites investigative work by Strata-Sphere that might indicate that Joe Wilson might be part of the yellowcake smuggling racket.

Huh?

Yes, I am convinced that Joe Wilson is leftist scum. Yes I am convinced that Joe Wilson lied in his article “What I didn’t find in Africa”. Yes, I’m convinced that Joe Wilson tried to change the outcome of the 2004 Presidential elections. OK, OK, OK all ready.

What I question is, If Joe Wilson was so far gone as to be part of the Yellowcake smuggling racket then why didn’t he just falsify his report to the CIA? I mean, instead of reporting that Iraqis showed interest in “a improved export relationship”—went the only thing that Niger exported that the Iraqis might be interested in was yellowcake—that he report that he learned nothing of the sort?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Who'd thunk it? Elizabeth Edwards hangs at DU.

Well now the cat's out of the bag Elizabeth Edwards hangs at Democratic Underground, at the Daily "Screw'em" Kos, and listens to Err American and Talk Left radio. Yup, that shows that the best the Dems had to offer was a flaky as a box of Rice Crispies.

Yes, I know, in theory it doesn't matter it what the VP's wife thinks but I still feel that this indicates we dodged a bullet last November.

hat tip PoliPundit and Powerline News.

Cat Peeking 

Olie's advice for Bolton

Oliver North made a stellar suggestion regarding John Bolton's first official act as UN ambassador:

Before your first meeting in the Security Council, go over and say hello to the French ambassador and, just before he sits down, slip a whoopee cushion on his chair.

I LIKE IT!

Brian Williams: George Washington == Terrorist

Brian Williams:

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.

Leaving aside the obvious point that various U.S. presidents were revolutionaries (e.g., Washington, Jackson, et al) there is no reason to believe that they were consider terrorists.

Also note that while Williams is vague on exactly which presidents he might be referring to it really makes no difference because none of them committed acts that characterize terrorism: attacking civilians. George Washington waged war against England’s soldiers, not England’s civilians.

Now I suppose that some troll will combine my last statement with the fact that the al Qaeda death-squads in Iraq are attacking American soldiers and then claim—by my own logic—that the death squad members cannot be terrorists either. My answer is “Oh yes they are!”

The al Qaeda death-squads in Iraq are terrorists because they target Iraqi civilians and government officials. This makes them terrorists. True, they also use guerrilla tactics against U.S. Soldiers but this just makes them terrorists who also use guerrilla tactics.

Anyway, back to the main point. Tthis statement, of course, exploded in Brian Williams’ hands like a nuclear hand grenade. The right lobe of the blogosphere’s brain had a field day. My favorite is IMAO. Jeff Goldstein’s "9 OTHER analogies NBC'S Brian Williams would like us to consider in the name of showy, PC intellectualism" is also a must read.

Anyway, eventually Williams felt the need of a a little damage control.

While I insist that a re-reading of my question will prove that in no way was I calling the framers "terrorists" (for starters, the word did not exist 229 years ago), I regret that anyone thought that after a life spent reading and loving American history, I had suddenly changed my mind about the founders of our nation.

Here Williams makes a hypertechnical point that he himself never explicitly said the framers were terrorists. After all, in his original statement, he attribute the “point” that certain unnamed U.S. presidents were “considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England” to certain unnamed colleagues who attended an “afternoon editorial meeting”.

I have two reactions:

First of all, “That’s nice”: a certain percentage of the elites in the MSM have the idea that George Washington was considered a terrorist in his time. While I dispute that he was, Brian Williams just proved that George Washington is considered a terrorist in our time. By the MSM, that is. Thanks for revealing this, Brian!

Secondly: Assuming that Williams totally rejected this premise then why did he write this crap in your blog in the first place? It must not have seemed so beyond the pale at the time. Maybe he just forgot that his moral equivalency, which holds that al Qaeda death squads equal American revolutionaries, isn’t shared by the non-multiculturalists. (Oops!)

Furthermore, now Brian Williams points out it is actually impossible for, say George Washington, to be consider a terrorist because the word terrorism didn’t exist 229 years ago (i.e., 1776). Ok, true enough; the word terrorism was coined in 1795 during the bloody French Revolution, so it couldn’t be used at the time of our revolution. This just makes it even more of a mystery why Williams was so uninhibited about equating George Washington with a terrorist.

Terror attack in London

Al Qaeda executed a terror attack in London this morning.

America extends her heartfelt sympathy and compassion to our gallant friend and ally, the British people.

The Americans and the British know that they can count on each other when the chips are down. Most recently the British stood by us after 9/11 and we will stand with them to avenge this atrocity.

And as for al Qaeda, we will continue strangling you to death. Savor the anticipation.

What good comes from denying gays the right to marry?

I've had a running debate with some friends regarding a number of issues. Recently Tom asked a simple question:

Tom asked:

Just curious. Please tell me what good comes from denying gays the right to
marry.

Johnh replied:

Hmmm… I could answer your question with another question: "Please tell me what good comes from pretending to discover non-existent "rights" in the Constitution?" Or more specifically, "Please tell me what good comes from pretending to discover the "right" to same-sex marriage in the Constitution?"

I suppose that such a response would be suitable for a Crossfire-style sound bite but it is actuality rather inadequate because this issue creates problems at several levels.

Judicial Activism. There has been a slow-motion takeover of the political branch of our government by the judicial branch that has been underway for the last 50 years. The essence of judicial activism is judges using their power to usurp elected official's roles—creating law—instead of passively interpreting law. The Massachusetts Supreme Courts decision—which discovered a constitutional right to same-sex marriage that had been undetected for over 200 years—is exhibit A as an example of judicial activism.

I would have no qualms regarding judicial activism if those who favor same-sex marriage were able to persuade the legislatures to pass laws that establishing same-sex marriage. (I would have other qualms, however.) This route would require these advocates to attract political support, build political consensus and perhaps accept compromises just like any other political faction. But, apparently, the political route is too inconvenient for them.

Instead—and as usual with leftists—those seeking to establish same-sex marriage are trying to obtain their desired policy desires through litigation and decisions of judges rather than through the elected representatives of the citizens.

The ideological civil war within the West. In this view, same-sex marriage is just another aspect of the multicultural assault on Western Civilization. (Update: I should have said Classical Liberalism not Western Civilization. My bad) I quoted extensive material describing aspects of multiculturalism earlier in this thread. One of the major aspects of the multicultural assault is " The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. " In this case the tactic is to redefine the word marriage to mean something fundamentally different to what it has meant for the last 5,000+ years.

Inverting the values and norms of the traditions that sustain our society is just another aspect of the left's multicultural assault. The struggle between the left and the conservatives over who controls the definitions of the words and concepts used by our culture occurs as the left seeks to inverted our values and norms

Acceptance of same-sex marriage defines deviancy down. Homosexuality is Both a fact of nature and an abnormality. Statistics show that somewhere between 2% and 5% of the population is gay in any given society, regardless of how tolerant the given society is of homosexual behavior. A reasonable conclusion is that homosexuality is normal in the sense that it is rooted in nature, but that sociality it is abnormal in that the vast majority of people are not and never will be homosexuality inclined. Consequently, homosexuality is a birth defect that should be tolerated but not accepted as a norm.

The last comment, of course, begs the question: So what's wrong with deviancy? Traditionally, social stigmas create a psychological wall or distance between members of a population who rebel against norms and engage in destructive behaviors. In evolutionary terms, this is the same as the herd culling unfit members from itself.

NB: This is a case where mentally or psychologically deficient individuals become less likely to reproduce because they are shunned as opposed to physically deficient individuals who become less likely to reproduce because of physical deficiencies. The ability to recognize and conform to norms is a survival trait for individuals.

With this last thought in mind, consider my statements—made in an earlier part of this thread, describing the utility of morals as survival skills. A culture's survival skills are encoded in its norms and traditions. A culture with dysfunctional norms will is ill adapted for success.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead discovered many small tribes with strange and bizarre cultures during her research. While the existence of these cultures shows how extreme cultures can get I believe that this also shows that the very oddness of these cultures is at least one of the factors that constrained these cultures' success and growth.

Continuing in this vein, defining deviancy down weakens a society by removing the ability to recognize and isolate self-destructive behavior. Defining deviancy down is the cause of the phenomena described by Theodore Dalrymple, whose description I quoted earlier in this thread.

Best regards,
johnh

From al CNN to al Jazeera

This is one of those "sheed-I-knew-it-all-along" stories. Riz Khan, who currently hosts Q&A with Riz Khan on al CNN, is making a jump to--where else--Al Jazeera.

What is taking the CNN staff so long to make the jump to the only network that is more blatantly anti-American than the BBC?

Hi five to LGF

And activist Judges are the tumors in a Metastasizing Constitution

Edward Whelan makes the point that the so called "living" constitution is actually the Metastasizing Constitution.

In contrast, Scalia says he likes his Constitution "dead."

Kos-alanche!

I see that I'm receiving a flurry of visitors from DailyKos ever since he linked to my old Pajamahadeen post.

Welcome to my humble blog, Kossaks. And thanks for the mention, DailyKos!

Clinton aide: There's always hope that [Bush's foreign policy] might not work

James Taranto analyzes a transcript of Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's “The Daily Show”, interviewing former Clinton aid Nancy Soderberg, who was flogging her new book: The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might. Amazon.com readers who have rated this book, at least at the time of this posting, have assigned it a perfectly mediocre “two stars” (out of a possible five stars). Maybe her time might have been better spent writing a better book instead of promoting dodgy goods.

As an aside, beware of Clintonistas who write books that suggest that Clinton’s refusal to employ American power in response to, say, I don’t know—maybe to al Qaeda’s 1993 attempted destruction of the World Trade Center bombing, was wiser that Bush's use of it in response to al Qaeda’s 2001 successful destruction of the World Trade Center.

OK, Back on topic.

Nancy Soderberg had the bad fortune to write this book back when the conventional wisdom—at least as announced by the MSM—was that everything was going poorly in Iraq and the prognosis, in general, was bad.

Consequently, Soderberg is having to boost a book,

• that is pessimistic about, say, the outcome of Bush’s efforts in Iraq,


• which was released to the bookstores on January 28^th


• and which said release of said pessimistic book is confronted with the successful Iraqi elections of January 30^th

BU-WHA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!

And now this clueless Clintonista is gamely hitting the talk shows—amid MSM reports about successful Iraqi elections, Iraqis protesting al Qaeda death squad attacks in Iraq, Lebanese citizens protesting the presence of Syrian troops and security forces in Lebanon, and Palestinians protesting and homicide bombing in Tel Aviv—discussing how her book explains why Bush should have had more humility and not attempt the impossible and why the sky wouldn’t be falling if Bush had just tried to be as ineffectual as Clinton and saying all of these things when Bush foreign policy garden is coming up with nothing but roses. And the best part is she is (probably) contractually required to make a fool out of herself this way on national TV and elsewhere. Of course I haven’t seen the contract between her and her publisher (Wiley) but I’m confident that it obligates her—in exchange for that advance that Wiley has to be regretting right now—to hit the talk shows and the book signing and pump her book; hence her interview on “The Daily Show”.

OK, all of the above is delicious enough already but wait, there’s more! Jon Stewart managed to get her to admit that the Democrats are hoping for a Bush failure in the Middle East:

Stewart: Do you think they're the guys to--do they understand what they've unleashed? Because at a certain point, I almost feel like, if they had just come out at the very beginning and said, "Here's my plan: I'm going to invade Iraq. We'll get rid of a bad guy because that will drain the swamp"--if they hadn't done the whole "nuclear cloud," you know, if they hadn't scared the pants off of everybody, and just said straight up, honestly, what was going on, I think I'd almost--I'd have no cognitive dissonance, no mixed feelings.

Soderberg: The truth always helps in these things, I have to say. But I think that there is also going on in the Middle East peace process--they may well have a chance to do a historic deal with the Palestinians and the Israelis. These guys could really pull off a whole—

Stewart: This could be unbelievable!

Soderberg: ---series of Nobel Peace Prizes here, which--it may well work. I think that, um, it's—

Stewart: [buries head in hands] Oh my God! [audience laughter] He's got, you know, here's—

Soderberg: It's scary for Democrats, I have to say.

Stewart: He's gonna be a great--pretty soon, Republicans are gonna be like, "Reagan was nothing compared to this guy." Like, my kid's gonna go to a high school named after him, I just know it.

Soderberg: Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's hope for the rest of us. [emphasis mine--johnh

Did you catch that? Soderberg is practically admitting that the Democrats are about to hang themselves over Bush’s imminent success! She basically said that the Democrats only hope is that Bush’s successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq are canceled out by some sort of debacle in either North Korea or Iran—perhaps one similar to the Bay of Pigs debacle caused by Ted Kennedy’s brother.

Also recall Jon Stewart’s prediction that his kid would go to a high school named after Bush. Jon Stewart voiced one of my expectations: that Bush is going to be remembered to be at least as consequential as Reagan.

I have to quote James Taranto’s sensible commentary on this interview:

We've long been skeptical of Jon Stewart, but color us impressed. He managed to ambush this poor woman brutally, in a friendly interview. She was supposed to be promoting her book, and instead he got her to spend the entire interview debunking it (at least if we understood the book's thesis correctly from the very brief discussion of it up top).

She also admitted repeatedly that Democrats are hoping for American failure in the Middle East. To be sure, this is not true of all Democrats, Soderberg speaks only for herself, and she says she is ambivalent ("But as an American . . ."). But we do not question her expertise in assessing the prevailing mentality of her own party. No wonder Dems get so defensive about their patriotism.

Interesting too is Stewart's acknowledgment of his own "cognitive dissonance" and "mixed feelings" over the Iraq liberation. It's a version of an argument we've been hearing a lot lately: As our Brendan Miniter puts it, "The president's critics never seem to tire of claiming that the war in Iraq began over weapons of mass destruction and only later morphed into a war of liberation."

Miniter correctly notes that "this criticism isn't entirely right," but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. What does it mean? President Bush has altered his arguments to conform to reality, while his critics remain fixated on obsolete disputes. This would seem utterly to refute the liberal media stereotype. Bush, it turns out, is a supple-minded empiricist, while his opponents are rigid ideologues.

I have to say, Jon Stewart is a pretty switched on guy for a fellow who makes his living entertaining stoned slackers.

Update:

Mike's America has the background on Nancy Soderberg:

Yes, Democrats are left hoping that either Iran or North Korea will start some trouble or worse... Isn't that pathetically sad? And while we are on the subject of North Korea... wasn't it the Clinton Adminstration that went over there in the 90's and promised them anything if they would just behave??? And it was this same Soderberg woman who was #3 in the Clinton National Security Council and worked at the heart of that Adminstration during it's malfeasance in the conduct of foreign policy.

And of course you know that if Kerry were elected... she'd be right back in there making as big a mess of things now as she, Clinton and Albright did then.

Good background investigation Mike! I have to point out that the Clinton-Soderberg dynamic duo wasn't alone on North Korea; Jimmy Carter worked out the deal on their behalf.

Thank you, nick, for the blogrolling

Nick of Just Opinions was nice enough to blog roll 2muchtruth.

Many Thanks!

New Report on Saudi Government Publications in U.S.

The Center for Religious Freedom has released a new study titled Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques. The study’s foreword was written by James Woolsey (CIA director from 1993-1195) is worth reading for its own sake. (James Woolsey, by the way, was the CIA director that Bill Clinton avoided meeting for no apparent reason. )

The study reviews the history of the Wahhabi Islamic sect that dominates Saudi Arabia and how it changed from being a fringe element to essentially becoming Saudi Arabia’s “official version” of Islam after 1979. The study examines the how the Saudi ruling family has funded the Wahhabi clerics and their international efforts to create mosques and Islamic schools that only teach the Wahhabi version of Islam. The study also examines the hostile language—hostile to Western culture, that is—of Wahhabi ideology and literature.

Here is a short explanation of the study’s intention:

Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom decided to undertake this project after a number of Muslims and other experts publicly raised concerns about Saudi state influence on American religious life.1 This report complements a May 2003 recommendation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent government agency, that the U.S. government conduct a study on Saudi involvement in propagating internationally a “religious ideology that explicitly promotes hate, intolerance, and other human rights violations, and in some cases violence, toward members of other religious groups, both Muslims and non-Muslims.” 2 In releasing this report, the Center is also mindful of one of the key findings of the 9/11 Commission Report: “Education that teaches tolerance, the dignity and value of each individual, and respect for different beliefs is a key element in any global strategy to eliminate Islamist terrorism.”

The phenomenon of Saudi hate ideology is worldwide, but its occurrence in the United States has received scant attention. This report begins to probe in detail the content of the Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi government has worked to propagate through books and other publications within our borders. …

As I read the study I was struck by the explicit directives on how to shun infidels and when to kill:

Here is Wahhabi position on saying “Hi!” to an infidel:

On the matter of whether or not to commence greetings with Christians and Jews, the Saudi publication imposes a strict prohibition. Replying to a salutation by an unbeliever, on the other hand, should consist of no more than a terse “and upon you” …. This directive is also contained in the tract published by the Saudi Embassy’s Cultural Department in Washington and collected from the Islamic Center in Washington.

“It is forbidden for a Muslim to be first in greeting an unbeliever, even if he has a prestigious position.”

Here’s the instruction on how to hate your Christian neighbor:

According to the Wahhabi view, it is a Muslim’s religious duty to cultivate enmity between oneself and unbelievers. Hatred of unbelievers is the proof that the believer has completely dissociated from them. A work entitled Loyalty and Dissociation in Islam, compiled by the Ibn Taymiya Library in Riyadh and distributed by the King Fahd-supported Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., states emphatically:

“To be dissociated from the infidels is to hate them for their religion, to leave them, never to rely on them for support, not to admire them, to be on one’s guard against them, never to imitate them, and to always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.”

Here is Wahhabi intolerance for tolerance:

Western churches have increasingly called for greater unity among world religions and interfaith dialogue, but the Saudi Arabian authoritative religious office is adamant. The government’s Permanent Committee finds no common ground. Islam is the final and most perfect religion and by its coming all previous religions, including Judaism and Christianity, have been nullified. The Saudi text asserts that the Koran has rendered both the Torah and the Gospels obsolete because they were tampered with and altered by wicked or wayward men. The call to greater unity among religions is therefore sinful since it erases the radical differences between Islam and systems of unbelief. The Saudi text, distributed in the San Diego mosque declares,

“It is basic to the belief of Islam that everyone who does not embrace Islam is an unbeliever and must be called an unbeliever and that they are enemies to Allah, his Prophet and the believers….That is why the one who does not call the Jews and the Christian unbelievers is himself an unbeliever….”

Worst of all is for a Muslim to call for such unity and promote this sinful idea at meetings or conferences with unbelievers. Thus, participating in the building of interdenominational places of worship where religious rites other than those of Islam are practiced is a serious instance of misguided behavior meriting severe reprimand

The Saudi government text makes clear the reason interfaith harmony is to be feared is that it will lead to the end of jihad.

“The effect of this sinful call is that it erases the differences between Islam and disbelief, between truth and falsehood, good and bad, and it breaks the wall of resentment between the Muslims and the unbelievers, so that there is no loyalty and enmity, no more jihad and fighting to raise Allah’s word on earth….”

Here is Wahhabi religious instruction on how to be a total overbearing prick toward your domestic help:

The Saudi publications also instruct Muslims that it is preferable not to hire non-
Muslims, especially within the Arabian Peninsula, but, if they do, they have to hate them. In fatwas on the “Treatment of Servants,” published [Document No. 36] by the Saudi Embassy to Washington and collected from the Islamic Center in East Orange, N.J., the late Saudi Grand Mufti Bin Baz states the following about how to handle an infidel domestic worker:

“The women in your household do not have to stay away from her, but they should not treat her as they would treat a Muslim woman. They have to hate her for Allah’s sake….” [Document No. 36]

The study covers an number of everyday topic, for example, how to tell when it becomes necessary to kill another Muslim, demonizing the Jews, how to hate Muslims how are something other than Wahhabis, anti-Americanism, and so on.

Feeling more enlightened yet?

Mexican government hires lawyers to study legal challenges to Minutemen

A group known as the Minuteman Project is organizing volunteers to conduct surveillance along a twenty-mile stretch of U.S.-Mexican border. The The Minuteman Project's website states:

Our policy of passive activity will be to OBSERVE with the aid of binoculars - telescopes - night vision scopes, and inform the U.S. Border Patrol of the location of illegal activity so that border patrol agents can investigate.

We will not be confrontational with anyone. The tentative area of observation will be a 20-mile stretch of lowlands across the San Pedro Valley in southeast Arizona.

The Mexico edition of the Herald reports that, according to the Mexican Foreign Minister, the Mexican Government intends to use the U.S. court system to oppose volunteer border surveillance groups:

The government of Mexico will use all legal channels to fight the formation of vigilante patrol groups along the U.S-Mexico border, Foreign Minister Luis Derbez said on Monday.

Notice that the author of this article, one Natalia Gómez, chose to spin passive observation of illegal infiltration of our country by her countrymen as vigilantism. Is this word, vigilantism, a good fit? From Wikipedia:

In modern terms, vigilantes are militias or police which attempt law enforcement, in the usual phrase, "by taking the law into their own hands". Vigilantes often operate in secret.

The members of the Minuteman Project fail both parts of this description. They are neither operating in secret nor are they attempting to “take the law into their own hands”. They only intend to alert Homeland Security to any observed infiltration across our southern border. Yes, the Minuteman Project is a type of militia but a militia must also “take the law into their own hands” before they can be considered vigilantes.

The Herald article continues:

In addition, Derbez said that the issue would be broached with U.S. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice during her March 10 official visit to Mexico.

Derbez was speaking specifically to the formation of the Minuteman Project: a 500 strong volunteer group that plans to patrol a 40-mile stretch of the Arizona border throughout April.

Officials on both sides of the border fear the Minuteman patrols could cause more trouble than they prevent.

Trouble? What sort of trouble might that be? Inconveniencing illegal immigrants, drug smugglers, and the occasional al Qaeda death squad by ratting them out to Homeland Security? Creating news that embarrasses Homeland Security officials? I can deal with that sort of trouble.

Note well that Gómez is citing anonymous sources when she quotes unnamed “Officials on both sides of the border”. Is there any sensible reason why such an official would need the protection of anonymity to express such as “discordant” opinion? Or was Gómez just interviewing voices inside her head?

At least some of the volunteers plan to arm themselves during the 24-hour desert patrols.

Evidently Gómez thinks Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights as a contingency against criminal assault by illegal immigrants or drug smugglers is troubling or something. Memo to Gómez: stuff it. If I were participating in the Minuteman Project I would be armed. Why? I’m so glad you asked! Because the illegal infiltrators at the U.S.-Mexican border have earned a reputation for violence, that’s why.

Many are untrained and have little or no experience in confronting illegal border crossings.

This is just more of Gómez’s vigilante spin. The Minuteman Project has already explicitly stated that they intended to avoid any confrontation.

The Mexican government has already hired a Los Angeles based legal firm to prepare a report on possible legal actions to challenge such vigilante groups, Derbez said Monday.

What is this? The Mexican government is hiring U.S. lawyers to facilitate illegal infiltration into the U.S. from Mexico? [Boom! My head explodes as the absurdity reaches critical mass.] This is not logic but a cry of desperation.

Also, I would just love to see the “report” those LA attorneys come up with. What can they say? That Americans plan to lurk on American soil observing any interesting activities that might or might not occur on the American side of the Mexican border? Please.

And what will be the Mexican government’s official complaint about the Minuteman Project? My guess is that it is going to sound like the backseat of a family car around hour nine of driving toward a vacation spot: “Mommy! Johnny’s looking at me again!”

BU WHA HAHAHAHAHA!

Postscript:
all emphasis, except in the quote from Wikipedia, is mine.

Update:

Welcome visitors from Modern Tribalist! Look around and enjoy your visit!

Mark Steyn:The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled

Mark Steyn has release another article, The Arabs' Berlin Wall has crumbled, that deserves reading. Steyn's basic premise always is that Middle East stability is a Very Bad Thing not a Very Good Thing because it creates a hothouse for human monsters (e.g., Saddam, the Taliban, the Iranians, et al). Even if Bush's actions create a bigger mess it cannot be worse than that "stability" that brewed 9/11.

Here's Steyn:

Three years ago, those of us in favour of destabilising the Middle East didn't have to be far-sighted geniuses: it was a win/win proposition. As Sam Goldwyn said, I'm sick of the old clichés, bring me some new clichés. The old clichés - Pan-Arabism, Baathism, Islamism, Arafatism - brought us the sewer that led to September 11. The new clichés could hardly be worse. Even if the old thug-for-life had merely been replaced by a new thug-for-life, the latter would come to power in the wake of the cautionary tale of the former.

Steyn then gives a list of local improvments in the Middle East since the Iraqi Jan 30^th elections when he poinst out something that suprised me:

And, for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes.

Wow! That is a "Cats and Dogs living together" story if I ever heard one. Of course I don't know how widespread this phenomena was. There was a inability to find any pictures of the ritual post terror-attack Palestinian celebrations; so there seems to be movement in the right direction.

I also wonder about those Palestinians who “expressed anger” at the terrorists who were threatening “their” peace. Were they here all along? Were they just keeping quite before because Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat would have them killed if he were still alive?

Just asking.

via Lucianne.

White House St. Patrick's Day minus Sinn Fein

I love the Bush Whitehouse. Now Bush is snubbing Irish terrorists. What next? Maybe he'll begin snubbing supports of Hamas, like Chariac.

According to Swissinfo, The White House is likely to celebrate St. Patrick's Day this yearwithout inviting members of Sinn Fein or any other political parties from Northern Ireland.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Long overdue. Now maybe Blair will grow a pair of balls and demand that that the Irish elect leaders who are compromised by terrorism.

Dublin and London blame the Irish Republican Army for a $50 million (26 million pound) bank robbery in Belfast in December and accuse leaders of Sinn Fein, the IRA's political ally, of sanctioning the raid. Sinn Fein and the IRA deny involvement in the robbery.

The White House was expected to make a final decision this week, but it was likely to decide against inviting leaders of Northern Ireland's political parties, including Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, for the traditional St. Patrick's Day reception.

Syria's Dead End

I've just encountered a new—at least new for me—blog named Syria Comment. In a post entitled Syria's Dead End, Joshua Landis stated:

The Hariri assassination has placed the Europeans in a very awkward position. If they don't agree to economic sanctions, the US will accuse them of sanctioning murder. Bashar's blunders have cut the legs from underneath Europe. A few days ago, when the Canadian PM claimed that the Lebanese situation was a delicate one and that Syrian troops played an important role in maintaining security, he set off an uproar. Opposition members and supporters alike forced him to retract his statement. When Solana &mdash the EU foreign minister — initially said that Europe's relationship with Syria would not change until the author of Hariri's murder had been found, his words were drowned out by Tsunami of American and French accusations. Europe will have to give way to America on the Syria-Lebanon question. Chirac has stated that Lebanon is France's Iraq. All Europe will soon be confusing Beirut with Baghdad.

HAHAHAHA! Chirac thinks that Lebanon is France's Iraq? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Chirac is having delusions of adaquacy again.

All of that aside, Joshua Landis wrote a very interesting "inside baseball" post regarding the situation in Lebanon and Syria. Consider it required reading.

hat tip to Lucianne.

Postscrpt:
All added emphasis is mine.

Beloved Leader has found a practical use for France

Beloved Leader (no, not Bush, Kim Jung Il, silly) has some advice for Bush:

He could buy Malta and use it as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Med. And use France as a bombing range.

As Glen Reynolds would say: Heh.

The Making Of A 9/11 Republican

Wow! What an article!

Left coast conservative columnist (I felt weird typing that phrase) Cinnamon Stillwell explains her “road to Damascus” switch from a standard California leftist to being a conservative in her article, The Making Of A 9/11 Republican.

As one of a handful of Bay Area conservative columnists, I'm no stranger to pushing buttons. Indeed, I welcome feedback from readers, whether positive or negative. I find the interplay stimulating, but I am often bemused by the stereotypical assumptions made by my critics on the left. It's not enough to simply disagree with my views; I have to be twisted into a conservative caricature that apparently makes opponents feel superior. They seem not to have considered that it's possible to put forward different approaches to various societal problems and not be the devil incarnate.

But in some ways I understand where this perspective comes from, because I once shared it. I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (Cinnamon) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

The leftists’ most annoying characteristic is their relentless assumption of moral superiority.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. … I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. …

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

Notice her leftist colleagues had absolutely no sense of shared fate with their fellow countrymen. Their indifference is the sort that would be slightly more appropriate if they were citizens of another country, not this country. In a way, this is logical. Most leftists have a transnationalist outlook and consequently don’t have an emotional attachment to our country; they can’t hide it.

The other noteworthy point is the total lack of compassion shown for their country and for the 9/11 victims. This indifference is shows her leftist colleagues are complete moral midgets.

Of course the same group of said moral midgets can be guaranteed to assert that they have the most refined sense of moral ethics available. Why during the 80’s, when Africans of European decent denied English common law rights to Africans of African decent in the country of South Africa these same folks—or folks just like her colleagues—were picketing the South African embassy. But let jihadist racial cleansers kill 3,000 Americans on our mainland and “Bush got his war!”

[Adopting a Colombo tone of voice] Just one more question: where did Cinnamon Stillwell work on September 11, 2001? Did she work as a columnist in a newspaper back then? If yes then this means that her co-workers—the same moral midgets who were smugly indifferent to 3,000 American deaths on the mainland—were employed by the mainstream media! Think about the mindset of those who work in the MSM the next time you’re viewing or reading its products.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.

Although my initial agreement with voices on the right centered on the war on terrorism, I began to find myself in concurrence with other aspects of conservative political philosophy as well. Smaller government, traditional societal structures, respect and reverence for life, the importance of family, personal responsibility, national unity over identity politics and the benefits of living in a meritocracy all became important to me. In truth, it turns out I was already conservative on many of these subjects but had never been willing to admit as much.

In my search for like-minded individuals, I also gravitated toward the religiously observant. This was somewhat revolutionary, considering my former liberal discomfort with religious folk, but I found myself in agreement on a number of issues. When it came to support for Israel, Orthodox Jews and Christian Zionists were natural allies. As the left rained down vicious attacks on Israel, commentators on the right (with the exception of Pat Buchanan and his ilk) became staunch supporters of the nation. The fact that I'm not a particularly religious person myself had little bearing on this political relationship, for it's entirely possible to be secular and not be antireligious. Unlike the secular fundamentalists who make it their mission in life to destroy all vestiges of America's Judeo-Christian heritage, I have come to value this legacy.

So I became what's now commonly known as a "9/11 Republican." Living in a time of war, disenchanted with the left and disappointed with the obstructionism and lack of vision of the Democratic Party, I threw in my hat with the only party that seemed to be offering solutions, rather than simply tearing away at our country. I went from voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 to proudly casting my ballot for George W. Bush in 2004. This doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with Bush on every issue, but there is enough common ground to support his party overall. In the wake of this political transformation, I discovered that I was not alone. It turned out that there are other 9/11 Republicans out there, both in the Bay Area and beyond, and they have been coming out of the woodwork.

Like many a political convert, I took it on myself to openly oppose the politics of those with which I once shared world views. Beyond writing, I put myself on the front lines of this ideological battle by taking part in counterprotests at the antiwar rallies leading up to the war in Iraq. This turned out to be a further wake-up call, because it was there that I encountered more intolerance than ever before in my life. Holding pro-Iraq-liberation signs and American flags, I was spat on, called names, intimidated, threatened, attacked, cursed and, on a good day, simply argued with. It was clear that any deviation from the prevailing leftist groupthink of the Bay Area was considered a threat to be eliminated as quickly as possible.

It was at such protests that I also had my first real brushes with anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel sentiment on the left -- inexorably linked to anti-Americanism -- ran high at these events and boiled over into Jew hatred on more than one occasion. The pro-Palestinian sympathies of the left had led to a bizarre commingling of pacifism, Communism and Arab nationalism. So it was not uncommon to see kaffiyeh-clad college students chanting Hamas slogans, graying hippies wearing "Intifada" T-shirts, Che Guevera backpacks, and signs equating Zionism with Nazism, all against a backdrop of peace, patchouli and tie-dye.

…In the end, the blatant anti-Semitism on the left, even among Jews, only strengthened my political transformation. I was, in effect, radicalized by the radicals.

But more than anything, it was the left's hypocrisy when it came to the war on terrorism that made me turn rightward after 9/11. I remember, back in my liberal days, being fiercely opposed to the Taliban and its brutal treatment of women. Even then, I felt that Afghanistan should immediately be liberated, as Malcolm X once said in another context, by any means necessary. But when it came time, it turned out that the left was mostly opposed to such liberation, whether of the Afghan people or of the Iraqis (especially if America and a Republican president were at the helm).

Indeed, liberals had become strangely conservative in their fierce attachment to the status quo. In contrast, the much-maligned neoconservatives (among whose ranks I count myself) and Bush had become the "radicals," bringing freedom and democracy to the despotic Middle East. Is it any wonder that in such a topsy-turvy world, I found myself in agreement with those I'd formerly denounced?

Cinnamon Stillwell’s complaint regarding “liberals [becoming] strangely conservative” and liberal hypocrisy are breathtakingly bland. I much prefer to apply Christopher Hitching’s observation regarding Noam Chomsky to them: the left’s support of the underdogs has mutated into support for the mad dogs.

My riposte to Hitching’s comment is that this is nothing new; the left has always supported the mad dogs of this world. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro all got a pass at the time from the American left.

All of this means is that there is nothing strange about today’s leftists' behavior; the left’s primary technique has always been framing indictments against the U.S. The left never felt the need to be internally self consistent because the indictments were never sincere in the first place; they were all just another weapon to attack the U.S. with.

The war on terrorism is nothing more than the great struggle of our time, and, like the earlier ones against fascism and totalitarianism, we ignore it at our peril. Whether or not one accepts that we are engaged in a war, our enemies have declared it so. It took the horrors of 9/11 to awaken me to this reality, but for others, such lessons remain unlearned. For me, it was self-evident that in Islamic terrorism, America had found a nihilistic threat that sought to wipe out not only Western civilization but also civilization itself.

The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas, stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed "progressives." Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants and terrorists.

In the end, history will be the judge, and each of us will have to think about what legacy we wish to leave to future generations. If there's one thing I've learned since 9/11, it's that it's never too late to alter one's place in the great scheme of things.

Why does Cinnamon Stillwell assume that the left’s sympathies are “misguided”? The left supported tyrants such as Stalin when he was starving his farmers to death and they support a tyrant like Castro today. What’s the inconsistency?

Hat tip to KelliPundit.

Postscript:
I added all the emphasis in the quoted article.

Well it looks like somebody in Damascus is hitting the panic button

The Daily Tory-Graph reports that Syria has cut a secret deal where Iran will hold Iraqi atomic weapons scientists that have become too hot (dare I say radioactive?) for Syria to handle.

Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism.

BU-WHA-HAHAHAHAHA! I love it when these self-esteemed tough-guys begin cracking.

There’s a lot of intestinal infortitude going around recently. Just last year Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi decided to give up his nuclear weapons program after he saw where it got Saddam: in a U.S. cage.

Isn’t it a wonder how these same guys are so much more self-confident when a Democrat is U.S. president? Today Syria's President Asad is assuredly cursing his wretched luck that that Kerry wasn’t elected president in 2004.

This just hasn’t been Asad’s year. First of all, Bush was reelected. This is not good, not if you’re Syrian President Asad. In fact, if you’re President Asad then that has the potential to be fatal. Second, Bush calls him out—in major speeches such at the State of the Union Address—for “creating instability” in the Middle East. Instability is a code word for providing support for the al Qaeda and Baathist death squads operating in Iraq. Then the Syrian instigated assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister has backfired real badly and created yet another justification for Bush to change the regime in Damascus. And now he’s being busted holding Iraqi nuclear weapon scientists.

Way to go Bashir! If you’re trying to bump yourself to the head of the “regime change” line you’re certainly going about it the right way!

Anyway, the Daily Telegraph article has even more interesting points:

The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts.

Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis.

American intelligence officials are concerned that Syria is secretly working on a number of WMD programmes.

They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Yup, Asad is showing himself to be a such a fast learner. NOT! This exactly how Saddam got himself free room, free board and free attorneys to defend him in his upcoming crimes-against-humanity trials.

Sheesh, Muammar Gadhafi is crazier than a tree full of coons and he figured this one out last year. Bush is blessed with unusually stupid enemies—and I’m not just referring to his political opponents.

Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon.

Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus.

So he thinks the Iranians will help him develop his bomb after they get theirs working? That’s really stupid. Nobody every wants the nuclear club to get any bigger once they join it and the Iranians are no different.

And just what Asad is going to do about it if the Iranians develop a nuke with the assistance of the Iraqi weapon scientists and Iran reneges on the agreement to reciprocate? Sue them? Invade a nuclear Iran? HA!

The Syrian offer comes at a time when Iran is under close scrutiny from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is investigating claims that Iran is maintaining a secret nuclear bomb programme.

The Iranians couldn’t care less about the UN. For them it is “go nuclear or bust!”

And now this late-breaking new: The Scotsman reports that Syria handed Saddam’s half-brother over to us as a “good will” gesture. (Too late for you, Asad!) Anyway, here the details on this:

A HALF-BROTHER of Saddam Hussein, who was one of his most reviled enforcers, has been arrested in Syria on suspicion of bankrolling anti-coalition insurgents, Iraqi officials said yesterday.

Sabawi Ibrahim Hasan, a strongman who once served as a head of Saddam’s feared security services, was held after nearly two years on the run. Syrian authorities captured him and handed him over to Iraq in an apparent goodwill gesture.

He was number 36 on the deck of 55 most-wanted Iraqis issued by United States troops after Saddam’s fall in April 2003. He also featured in the US list of the top 30 people sought for supporting the insurgency.

Yeah, right; a “good will” gesture, huh? That was more like a “please don’t change my regime” gesture. That’s so not enough to let Asad off the hook. Saddam’s missing WMDs are believed to have been passed to Syria during the few months before the war and hidden in Lebanon's Bekaa valley and we want them--all of them.

Mark my words; in pursuit of these WMDs Bush will go through Syria and Lebanon like a Tasmanian devil—and he will find them.

Asad is doomed.

Man who aspired to assassinate Bush educated in Saudi funded Islamic high school

Little Green Footballs reported some details about the guy who intended to assassinate Bush that somehow were hardly reported in the MSM: he was educated in an Islamic high school funded by the Saudis:

Mainstream media identified Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the US citizen charged with conspiring to assassinate President Bush, as "a former Virginia high school valedictorian." Sounds pretty respectable, eh?

What they didn't tell you: he was valedictorian of the American madrassa known as the Islamic Saudi Academy, and his father worked at the Royal Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC. Rusty Shackleford has details: Terrorist Son of Saudi Embassy Worker Attended Saudi Run School.

Jawa is all over this one.

Hat tip lgf

Fred Barnes is flogging a Cheney Presidency

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard is talking up the idea that Cheney could run for president. Yes, I know Cheney has specifically stated that he wouldn’t consider it. One of the reasons he hasn’t run before is because he couldn’t raise the needed money and one of the reasons for inability to fundraise is that he was too much of an insider and has a—how you say—somewhat colorless personality.

Things are different now. Everybody is now familiar with Cheney and I think that the GOP fund-raising apparatus would line up behind him if he decided to run.

While my intellectual preference for the GOP presidential candidate in 2008 is Cheney my emotional preference is for Condi Rice. Hillary is likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2008 and I would just love to see Condi dismembering Hillary in the debates.

That being said, I think that it may be best for Condi to have four to eight years experience as VP before she advances to president. Of course, there are an untold number of circumstances that may derail her chances of making it to the presidency as of now her odds are as good as anyone’s.

In fact, I think I’d just as happy with either a Cheney- Rice ticket as a Rice-Cheney ticket.

Discover the Network

David Horowitz has just released a new site named Discover the Network which combines a nifty visual display applet, a search engine and a database populated with over 1,500 leftist organizations, groups, institutions and individuals.

The site is still new and I encountered a few bugs in its search engine operation. The site is still quite usable even in the presence of these bugs and I assume these defects will eventually be corrected. I have high expectations for this site. After playing with it for short while I am now thinking of it as a means for "googling leftists".

Try it! You'll Like It!

Top aide to al-Zarqawi captured

The Jerusalem Post has an article (AP), that, reports:

Iraqi forces captured a top aide to Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who leads a bloody al-Qaida-linked insurgency believed behind a relentless wave of car bombings, kidnappings, and beheadings across the country, the government said Friday.

We're getting closer and closer to al-Zarqawi; hopefully we're on the verge of bagging that snake.

Dogs and Cats living together: the Spiegel speculates that Bush might be right afer all

The German periodical, Spiegel, in an ephemeral fit of lucidity, published an article that acknowledges that Bush was right all along and German public—along with Chancellor Schroeder—were wrong. Nobody needs to get their hopes up or anything, this is the same magazine that published this trash about the U.S.; I doubt anything has really changed.

Anyway, for what it is worth, here are a few selected quotes:

Germany loves to criticize US President George W. Bush's Middle East policies -- just like Germany loved to criticize former President Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, when he demanded that Gorbachev remove the Berlin Wall, turned out to be right. Could history repeat itself?

Don’t look now, but it already has in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don’t wake up fast enough your going to miss Syria, Iran and North Korea. Of course it doesn’t matter if you’re awake or not because you won’t have a damn thing to do with any of it unless you count selling arms to Syria and nuclear reactors to Iraq.

Like Bush's visit, Reagan's trip was likewise accompanied by unprecedented security precautions… the Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy. When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate -- and the Berlin Wall -- and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.

“Realpolitik looks different”, eh? Well how real is your realpolitik? Right now your realpolitiklooks damn unrealistic. After all, you would have us believe that it was your realpolitik that caused you to take what you assume that Bush’s failures in Afghanistan and Iraq were unavoidable.

But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination -- a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany.

The German left—and all other “lefts”—opposed German unification because it would mean another reduction in the real estate controlled by—and the people enslaved by—communism.

There is more of this drivel in this month’s article ; if you want to read it. I don’t see why you would, next month they’ll be bashing the U.S. again.

Tim Blair: ROVE'S BRILLIANT PLAN

According to Little Green Footballs, Tim Blair and IowaHawk are in some kind of competition to out-satire Congressman Maurice Hinchey’s monumentally stupid theory that Karl Rove manufactured the Texas Air National Guard memos that Dan Rather got himself fired over.

I’ll recite the background details for those of you who missed the first part of the story line because you were still buying popcorn in the lobby.

Last Sunday, Feb 20^th, 2005, LGF posted an account of an incident where Democratic Congressman Hinchey began expounding, in front of a live audience, about his theory that Karl Rove was behind the fake memos that terminated Dan Ra^ther’s career. It just so happened that a certain member of the audience recorded Hinchey’s impromptu mental alchemy. Anyway, the gist of Hinchey’s brainstorm was that Karl Rove supposedly needed a way to distract attention from Bush’s alleged draft dodging and concocted obviously fake memos that were to be passed to Dan Ra^ther with the intent of creating a distraction from the primary issue: Bush’s draft dodging. Here’s Hinchey:

the most flagrant example of that is the way they set up Dan Rather. Now, I mean, I have my own beliefs about how that happened: it originated with Karl Rove, in my belief, in the White House. They set that up with those false papers. Why did they do it? They knew that Bush was a draft dodger. They knew that he had run away from his responsibilties in the Air National Guard in Texas, gone out of the state intentionally for a long period of time. They knew that he had no defense for that period in his life. And so what they did was, expecting that that was going to come up, they accentuated it: they produced papers that made it look even worse. And they — and they distributed those out to elements of the media. And it was only — what, like was it CBS? Or whatever, whatever which one Rather works for. They — the people there — they finally bought into it, and they, and they aired it. And when they did, they had ’em. They didn’t care who did it! All they had to do is to get some element of the media to advance that issue. Based upon the false papers that they produced.

Now there are a couple of little, minor details that are only blindingly obvious to those who have working minds:

First, if the memos were such obvious fakes then why would anybody expect competent journalist, who are skilled in the art, to fall for them in the first place?

Second, how can Bush dodge a draft that he isn’t eligible for? Put another way, members of the military can’t be drafted for military service because they are already in the military.

These blindly stupid flaws in Hinchey’s theory actual have a function: they mask a number of rather run-of-the-mill stupid flaws in his theory

Now Hinchey has gone on al CNN and tried to rationalize smearing public officials with groundless allegations.

Predictable, the loons at DU (Democratic Underground) are hi-fiving each other over Hinchey demonstrating his willingness to smear public officials with groundless allegations. That’s to be expected.

OK, that just about wraps up the background to Tim Blair’s satire. I expect everybody recognizes players such as Ann Coulter, Gannon, Murdoch, et al. Let’s roll the tape:

Democrat congressman Maurice Hinchey, speaking on CNN, persists with the idea that Karl Rove devised the fake Rathergate memos:

It doesn’t take an awful lot of imagination if you’re thinking about who it is that might have produced these false documents to try to mislead people in this very cynical way. It would take someone very brilliant, very cynical, very Machiavellian, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to come up with the name of Karl Rove as a possibility of having done that.

Is Karl Rove truly that brilliant? Using contemporaneous reports and several eye-witness sources, this site is able to reconstruct the events of last August at Evil Rove Headquarters, located many miles beneath the earth’s surface:
(Rove enters the Chamber of Destruction and greets his assembled operatives)

Rove: Gentlemen. Ladies. Mr. Gannon. Mr. Murdoch.
(Various responses: “Hiya!” “Howdy.” “G’day.")

Rove: People, you have done good work. You have tirelessly attempted to undermine John Kerry’s bid for the presidency. And yet the latest polling shows that Kerry may still win.
(Murmured complaints: “Dang!” “This is soooo not happening.” “Can’t compete with a Magic Hat.")

Rove: Silence! I cannot tell you how much this disappoints and angers me.
(An assistant appears at Rove’s side with a baseball bat. He is waved away)

Rove: But now is not the time for fault-finding, or skull-crushing. Now is the time for action. Serious action. In fact, the most serious action it is possible for us to undertake.

Murdoch: You don’t mean ... ?

Rove: Yes. It is time for us to deploy the Doomsday Device.
(Several reel from the table in shock; two are ill)

Rove: Mr. Gannon, please fetch the Device. And put some pants on, for God’s sake.

Gannon: Y-yes sir. Right away, Mr. Karl, sir.
(Gannon exits the room; the anxious conspirators listen as the sound of several vaults being sequentially opened echoes throughout the Chamber. Presently Gannon returns, carrying a briefcase)

Rove: Open it.
(Gannon enters the security code—DAILYKOS—and the briefcase springs ajar. Looking away in fear and torment, he nudges the briefcase towards Rove)

Rove: And now it is time. Time to unveil our most hideous, most perfect plan. (Rove grips the briefcase with both hands) Do you people truly know of the evil that man can attain? Do you know of the Dark Lord’s majesty? Do you know of a terror so sublime that any lesser atrocity—Salem; the Holocaust; our coming assassination and cannibalism of the Pope—will from this point on make you giggle like little girls? Behold!

(Rove removes from the briefcase several sheets of paper. He studies them intently; every eye in the room is trained upon him. Finally, Rove speaks ...)

Rove: This is the frickin’ Doomsday Device? A bunch of bogus National Guard memos? What the hell?

Clarence Thomas: Well, what we thought we’d do, see, was hand these over to the media and ...

Rove: Oh, come on! These are dated 1972 but they’re in Microsoft Word! Hellloooo! You think anybody in their right mind will fall for these? Oh, look here; you haven’t even changed the default settings! Why, I could type these up at home!

Ann Coulter: With respect, sir, the plan was to ...

Rove: Plan? Plan? Listen, legs, this plan wouldn’t fool a Kennedy! Or a crack-addicted homeless person! This so-called plan wouldn’t rate a segment on Air America! This plan I’m looking at wouldn’t be posted at Democratic goddamn Underground! This half-assed, retard plan isn’t worth the ...

Hugh Hewitt: Actually, we were thinking of giving the memos to Dan Rather.

Rove: Proceed.

BU-WHA-HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Where do "Oil for Food" shills go when that caper ends?

The witty Steve Grahram's recent post,Scott Ritter Turns Tricks for Bloody Dinars, (subtitle: The REAL Whore of Babylon Squeaks Anew) notes that disgraced former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has a new gig, which I will let Steve tell you all about.

What was his old gig you ask? I so glad you asked! After he quit inspecting Iraq for weapons he began creating pro-Saddam Cockumentaries! MEMRI reported:

On January 25, 2004, the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada published a list of approximately 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein's oil vouchers. [1] The report evoked reactions from many of those included in the list as well as from the Arab media, among them apologists for Saddam's regime. The fact that so many have opted for silence may give credence to the list's authenticity

[…]

Shaker Al-Khaffaji (7 million barrels) advanced $400,000 to Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. Ritter produced a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections, which in his telling were corrupted by sinister U.S. manipulation.

Ritter's motto: Will shill for Oil.

Anyway, here's Steve Graham:

Scott's new job, which ought to be prison laundry, is writing for AL JAZEERAH! Think about that for a minute. Scott Ritter, the patriotic Marine. Scott Ritter, who loves his country. He's writing for an outfit even more biased than the crew at 60 Minutes. Not just anti-Republican bias. Anti-AMERICAN bias.

Scott, you asshead, why don't you just buy yourself a dishcloth and a rocket launcher and get it over with?

Here's a quote from one of Scotty's fifth columns:

The highly vaunted US military machine, laurelled and praised for its historic march on Baghdad in March and April of 2003, today finds itself a broken force, on the defensive in a land that it may occupy in part, but does not control.

My God, it's Tokyo Rose with a penis.

David Spade for DNC chairman?

Here's a good article by Gloria Borger, Meet the new party of no, that humorously starts by ripping the Democrats for having an answer for everything: No! I mean, of course, that "No!" is the Democrats' answer for anything proposed by Republicans. Here's a teaser:

As it turns out, Howard Dean is not the best choice to lead the Democratic National Committee. If the party is looking for a new spokesman, there is a better choice--David Spade (with apologies to his Capital One ad):

Social Security reform? No. Clear some judges? No way, Jose. Find some agreement on national security? Nyet.

Democrats fear Social Security reform will work

The Daily News (Newburyport, Massachusetts) has an article, Democrats fear Social Security reform will work, that basically states what I already think abut the Democrat's actual motives. Here are some teasers:

Reid says Bush's proposal to let younger workers — and only those who want to — divert some of the Social Security taxes they pay into their own private investment accounts would turn that program from a guaranteed retirement safety net into a "guaranteed gamble."

I guess Reid ought to know about gambling, given that he represents Las Vegas ...

and

so far, seems to be the best scare tactic the Dems can muster. Bush wants to allow you to control some of your own money. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I swear, the Democrats should just switch mascots — replace the donkey with the Cowardly Lion. It's not just that they want to help the helpless. They want to force all of us to think we're helpless

and here's the best quote:

I think the greatest fear Dems have is not that elders will return to poverty, but that more of them actually might be able to lift themselves out of it over their working lifetimes. Democrats need poor people who think only government will save them, and they need them to stay poor.

That is not some right-wing insult. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey recalls Moynihan telling him that the reason Democrats are so afraid of Social Security reform is because it might make people wealthy, "and they worry that wealth will turn Democrats into Republicans."

That, I suspect, is what scares Harry Reid more than anything.

CIA predicts EU crackup in 15 years

The Scotsman has an article, CIA gives grim warning on European prospects, regarding a CIA report that forecasts a probable EU breakup by 2020.

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

Well that seems to be a rather understated. The EU is nothing but a collective of European nations that have agreed to synchronize their welfare state schemes and economic rights policies “upward” so that no nation can escape the EU’s suicide-pact-like consequences.

This synchronization of disastrous policies means that the European nations will—most likely—hold formation right up to the point where they crash into the ground together. My guess is that nobody, except the British, will bale-out soon enough to avoid a common disaster.

Anyway, it seems to me that Europe will become increasing irrelevant as it implodes. To say that such a failure “[undermines] its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role” is strangely coy.

It adds that the EU’s economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

Reflecting growing fears in the US that the pain of any proper reform would be too much to bear, the report adds that the experts it consulted "are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform".

The EU is also set for a looming demographic crisis because of a drop in birth rates and increased longevity, with devastating economic consequences.

The report says: "Either European countries adapt their workforces, reform their social welfare, education and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations [chiefly from Muslim countries] or they face a period of protracted economic stasis."

As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe’s Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

"potentially triggering tensions" — Oooo... Ya think?

The report predicts that America’s relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

"The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it," the report adds. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question."

Defence spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, is likely to fall further behind China and other countries over the next 15 years. Collectively these countries will outspend all others except the US and possibly China.

This also means that the EU nations will become even more of a basket case before they go into the final stages of failure. Expect even less military spending. I would say that we should expect even less relevance from the EU nations but I cannot see how they can have any less relevance than they have now.

Put another way, watch for the EU to transmogrify into a Canadian-league geopolitical powerhouse: an ignored, invisible, impotent, effete, effeminate and mincing international metrosexual that is literally good for nothing. This stage is located between now and the eventual collapse.

The problem then becomes, I suppose, is that, yet again, the U.S. will find that it is in her self-interest to rescue Europe from yet another self inflicted disaster.

Why would it be in our national self-interest to help them? To prevent them from being converted into an Islamofascist satellite. The negative birthrates of the old European stock coupled with the positive birthrates of their Moslem emigrants means that Europe is already well underway to being an Islamic outpost.

A new European governmental structure of some kind will emerge following a major collapse. The question becomes “who’s influence will dominate shaping Europe’s post-collapse government, the U.S. or the mullahs?”

Of course, if Islamofascism isn’t defeated by 2020 then one of factors contributing it survival is European interference with our War on Terrorists. Put another way, their deliberate interference with our war on terrorists will also mean that we will be forced to rescue them from their self-inflicted collapse.

(sigh)

I guess irony is that the U.S. will end up having to rescue the EU countries—a mob of vain and dangerously wooly-headed and retarded countries, whose first and most basic impulse regarding all the world's ills is to find the American responsible for them—from a crises that they will be solely responsible for.

The expected next technological revolution will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster China and India’s prospects, the study predicts. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders. But whereas the US will retain its overall lead, the report warns "Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies".

For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships, such as those with Russia or North Africa, given the inter-dependence of pipeline delivery, the report argues. But this means the EU will have to deal with Russia, which the report also warns "faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care and a potentially explosive Aids situation".

Russia also borders an "unstable region" in the Caucasus and Central Asia, "the effects of which - Muslim extremism, terrorism and endemic conflict - are likely to continue spilling over into Russia".

The report also largely en dorses forecasts that by 2020 China’s gross domestic product will exceed that of individual western economic powers except for the US. India’s GDP will have overtaken or be overtaking European economies.

Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations their standard of living need not approach European and western levels to become important economic powers.

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.

Iiieeeee... my eyes!!!

Must..find..antidote..for..turning..into..stone

Hunting Killer Rabbits in a pond near you SOON!

Bob White emailed this bit of irony Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter.

Naming a war machine "Jimmy Carter" can only be accomplished via willful indifference to both logic and evidence. It simultaneously makes a U.S. Naval war ship seem only threatening to us and proves that someone, somewhere, has a really, really sick sense of humor.

I must hurt the miscreant very badly.

Welcome to the Healthcare System of the Future!

The future that the Clintons aspired to, anyway. I think I speak for most Americans when I say that I would rather have my leg taken off than have a Canadian style health care system and this article, Die in Britain, survive in the US, in the British politcal Journal, The Spectator, explains why.


Here's a teaser:

Suppose you come down with one of the big killer illnesses like cancer. Where do you want to be — London or New York? In Lincoln, Nebraska or Lincoln, Lincolnshire? Forget the money — we will come back to that — where do you have the best chance of staying alive?

The answer is clear. If you are a woman with breast cancer in Britain, you have (or at least a few years ago you had, since all medical statistics are a few years old) a 46 per cent chance of dying from it. In America, your chances of dying are far lower — only 25 per cent. Britain has one of the worst survival rates in the advanced world and America has the best.

If you are a man and you are diagnosed as having cancer of the prostate in Britain, you are more likely to die of it than not. You have a 57 per cent chance of departing this life. But in America you are likely to live. Your chances of dying from the disease are only 19 per cent. Once again, Britain is at the bottom of the class and America at the top.

Read the article. Savor your good fortune that you were born here.

This article describes the consequences of the system the Clintons were purposing to inflict on you and your family. Don’t’ worry for the Clintons, however, I know that they would had already designed some escape-hatch beforehand—they always do.

Like the ghost of Christmas future, this article is a forewarning of the consequences of wrong choices.

Hat tip to New Sisyphus.

Scott Ott: Eason Jordan Quits, Bloggers Mull Next Target

Proprietor of the Scrappleface satire site, Scott Ott, has just posted this fake news item.

New Sisyphus to MSM, re: Easongate: deal with it

New Sisphus observed the resignation of Eason Jordan by saying to the MSM:

Deal with it.

A good way to start may be by hiring a replacement for Eason who doesn't think that U.S. troops operate death squads targeting journalists or who doesn't think it's a good idea to gain cheap popularity with European elites by irresponsibly dragging our country's honor through the mud.

Hmmm.... New Sisphus pointed out something that I hadn't picked up on: Eason Jordan converted U.S. soldiers into death squads members.

That leads to my observation that what we're seeing is the typical leftist inversion: In my world U.S. soldiers are fighting al Qaeda death squads. In Eason Jordan's world U.S. soldiers are the death squads.

Seeing the Elephant

Joe Galloway has an article that I’m basically reciting. He published an email written by a soldier in Iraq.

The email itself is an example of superb writing. Any commentary I might add would just sully the effect, so I’ll just save it for another post.

WASHINGTON - The Internet, which fills our inboxes with spam and scams every day and keeps our delete keys shiny, occasionally delivers a real keeper, such as the words below, which were written by a graduate of West Point, Class of 2003, who's now at war in Iraq.

We tracked down the author, who gave us permission to quote from his letter so long as we didn't reveal his name.

Old soldiers in the Civil War coined a phrase for green troops who survived their first taste of battle: "He has seen the elephant." This Army lieutenant sums up the combat experience better than many a grizzled veteran:

"Well, I'm here in Iraq, and I've seen it, and done it. I've seen everything you've ever seen in a war movie. I've seen cowardice; I've seen heroism; I've seen fear; and I've seen relief. I've seen blood and brains all over the back of a vehicle, and I've seen men bleed to death surrounded by their comrades. I've seen people throw up when it's all over, and I've seen the same shell-shocked look in 35-year-old experienced sergeants as in 19-year-old privates.

"I've heard the screams - 'Medic! Medic!' I've hauled dead civilians out of cars, and I've looked down at my hands and seen them covered in blood after putting some poor Iraqi civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time into a helicopter. I've seen kids with gunshot wounds, and I've seen kids who've tried to kill me.

"I've seen men tell lies to save lives: 'What happened to Sergeant A.?' The reply: 'C'mon man, he's all right - he's wondering if you'll be OK - he said y'all will have a beer together when you get to Germany.' SFC A. was lying 15 feet away on the other side of the bunker with two medics over him desperately trying to get either a pulse or a breath. The man who asked after SFC A. was himself bleeding from two gut wounds and rasping as he tried to talk with a collapsed lung. One of them made it; one did not.

"I've run for cover as fast as I've ever run - I'll hear the bass percussion thump of mortar rounds and rockets exploding as long as I live. I've heard the shrapnel as it shredded through the trailers my men live in and over my head. I've stood, gasping for breath, as I helped drag into a bunker a man so pale and badly bloodied I didn't even recognize him as a soldier I've known for months. I've run across open ground to find my soldiers and make sure I had everyone.

"I've raided houses, and shot off locks, and broken in windows. I've grabbed prisoners, and guarded them. I've looked into the faces of men who would have killed me if I'd driven past their IED (improvised explosive device) an hour later. I've looked at men who've killed two people I knew, and saw fear.

"I've seen that, sadly, that men who try to kill other men aren't monsters, and most of them aren't even brave - they aren't defiant to the last - they're ordinary people. Men are men, and that's it. I've prayed for a man to make a move toward the wire, so I could flip my weapon off safe and put two rounds in his chest - if I could beat my platoon sergeant's shotgun to the punch. I've been wanted dead, and I've wanted to kill.

"I've sworn at the radio when I heard one of my classmate's platoon sergeants call over the radio: 'Contact! Contact! IED, small arms, mortars! One KIA, three WIA!' Then a burst of staccato gunfire and a frantic cry: 'Red 1, where are you? Where are you?' as we raced to the scene...knowing full well we were too late for at least one of our comrades.

"I've seen a man without the back of his head and still done what I've been trained to do - 'medic!' I've cleaned up blood and brains so my soldiers wouldn't see it - taken pictures to document the scene, like I'm in some sort of bizarre cop show on TV.

"I've heard gunfire and hit the ground, heard it and closed my Humvee door, and heard it and just looked and figured it was too far off to worry about. I've seen men stacked up outside a house, ready to enter - some as scared as they could be, and some as calm as if they were picking up lunch from McDonald's. I've laughed at dead men, and watched a sergeant on the ground, laughing so hard he was crying, because my boots were stuck in a muddy field, all the while an Iraqi corpse was not five feet from him.

"I've heard men worry about civilians, and I've heard men shrug and sum up their viewpoint in two words - 'F--- 'em.' I've seen people shoot when they shouldn't have, and I've seen my soldiers take an extra second or two, think about it, and spare somebody's life.

"I've bought drinks from Iraqis while new units watched in wonder from their trucks, pointing weapons in every direction, including the Iraqis my men were buying a Pepsi from. I've patrolled roads for eight hours at a time that combat support units spend days preparing to travel 10 miles on. I've laughed as other units sit terrified in traffic, fingers nervously on triggers, while my soldiers and I deftly whip around, drive on the wrong side of the road, and wave to Iraqis as we pass. I can recognize a Sadiqqi (Arabic for friend) from a Haji (Arabic word for someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca, but our word for a bad guy); I know who to point my weapons at, and who to let pass.

"I've come in from my third 18-hour patrol in as many days with a full beard and stared at a major in a pressed uniform who hasn't left the wire since we've been here, daring him to tell me to shave. He looked at me, looked at the dust and sweat and dirt on my uniform, and went back to typing at his computer.

"I've stood with my men in the mess hall, surrounded by people whose idea of a bad day in Iraq is a six-hour shift manning a radio, and watched them give us a wide berth as we swagger in, dirty, smelly, tired, but sure in our knowledge that we pull the triggers, and we do what the Army does, and they, with their clean uniforms and weapons that have never fired, support us.

"I've given a kid water and Gatorade and made a friend for life. I've let them look through my sunglasses - no one wears them in this country but us - and watched them pretend to be an American soldier - a swaggering invincible machine, secure behind his sunglasses, only because the Iraqis can't see the fear in his eyes.

"I've said it a thousand times - 'God, I hate this country.' I've heard it a million times more - 'This place sucks.' In quieter moments, I've heard more profound things: 'Sir, this is a thousand times worse than I ever thought it would be.' Or, 'My wife and Sgt. B's wife were good friends - I hope she's taking it well.'

"They say they're scared, and say they won't do this or that, but when it comes time to do it they can't let their buddies down, can't let their friends go outside the wire without them, because they know it isn't right for the team to go into the ballgame at any less than 100 percent.

"That's combat, I guess, and there's no way you can be ready for it. It just is what it is, and everybody's experience is different. Just thought you might want to know what it's really like."

I got my ears boxed by INDC

Yesterday I received a short note from, Bill, the proprietor of INDC Journal, informing me of a breach of blogger trackback etiquette.

My transgression was to register a trackback with one of his posts where my trackedbacked (is that a word?) post had neither a link nor any reference to his post.

Bill pointed out that this was considered a “frowned on” breach of etiquette.

OK, I didn’t know that said link was a requirement, but I do now. I had thought trackbacks were permissible if the trackedback post was germane and on topic.

My apologies to Bill and—since he isn’t the only one I’ve done this to—everyone else I’ve annoyed. I won’t do it again.