Monday, February 27, 2006

Glenn is Wrong; Warren is Right !

A few days ago, writing about the maelstorm over the Dubai Ports deal, I said the following:

Seems like the sale of a number of ports to Dubai has really ripped the lid off the bubbling cauldron of the American wartime psyche...
The most startling observation is that despite the constant media drumbeat that we are the bad guys and Islam is a religion of peace, it appears as if Americans have a pretty good idea of who the enemy is, and what he is capable of. Such a visceral response to a foreign affairs issue is so rare...that it demands an accounting for.

Glenn Renyolds, our venerable Instapundit; stresses over the implications of the reaction to the port:

...Jim Geraghty, blogging from Turkey, wonders if we're seeing a tipping point in Western attitudes toward Islam. Geraghty collects a lot of quotes, and writes of "my sense that in recent weeks, a large chunk of Americans just decided that they no longer have any faith in the good sense or non-hostile nature of the Muslim world..."

Osama and the Islamists want to see an all-out war between Islam and the West. If this happens, Islam will rapidly become a tiny remnant of its current self. You can worry about port security if you want...but casting this in terms that suggest that we're at war with all Arabs, or all Muslims, just buys into the Islamists' apocalyptic scenario. I don't like to see people in America, by pandering to stereotypes, doing that.

But professor, are we "pandering to stereotypes", or simply learning from history? Via Little Green Footballs, we get an essay from David Warren called Oncoming (although I would have named it Incoming!):

The world in which we will find ourselves, a few years hence, will not resemble the world we inhabited a few years ago. Yet this is among the few predictions that can be safely made. The events will fall out as unpredictably as those Danish cartoons. The names, dates, and places are not yet recorded; but the shape and scale of events is already blotting the sun on our horizon.

Even after the experience of the Great War, and the Depression, people on the eve of the Hitler war could not appreciate what was coming. It is only in retrospect that we understand what happened as the 1930s progressed -- when a spineless political class, eager at any price to preserve a peace that was no longer available, performed endless demeaning acts of appeasement to the Nazis; while the Nazis created additional grievances to extract more.

This is precisely what is happening now, as we are confronted by the Islamist fanatics, whose views and demands are already being parroted by fearful “mainstream” Muslim politicians. We will do anything to preserve a peace that ceased to exist on 9/11. Not one of our prominent politicians dares even to name the enemy...

Germany was full of moderate Germans, as Hitler rose; Stalin drove his oars through a sea of moderate Russians. While we must not forget that the Muslims are the first victims of “Islamism”, and may suffer most from its triumph, we are beyond the point where we can do more for them than destroy the tyranny by which they are enthralled.

Mr. Warren beats our esteemed Professor Reynolds on points. Glenn reminds us that Osama wants war with the West, and implies if he gets it, he's won.
Well, not exactly. If we pulverize the Middle East the way we may need to, in order to cleanly win a war without years of Iraq-type insurgancies, the face of Islam, much like the face of National Socialist Germany and Dynastic Japan, will be forever altered. And not in a way that Osama bin Laden would approve, mind you. Islam would still be the key religious model in the region, but not the driving force behind political/territorial manuevers.

David Warren points out clearly the parallels with the 1930's here (even without the requisite reminder of fascism's love for Jew-extermination). The American people see the parallels quite clearly, and all of the "religion of peace" nonsense, whether from bloggers or Presidents, is not going to convince them to ignore the evidence of their own eyes.
The American spirit does not allow for dhimmitude. Lord knows we almost rented the nation apart a century and a half ago over a different type of slavery. Mentally, the American people are ready to fight now, to avoid leaving a bloodier battle to their children shortly down the road.

Do the politicians, here and abroad, have the same will as their constituents?

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Europe, Struggling to Awaken...

Is the murder of Ilam Halami enough to rouse Europe? The French are arising; last week they showed some support for Denmark; today, they march again:

Tens of thousands of people have marched through Paris to protest against racism and anti-Semitism after the kidnap and murder of a young Jew.
Ilan Halimi, 23, was found naked with horrific injuries, three weeks after he was kidnapped by an extortion gang.
Marchers on Sunday lit candles and released white balloons in his memory.

Its a typical European response to violence, the candles/flowers/prayers/balloon thing; but are they ready to actually fight the battle ahead, or will they de-evolve back into...Frenchmen?

Mark Steyn thinks we'd better watch out:

Something very remarkable is happening around the globe and, if you want the short version, a Muslim demonstrator in Toronto the other day put it very well:
''We won't stop the protests until the world obeys Islamic law.''

Stated that baldly it sounds ridiculous. But, simply as a matter of fact, every year more and more of the world lives under Islamic law: Pakistan adopted Islamic law in 1977, Iran in 1979, Sudan in 1984. Four decades ago, Nigeria lived under English common law; now, half of it's in the grip of sharia, and the other half's feeling the squeeze, as the death toll from the cartoon jihad indicates. But just as telling is how swiftly the developed world has internalized an essentially Islamic perspective. In their pitiful coverage of the low-level intifada that's been going on in France for five years, the European press has been barely any less loopy than the Middle Eastern media.

...Islam claims universal jurisdiction and always has. The only difference is that they're now acting upon it....

And it's not just France; via EUROSOC, we learn:

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity...

...Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society...

Will this growing Muslim population in Europe (kept unassimilated due to that swell liberal policy of "mulit-culturalism), actually be able to force sharia into Western law? Will Jew-killing become the norm? Again, from Steyn:

In five years' time, how many Jews will be living in France?

Not many, I'd reckon - better off in the relative safety of Israel - or in the USA!

And this is the danger of the media's fear of offending Muslims - will the Islamist's backwards notions of society become rule of law without a dissenting editorial? Are the editorial boards of a thousand newspapers so yellow with fear, so indoctrinated into leftist theology, that they would betray their own countrymen to servitude so as to (briefly) save their own necks?
Think of those who died on 9/11, and those who died, from Flight 93 to Afghanistan to Iraq in the time since, in the name of freedom from Islamist Fascism.
Then take note how the mainstream media, worldwide, have surrendered to them without a whimper...

UPDATE: The Church of England, dhimmis to the last, are already handing over their Jews (an old European custom, dating back at least to the Black Death of the 1300's) while singing their new master's song...From the New York Daily News:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican church worldwide, was among those who voted earlier this month for church financial advisers to "disinvest from companies profiting from the illegal occupation...
As for vicars who pushed for the divestiture of the $4.2 million worth of Caterpillar stock... "One has to question whether their anti-Zionism doesn't harbor at its very roots a form of anti-Semitism."
The Rev. Stephen Sizer, a prime mover behind the anti-Caterpillar vote, is unrepentant. In a letter to Britain's Independent, he hailed the synod for refusing "to be intimidated by those who like Chicken Little cry 'anti-Semitism' whenever Israeli human rights abuses in the occupied territories are mentioned."

Hurt Israel's finances, claim "occupation" and 'human rights abuses"...good dhimmis!!! Now wag your forked tails for a treat...
Note no mentions of the "abuses" involved in terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, or the recent surge in attacks against Christian targets by Muslims worldwide...a good dhimmi never mentions these things, oh no...
The Midwest Conservative Journal follows this story closely...

Hamas Dictates Its Terms...

{updated below}

Only in today's wacky PC world, where the weak have moral superiority over the strong (simply by "virtue" of being weak), can the vanquished dictate terms to the victor. Hamas, knowing that it cannot survive financially without Israel's tax reciepts and U.S. aid, has kindly bestowed upon Israel the conditions it is willing to offer for...
what, exactly?

The Palestinian Prime Minister designate said Hamas is "ready to recognize" Israel if it gives the Palestinian people their full rights and a state in lands occupied since 1967, including the
West Bank and East Jerusalem.

"Let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs," Haniyeh said.

Note the wording here - "ready to recognize"; "will have a position". No promises, even if Israel should completely capitulate to Hamas' terms of surrender, that Hamas will even then recognize Israel. They only will have a" position", about being "ready". OK, right.

Note how the media falls for this duplicity head over heels, not even commenting on how Hamas' "final solution" would effectively evicerate the Jewish State. I wonder, how long before the EU and the UN began to urge Israel to harken to these terms, in the name of some imaginary peace "process" ? The "process" has only been a process to destroy Israel, and in the time before Ariel Sharon, it was working. For most people, the scales have been lifted from their eyes; although Hamas still tries to pull the wool over...

Let's see which dhimmis will follow the lead of the media, and dance to Hamas' evil tune...

UPDATE: The full transcript of the interview with Hamas's new prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, is here in today's Washington Post ; which seems to be falling all over itself to find op-ed room for terrorists like Haniyeh, Mousa Abu Marzook, the Damascus-based chief of Hamas (here; with a coda to his tale here), and their sympathizers, like Jimmy Dhimmi Carter ( here ). Some more Q&A gems with this murderous animal:

Will you abide by past agreements made by the Palestinian governments and Israel?
We will review all agreements and abide by those that are in the interest of the Palestinian people.
What agreements will you honor?
The ones that will guarantee the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders -- as well as agreements that would release prisoners.

**Note - no such agreements were ever made; Hamas is again demanding surrender for peace - or are they?

Would Hamas recognize Israel if it were to withdraw to the '67 borders?
If Israel withdraws to the '67 borders, then we will establish a peace in stages.
What does that mean?

Number one: We will establish a situation of stability and calm which will bring safety for our people -- what Sheikh [Ahmed] Yassin [a Hamas founder] called a long-term hudna .

**Note - a "Hudna" is simply a cease-fire, with the explicit understanding that it is to be used for re-arming and re-strategizing before continuing hostilities; with a peaceful conclusion of affairs not considered to be an option. Haniyeh, to his slimey credit, makes that clear by offering, even in the face of an complete Israeli capitualtion, nothing more than a longer-term cease-fire...

Do you recognize Israel's right to exist?
The answer is to let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Israel. Hamas will have a position if this occurs.
So will you extend the present ceasefire?
I will not say yes or no. The problem is with Israel.

So the problem is that the Israelis have the nerve to defend themselves against constant terrorist incursions; if only they would allow themselves to be blown up like good little Jews, maybe Hamas would think about making a gesture...

Israel does not have a charter calling for the destruction of the Palestinian state.
Our only position will be declared once Israel recognizes our right to exist.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accepted a two-state solution as did President Bush. What do you say about the two-state solution?
It all starts with Israel.

It is clear, no matter what the mouthpieces of Hamas say, that they will never commit to the existence of Israel, as seen above. Again, simple recognition is not even being offered, only the promise to "declare a position" once Israel meets their terms. There is no two-state solution in Hamas' eyes, only one - the state of Palestine, run by Muslim fanatics, with all Jews dead, deported, or dhimmis of their Islamic rulers.

Should not the WaPost editorialize on these duplicitious remarks? No, they are too busy hiding under their desks, lest a jihad be called down upon their precious liberal heads...
And meanwhile, as the WaPost editorial board quivers in fear, they cannot be bothered to write or give editorial space to stories like these; which show Americans as heroes, showered with thanks from Iraqi officials...might make their terrorist masters unhappy, you see...

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Cartoonish Islamist Reality

The Great Mohammad Cartoon Controversy has jumped the shark; and lapsed into a satire of itself. Via the indominable Michelle Malkin:

Pakistani protesters holding daggers stage a rally against the publication of cartoons depicting Islamic Prophet Muhammad, with black banners arounds their chests that read, 'God is Great,' Friday, Feb. 24, 2006 in Peshawar, Pakistan.

Question: If the cartoons on either side accurately portray modern Muslim behavior, and the Islamo-fascists demand that we cease printing such cartoons, aren't the mainstream media essentially performing as a propoganda vessel for the Islamists? If realistic portrayals like the ones above are banned, but uncensored pictures of Abu Graib can appear in every newspaper in America, is not the media intentionally giving a skewered view of our enemies, and ourselves? A view that only helps American enemies portray themselves as victims, while hiding their own brutal nature?

Is the liberal media so afraid of the man in the picture above that they are willing to give him editorial control over the images that are allowed to appear in our information outlets?

Apparently so...

UPDATE: Today's New York Times editorializes on the Cartoons of Evil, and bespeaks of the still-elusive moderate Muslim:

With every new riot over the Danish cartoons, it becomes clearer that the protests are no longer about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, but about the demagoguery of Islamic extremists...It is not the West that is most threatened in this crisis. The voices of moderation in the Muslim world are the ones that are being intimidated and silenced.

It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence. It is they who must explain to their people that the cartoons were an isolated incident, and not the face of hostile crusaders. It is they who must make it clear to their people that blowing up mosques, beheading hostages and strapping on belts of explosives are far, far greater evils than a few drawings in a distant paper. They must do so because their future is at stake — not Denmark's.

True enough, although the Times is very late in waking up to the dangers presented; and still claims that we, the West, are not in danger. But their call to action for the "moderate Muslim" echos mine, and is of value. Yet Ed Morrisey at Captain's Quarters feels that this Times editorial paints the paper in an even worse light:

From the time of the first arson and the point when the first signs appeared demanding violence -- in other words, since day 1 of the protests -- the point has always been to intimidate non-Muslims into silence.
The Times cannot bring itself to admit this. Why? It would force the Times to recognize its role in the shameful surrender shown by the American media in not just refusing to publish the cartoons themselves, but also in their haughty rationalizations that they must remain sensitive to the icons of Islamic faith. They routinely fail to show this sensitivity to icons of other faiths, such as their reprint of the Ofili Madonna, covered in elephant dung and pictures of female genitalia...They only care about sensitivity when the offended carry bombs, guns, and torches.
Even today, with its far-too-late recognition of the real issues involved in the Cartoon Wars, the Times has yet to publish the cartoons themselves so their readers can understand the context of the controversy.

Typical of the liberals within the media establishment - even when it is a cause worth fighting for, let someone else do it, while we hide under the desk...

The Moderate Muslim

We have spoken often about the myth of the moderate Muslim, a good citizen of an imaginary nation where he quietly practices his religion of peace. However, in the name of fairness, I will now give the floor to one Minh-Duc, former resident of communist Vietnam, now an American soldier; a veteran if the Iraq War. From his blog State of Flux:

Those who claim, that because there is no uproar of opposition against fundamentalism from Muslim, that there is no moderate Muslim, have never lived in an oppressed tyranny. This is the equivalence of the argument from the Left (made during the Cold War) that because there is no protest against Communism behind the Iron Curtain, the Worker Paradise is truly a paradise.

The reason moderate Muslims are so quiet is the same reason we victims of Communism were so quiet – fear. For 15 years, I lived under the tyranny of communism; and for those 15 years, I said nothing. My father said nothing, my neighbors said nothing, and my (then) countrymen said nothing. In fact, if a Western journalist asked me a question about the government, I would have nothing but glorious praise for the Communist government. Of course, I would not believe what I said. We had food shortage; our lives were miserable and oppressive. But miserable as we were, we preferred living in misery to death and imprisonment. My family and I were terrified, and being terrified is a forgivable sin.

The majority of Muslims are afraid – and they have every reason to be fearful....All the Western casualties combined are only a fraction in comparison to the Muslims killed in Algeria by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). And Algeria is only a small front in the war...
Those who claim that there are no moderate Muslims must have never read the blog of Iraq the Model or the Big Pharoah. They of course never fought alongside the Peshmerga or the 206th Iraqi National Guard. By not separating between the extremists and the moderates, we will loose potential allies and pitch ourselves against the greater Islamic world. The oversimplified clash of civilization meme will be detrimental to our cause.

I will grant Minh-Duc his points; he has served in the Middle East and knows the peoples firsthand. So the moderate Muslim is not fictional; he/she is simply in hiding in fear for their lives. Very possible, considering the animosity between various Muslim factions. But -

There are countries where the moderate Muslim is free to speak out. In America, there are no vigilante groups of beards roaming the streets with switches enforcing sharia law. Why can't they speak out in America, they way so many groups do against oppression in their homelands? They would have police protection here; the law would be on their side. How about England? If hate-filled Muslim groups can get protection from the bobbies for their rallies; why can't the moderate Muslim, again protected by the law-enforcement apparatus of the British state, stand up and speak? Why not in Canada? Or France?

Although they could still face threats from within their own community, the moderate Muslim would have state protection of their freedom to speak out here; the police (and maybe even the FBI; they might have certain suspicions) would hunt down with due diligence any who threatened them.

And here's where I depart from our friend above - It would only take a little bit of courage to speak out here in the free West, to denounce acts that are taking place in the name of your religion, and to educate the population on what Islam really is (or is not). There are opportunities for new leaders to take hold; the media is frantically looking for "moderates" who do not turn out to be terror supporters five minutes later. If the so-called moderate Muslims do not take the opportunities offered by our freedoms of speech (with legal protections) to declare their opposition to Islamic radicals and fascists, then with silence they are giving the terrorists tactic support. The Islamofascists know that their "moderate" ranks are cowered, and will fall into line easily. That is one less front that they must fight on; making their war against us that much easier.


If the moderate Muslim does not speak up when/where he has the chance, he does not exist.

Friday Night War Roundup - Three Fronts

Seems like some Americans are determined to show support for the beleagured Danish government, since President Bush seems to be unable to muster up the courage to say/do the right thing (what happened to our straight shooting, "you're either with us or against us" cowboy? I miss him...). A pro-free speech show of support in front of the Danish embassy in Washington DC was held today; some photos via Instapundit:

Even in France, the Danes are getting support..from E-Nough! we get some pix of a nice size crowd:

E-nough!'s post has an audio\video link showing the crowd in the above picture chanting "Islam out of France!" The Muslims opened up a front in France a few months back with the Paris Intifada; are the French actually fighting back? Sacre Bleu!

If so, they have a long struggle ahead of them. Making the news (just barely) is the story of a young Jewish man who was kidnapped and tortured for weeks before being left to die on the railroad tracks. The French authorities had bent over backwards to claim this was not an anti-Semitic hate crime, but the perpertrators know better, and now France is forced to face the evil in its own midst ...via Gateway Pundit:

...But, according to reports in the French press, some of the suspects in police custody said that they tortured Ilan with particular cruelty simply because he was Jewish. No longer able to deny or play down the racial motive, the investigation is entering a new phase. One of the most troubling aspects of this affair is the probable involvement of relatives and neighbors, beyond the immediate circle of the gang, who were told about the Jewish hostage and dropped in to participate in the torture.

The Evil Jew Tortured By French Muslims

And finally, on the Middle Eastern front, al-Qaeda, fresh from attempting to incite civil war in Iraq, launches an attack in Saudi Arabia that could have drastically affected the world's economy had it succeeded:

Suicide bombers in explosives-packed cars attacked the world's largest oil processing facility Friday but were stopped outside the gates when guards opened fire, detonating their vehicles, officials said...The attack was the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia and it targeted one of the most important. The huge processing facility near the Persian Gulf coast handles around two-thirds of the country's oil output...Crude oil futures spiked more than $2 a barrel amid fears militants would again target the vital industry.

Saudi-born Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group claimed responsibility for Friday's attack on a major Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, the group said in an Internet statement.

It's gonna be a long, hard war, folks...fought on many fronts by all types of people, from the American military to security guards to citizens standing in the cold in France and Washington. It was the passangers on Flight 93 on 9/11 who realized before anyone that there was a war on, and that the average citizen would never know when the time would come when he/she would be called upon to fight.

They stood up that day; as the Saudi security guards did, as the Iraqi politicians and the Danish cartoonists are now. We never know the day or the hour when the war will come to our doorstep...

Friday, February 24, 2006

Civil War in Iraq? Maybe Not...

Why do I have the feeling that the last people the Iraqis blame (despite the claims of Iranian President Ahmadinejad ) for the mosque bombing is the United States? And why do I believe that they could not be happier to have American troops their to help keep the peace? Reuters:

Some 130,000 U.S. troops were standing by as the largely untried, U.S.-trained Iraqi army and police went on the highest alert, with all leave canceled; the heavily armed Americans may have to intervene if large-scale violence increases, however.
"The issue hangs on the next few days. Either the gates of hell open onto a civil war or the Shi'ites will take more power," said Baghdad political science professor Hazim al-Naimi.
"Only the U.S. military is preventing war in some areas."

The Iraqi governemnt is acting quickly, attempting to defuse the situation, and it appears things may be calming down...via the AP:

Shiite and Sunni leaders again appealed for calm Thursday following the wave of attacks on Sunni mosques, and the number of violent incidents appeared to decline after the government extended the curfew...

A Western official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said discussions were under way to rebuild the shrine as quickly as possible because the shattered structure would serve as a "lasting provocation" until it was reconstructed. Italy announced Thursday it was offering to rebuild the dome to help battle "fanaticism."
Despite strident comments from various Iraqi leaders, U.S. officials said they believed mainstream politicians understood the grave danger facing the country and would try to prevent civil war.

"We're not seeing civil war igniting in Iraq" Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a spokesman for the U.S. command, told reporters.

A turning of the tide, perhaps? If this settles down peacefully, is this proof that a democratically elected Arab government, acting in the name of its majority, can quell sectarian violence ? Watching the struggling birth of Iraqi democracy, one can only pray for its success, to shine as a beacon of hope in a strife-torn region.

Even with the horrors that are accompanying this transformation, it is still a wonder, a marvet to behold...

Thursday, February 23, 2006

A Port of Contention

Maybe I am starting to come around a bit? James Glassman with a convincing argument:

DP World is a company that knows this business well, currently running what The Guardian, the British newspaper, calls "one of the most efficient port organizations in the world"...

And Dubai -- I don't have to tell you -- is an Arab nation. Yes, two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE, but, then again, as Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute notes, Richard Reid, the attempted "shoe bomber," was a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, among others, is an American citizen (as was Timothy McVeigh). The UAE has been a staunch ally in the war on terror, training security forces in Iraq and helping to cut off the flow of money to al Qaeda.

Isn't this precisely what the United States preaches? Don't we want places like Dubai to fight terror and to grow, to invest, to buy, to trade, to adopt Western commercial practices, to expose themselves to the rest of the world and thus become tolerant and moderate?

Instead, congressional leaders are trying to kill the deal, which is set to go into effect next week. Why? "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen," says Schumer.
This is rank racist nonsense. Schumer knows very well that responsibility for port security in the United States lies not with DP World or any other operator, but instead with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs.
" Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."
Using Schumeresque logic, the U.S. should ban flights into the U.S. by airlines from Arab countries, and we should certainly bar any cargo from being loaded in Arab ports and bound for the U.S.

Maybe it is the Schmuckie Shumer-bashing that I cannot resist; but there is a certain logic in the fact that the more countries like Dubai have significant investment in America; the more it make sense for them to take actions that are in America's best interests. And of course seeing the Democrats engage in racial profiling is a delicious example of leftist double-standards at work.

This doesn't erase the fact that the Bush Administration now needs to do a thorough job of convincing ordinary Americans (not the Democrats; they will never be convinced) that this deal will not affect the security of the United States. An open process, with plenty of public Q & A, is the only way to settle this hash; the fact that at this writing Bush appears amendable to a delay is a positive move. By finally responding to the cry of the "American Street", he can re-establish his bona fides as someone who is in touch with the electorate, and not allow his position to be weakened by politically charged attacks on his efforts to safeguard the country.

Of course, while the media is having a field day Bush-bashing, rioting in Iraq is taking a back page. But I am sure that by tomorrow, the media will sense an opportunity to blame Bush for the civil strife overseas, and drop the port story, having given it their full 15 minute attention span...

George Bush's Dubai-us (Port Of) Call...

Seems like the sale of a number of ports to Dubai has really ripped the lid off the bubbling cauldron of the American wartime psyche; and it appears as if my man W. is the one of the few who is actually surprised at what spilled out.

The most startling observation is that despite the constant media drumbeat that we are the bad guys and Islam is a religion of peace, it appears as if Americans have a pretty good idea of who the enemy is, and what he is capable of. Such a visceral response to a foreign affairs issue is so rare (though not unprecedented), that it demands an accounting for.

And yet, President Bush simply dismisses the outcry with a wave of his hand, saying it is a done deal because he says it is a done deal, and threatens to wield his veto power against those who might rise up against him. Does he believe that with all of his talk of a "peaceful Islam", Americans would lose their unique ability to "smell a rat"? The grass-roots outcry that resulted over the port sale issue indicates that we as a people are more acutely aware of the war on terror than we are led to believe.

Bush must at least slow the sale of the ports to Dubai and allow for a more open hearing if he is to soothe public concerns over the transactions. With a fair and transparent process, he may yet win this one - Americans by and large have accepted his rationales for everything from tax cuts to military force; what does he have to lose?

Actually, he has no other option - the alternative universe looming on the horizon is one where a nation no longer trusts him, administration initiatives are blocked in bipartisan fashion, and politicians of both parties run against his policies, created political stagnation and sapping political will during a possible turning point in the war on terror.
C'mon, W., do the right thing here!

Quickly- Jim Geraghty is essentially calling it a tempest in a teapot:

...the UAE provided supplies for our troops in Afghanistan. Should we refuse that cooperation? I f we don’t trust them to manage the non-security aspects of a port, why should we trust their drinking water? Why do we trust them enough to use Al Dhafra Air Base and other facilities on their soil?
We now know that nothing is set to change on how security at these ports would change under the deal – it would still all be managed by the Coast Guard.
There is no outsourcing of homeland security duties.
We've been snookered, folks. [Schumer] should put up some evidence to support his charge. As of now, there is nothing to indicate that the UAE or Dubai Ports World would have any control over security procedures at any of these facilities.

Michelle Malkin does not agree:

....the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya...
...The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks...

I wish I could come to a reasoned conclusion; but like so many, there is just something in my gut...

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

George W. Bush and the Ports Of Doom...

Has my beloved President Bush gone off his freakin' rocker? Seems like the American people understand the nature of the war we are fighting and the capabilities of our enemies than our Commander-in-Chief. The AP:

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.
"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."
Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn: "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through

Wow, that is some hubris, even from a Texas cowpoke. Seems like he is playing the race card here as well, which is most offensive of all. I question the strength of our "alliance" with a nation that is much more likely to appease al-Qaeda than the United States. Simply put, all it takes is one low-level Dubai Port employee to allow in one particular shipment, or a handful of stowaways, and off we go to Armageddon.
Maybe my concern is a bit extreme, but it is shared by many; and why Bush refuses to delay the deal, or make more aspects of it public, is concerning to me. The fact that he is handing a security issue over to the Democrats in an election year is bad enough. But if he's lost his knack of understanding the needs and concerns of the average American regarding the War on Terror, than he will in short order lose his moral standing, his authority, his clout, and his ability to get anything done whatsoever. Then our national security will really be compromised...

All we need is an open, clear investigation of the port company - if the American people can be convinced that this is a clean, fair, safe deal, then - no problem.
And if not...Mr. Bush should not forget whom the boss is in our democratic system.

Via Instapundit, I'll throw in a pro-Port opinion:

Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.
To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests.

It's a liberal argument, not without it merits. But are their any Muslim countries that do not wish ill will on America at this time? And can we gamble the security of our nation's ports that Dubai is a Muslim nation that will essentially particpate in American Homeland Security? Big, big risk...

As a counterpoint to the above, I bring you this commentary from Celestial Junk Blog - it is not written on the Dubai port topic, nevertheless it refutes our friend above:

We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide... It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is, that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.

Read 'em both...
FYI - living in "interesting times" kinda sucks....

Monday, February 20, 2006

Carter Demands More Dead Jews!

What kind of bizarro world does our ex-President inhabit, when he accuses the Israelis of inciting violence by refusing to fund the people who are openly plotting their very destruction? Today's Washington Post takes a break from giving terrorists op-ed space and instead gives it to Jimmy Carter, terrorist apologist par excellence:

Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively.

Earth to Brother Jimmy: This is a good thing, when you de-fund those who are trying to kill you. Just because Hamas was democratically elected does not mean we are under obligation to financially assist them or give them a helping hand running their government. They openly boast of carrying out terror attacks that have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians, they clearly state that they have no intention of recognizing Israel's right to exist, and yet you demand we aid and abet them?? What kind of sick morality do you work under that states we must make it easier for our murderers to kill us??

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas

So James Earl Carter has laid in his excuse for Hamas and the Palestinians already - when they attack, it will not be for land-lust and Jew-hatred, it will be because of what Israel (and the US) has done to poor Hamas. Jimmy refuses to hold the Palestinians responsible for their sick choices; he doesn't ask for Hamas to take a step away from their cult of death - the Jews must do this; on faith and Jimmy's word. Oh, and note how that old liberal excuse for their cowardice is in full play - if we fight Hamas, more people will join Hamas! That's fine, Jim, we'll provide more body bags for them...

The final fantasy:

A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas).
It was under this umbrella and not the Palestinian Authority that Arafat negotiated with Israeli leaders to conclude the Oslo peace agreement...

So Carter expects Israel to negotiate with a man who really has no political standing with the Palestinian government, using Oslo as an example. Does Carter realize that the Israelis have no one to negotiate with? Does Carter not realize that Oslo is in shambles because Arafat and his cronies used it to demand more and more concessions and eventually launch one intifada after another? Does he see that the only reason that the Palestinians have regained control of Gaza is because Israel gave it to them unilateraly?

Carter is a sick man; an appeaser that should go down in history with Chamberlain...

UNESCO'S Bizarre Hero

I can't/won't lay off the United Nations these days; I become increasingly convinced it is more a cause of so many of the world's problems rather than a solution. Peter Brookes writes in today's New York Post about another UN abomination:

Early this month, in front of 200,000 screaming sup porters in Havana's Revolutionary Square, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro bestowed Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez with UNESCO's 2005 International José Marti Prize for promoting Latin American heritage, liberty and values.
Huh? Chavez? Liberty?
I'm not sure what the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization folks are "partaking" of, in their cushy Paris headquarters, but the notion that Venezuela's caudillo is deserving of an award espousing these ideals (not to mention presented by Castro in Havana) simply boggles the mind.
It might be time for Washington to reconsider its membership in — and its $80 million-plus contribution to — this misguided U.N. agency.

That's $80 million in American taxpayer dollars, part of which is going to reward one of the shining new despots adored by the Left. Makes you feel good, seeing how well-spent our dollars are, huh?

The aged Castro, who by some accounts slurred his way through his speech, praised his island-prison Cuba, his protégé Chavez and Jose Marti and spewed predictable volumes of anti-American bile, calling the U.S. a world menace.
As Papa Castro presented the certificate (and $5,000 in loot) to Venezuela's Fidelito, the crowd cheered wildly, and waved Cuban and Venezuelan flags....In a mind-numbing 21/2 hour speech that only a despot (or, maybe, Bill Clinton) could give, Chavez called the U.S. a "brutal, cynical, murderous empire," promising that "we will do everything to shred it."

Said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): "It is astonishing and beyond the pale that a man such as Chavez, who poses a very real threat to democracy, not only in Venezuela, but in the entire region, and has engaged in virulent anti-American attacks, was honored by UNESCO."
That's only the half of it. Chavez has seized private property, closed radio and TV stations for anti-government content and jailed critics. He has consolidated single-party rule, stacked the courts with Chavistas and won a 2005 election by stuffing ballot boxes, according to Steve Johnson, a Latin America expert.

Only an amazingly corrupt and amoral institution like the United Nations could see fit to reward leaders whom vow to "shred" member states (where's the UNESCO award for the Iranian president?) while limiting freedom and discourse in their own country.

No offense to the Florida Congresswoman, but she should not be astonished...the United Nations is in the business of supporting leaders like Chavez,
groups like Hamas, and fascist states like Iran in their bid to obtain nuclear weapons. All while joining in on that time-honored fascist salon game of Jew-baiting, of course, held weekly in the General Assembly. And doing it all on the U.S. dime, of course.

If there is to be any hope of world peace, the UN must be moved out of the way; and none too delicately...

Update: Fausta reports that Chavez is joining forces with the Iranians in an economic war against the United States, starting with a combined attempt to undermine the strength of the US dollar. Someone ought to let the Democrats know that America's enemies at least believe in Bush's preemptive warfare doctrine enough to adopt it as their own...

United Nations: Terrorist Enablers

We spoke the other day about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) provides, with the help of US taxpayers, anti-Semitic books to Palestinian school kids. Daimian Penny talks more about the perfidity of this particular UN sub-group:

The UN Relief and Works Agency is the only refugee agency on earth whose mission is not to resettle people who lost their homes in a war, instead keeping them in squalid camps until they - and 50 years' worth of their descendants - can return to their old homes in Israel. And the agency is completely dominated by Hamas, its supporters and Western sympathizers ...

The link above to TCS Daily gives us more:

The needless festering of grievance in the undeniably miserable 59 camps (27 of which are located in the West Bank and Gaza) is not UNRWA's only flaw, however. Indeed, far from being an impartial dispenser of humanitarian relief, UNRWA has become an enabler of terrorists, complicit through sins of commission and omission, in the cycle of violence wracking the Middle East...
Until the Bush administration blocked his reappointment last year, long-term UNRWA commissioner-general Peter Hansen made a career out of "see no evil, hear no evil" with respect to Hamas while imputing all manner of malfeasance on Israel. The final straw for Washington may have been Hansen's candid admission during a television interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in late 2004: "I am sure there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, and I don't see that as a crime."

So the US aid money that went to UNRWA was knowingly given to members of a terrorist organization who gleefully slaughter innocent women and children, and the Commissioner didn't see anything wrong with it.
We've spent a lot of time in the United States tracking and shutting down groups that act as terrorist money-gathering/laundering outfits. When are we going to hold the United Nations to the same standards? Or is this part of another politically correct, double-standard liberal philosophy that I'm not clued into yet?

The United Nations must go; and the quicker the better...

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Will Liberal Guilt Kill Us All?

Haaretz columnist Julie Burchill, reporting from Britian below; certainly her classification of media liberals applies to this side of the pond as well:

Mind you, it's a long hard struggle trying to make bleeding-heart liberals see sense. Especially when you live in a country where a sizable part of the print and broadcasting media are such guilt-ridden cretins when it comes to Islam that if they saw Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein sexually sharing their own grandmother, they'd swear the poor old lady asked for it.

Read it all, especially the comments, as of course everything is really about the Jews...

Via Tim Blair

Iran: ElBaradei Offers a Western Surrender

Yesterday I argued that the UN is worse than a useless organization, it is in league with the world's fascists as well. Today we see that their top nuclear proliferation expert shrugs his shoulders at the Iranian weapons program and says the West must aquiese:

...the world's nuclear watchdog chief has warned there may be no choice but to accept limited uranium enrichment by Tehran, diplomats say.
For a mistrustful West, the quid pro quo would be to give U.N. inspectors more intrusive powers via a Security Council resolution to prevent suspected atomic bomb projects.
Tehran in turn would have to pledge no industrial-scale enrichment of uranium..

"The world's nuclear watchdog" ?? Hardly, how many rouge nations have aquired/are on their way to aquiring nukes under this stooges' watch? According to IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei , the way to solve the problem is to give in to the terrorist nation and give more power to the UN, who OF COURSE will make sure nothing bad happens. After all, they will have Tehran's word on it!

"Nothing of consequence will happen in the Security Council because the Russians and Chinese will block sanctions," the diplomat said of the two non-Western big powers determined to protect massive energy investments and trade with Iran....
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has welcomed ElBaradei's idea as a potential way to dispel Western suspicions Tehran seeks atomic bombs....

Everone knows that Russia and China have no intention of letting sanctions proceed; the UN charade is simply another way to buy time for Iran to progress its bomb-building work. The fact that Iran likes the idea is more bad news, and it underscores the binding relationship between the UN and totalitarian countries. No doubt they would have found legal loopholes to allow Hitler to arm himself as well throughout the 30's...

"We are a nuclear country. The (West) knows it has no other choice but to negotiate," Gholamreza Aghazadeh told state television, adding that Iran had invited Western countries to invest in Natanz and be present on site.
"There is no greater objective guarantee (against bomb-building) we can provide to the world," he said.

Why not take them, and their threats against us, at their word? No, no, no, we must negotiate with them until they are a nuclear terror state, then it will be easier to surrender to them!
Now here's a true fact that throws a wrench into the UN's simple appeasment project:

"ElBaradei's suggestion seems naive ... If the Iranians get the compromise he's raised, they're likely to demand more concessions, especially operating more centrifuges," said David Albright, a former IAEA inspector in Iraq and director of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

Yup...and I have to believe the UN knows this. So why give the Iranians a meter if they are going to take a kilometer? Is the UN intentionally trying to level the playing field against the United States and Israel in the Middle East? Are they in favor of a new worldwide Islamic fascist domination supported by nuclear force? If not, why won't they stand up for freedom, and for the West?

Because the UN is really, truly on the side of the Islamists here...we should not be party to policies created by those whom wish to destroy us and impose other values. The UN must, must go, before it does any more damage to world peace...

Article here from al-Reuters...

Saturday, February 18, 2006

The UN Descends Into Fascism

The United Nations is an anti-Semitic fascist organization that should be de-funded by American taxpayers and disbanded, not unlike its feckless predecessor, the League of Nations. Two examples of the perfidy of this organization of hate states, first from Eugene Volokh:

Which Organization Runs Schools That Use Materials That:
[Describe] Zionism as "a racist ideology and political movement that appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century" and inform[] readers that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were "a group of confidential resolutions adopted by the [Basel Zionist] Congress ... the goal of which is world domination."
[P]rovide Middle East maps with no] mention of Israel.
[Give] students this assignment: "Let us research and write [an essay] about one of the Palestinian martyr leaders [suicide bombers]."
The answer,
Michael Krauss and Peter Pham report, is the United Nations, specifically the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
[link: ]

Nice work, fascists! Maybe the reason that the new generation is just as full of Jew-hatred as the previous one is because you've been providing them with this type of reading material to learn from?
No, the UN tells us, if only Israel would give up all of its territory, and Jerusalem as well, then the Arabs would be appeased, and we could all live in peace.
Right. Anyway. Today's New York Post editorializes on the recent UN report demanding the closing of Gitmo:

Says the U.N. team: What happens at Gitmo is nothing less than torture — and those responsible should themselves face the long arm of the law "up to the highest level of military and political command."
And how do these gumshoes know this?
Why, they read all about it in The New York Times and watched it on CNN. Oh, and they talked to former detainees.
What they did not do, however, is visit Guantanamo and see things for themselves.
After all, it's so much easier when you only need to get one side of the story.
Indeed, as Kevin Moley, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.'s Geneva offices, wrote in a letter last month, the report "selectively includes only those factual assertions needed to support those conclusions and ignores other facts that would undermine those conclusions."

Why do they hate us?. Well, you can imagine what the foreign press has been writing, now that the closing of Gitmo has been endorsed by a UN team - actually, you don't have to imagine. It is pretty well covered here at Watching America .

Back to the NY Post - the UN report goes further, and -

demands an end to any and all interrogation techniques being used at Gitmo and accuses the U.S. of, among other things, violating prisoners' freedom of religion.

Hmm..does this prisoner look like he is having his human rights violated-

-Or packing for a vacation? Such is the tortured life at Gitmo...

And thus, my fascism charge. The UN puts out reports based on half-truth and full lies, while ignoring evidence to the contrary, in an intentional attempt to inflame the world against America. It supports the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel by actively promoting vile lies and myths (almost Goebbels-like) in Palestinian society. The UN turns a blind eye to its own financial and moral corruption, and like any government built on fear and hate, finds scapegoats to vent their anger on.

The UN must be eliminated, for the sake of world peace.

Photo above courtesy of TheReligionof Peace, here: ; the New York Post editorial is here:

Bill Clinton: Jail Cartoon Publishers!

What is it with members of the former Clinton administration? Why do they feel the need to go to Islamist countries, prostrate themselves before their people, apologize for all of America's percieved "sins", and then take the side of the Jihadis? Al Gore's recent denounciations of the country that made him Vice-President twice was bad enough, but now Bill Clinton, in Pakistan, is calling for limits on freedom of the press. Via Gatewaty Pundit, The Pakistani Daily Times reports the following:

Former US president Bill Clinton on Friday condemned the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures by European newspapers and urged countries concerned to convict the publishers. Talking to reporters after meeting Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in Islamabad, Clinton said he disagreed with the caricatures and that the publication was against religious and ethical norms....

He said the people’s religious convictions should be respected at all costs and the media should be disallowed to play with the religious sentiments of other faiths. He said the media could criticise any issue including governments and people, but nobody had the right to play with the sentiments of other faiths

So here's an ex-President, overseas in the country that is probably harboring Osama bin-Ladin himself, and urging official government censorship of free speech in the United States. Did he have the courage to ask Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf about the hunt for Osama, a hunt that would be unnecessary had Clinton taken his responsibility to protect the American people seriously? I am sure he didn't; in character as the appeaser and coward he always was, he dared not say anything that may provoke Islamist ire upon him. No, he'd rather direct that hate and irrationality upon the American people and their freedoms..

Note to the former appeaser in chief: Free Speech is an absolute, and as a war is being waged against the West in the name of the Prophet, WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF ISLAM AND THE WEST, AND IF THAT MEANS DARING TO DRAW PICTURES OF MUHAMMED, THEN THAT IS PART OF OUR RIGHT TOO. Bill Clinton doesn't realize that free speech, once it is curtailed it in the name of hurt feelings,will disappear in short order. There is a whole industry consisting of "offended" groups, and their feelings will have to be honored too. But Clinton is willing to give up our most cherished freedom, to speak without fear of reprisial, in order to buy five minutes of peace. Until the next Islamist riots, and the new demands are issued...

Should a Clintonista Democrat reach high office in '08, these insanities will become law. Where is the media now, as their free speech is being threatened by Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and the Muslims?

As the MSM froths over Dick Cheney, their very right to exist freely is being debated. Another story they're gonna miss, at the cost of their whole profession, and possibly their lives...

Gateway Pundit here:

Friday, February 17, 2006

Media Funhouse !

The MSM is having a major meltdown over the last few days, and it has been the type of tragic-comedy one would expect from these self-rightous clowns. First David Gregory from NBC, addressing White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan :

'I'll calm down when I feel like calming down,' Gregory said. 'You answer the question.'

Asking about the Iraq War? The Sudan Genocide? The Muhammed cartoon controversy? No, he's worked into a hissy fit because he, Dick Gregory, wants to know why he, Dick Gregory, was not told sooner about Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Nice professional demeanor for a White House correspondent, no?

Over at It Comes in Pints?, they're thinking that the press is frantically working on a coverup of their own...after all, one would think the story below is pretty big, since we all know Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism:

ABC News has obtained 12 hours of tape recordings of Saddam Hussein meeting with top aides during the 1990s...
One of the most dramatic moments in the 12 hours of recordings comes when Saddam predicts — during a meeting in the mid-1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop....

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.
"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
Shortly after this meeting, in August 1995, Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan, and Iraq was forced to admit that it had concealed its biological weapons program. (Kamel returned to Iraq in February 1996 and was killed in a firefight with Iraqi security forces.)

If the media made a big deal over this, they would have to admit years of snide liberal op-ed columns were, well, bullspit. The above is proof positive that Iraq had WMDs, lied about them, and planned to use them. Democrats believe, of course, that we must suffer an attack, then beg for forgiveness, before we even think of defending ourselves. Me, I prefer the George Bush method...

So the media needs to bury this story, and fast. So they bust out that old chestnut, Abu Ghraib!
"New" pictures of allegedly abused terrorists abound, about those cartoons of Muhammed? How come we can't see them? Could it be that the media likes to outrage and provoke our enemies when it can safely direct the anger to President Bush and the American people, but are willing to forgo their own freedom of speech in order to protect themselves from the Islamo-fascists? Via LGF, Salon’s Walter Shapiro is at his most craven:

Abu Ghraib cannot be allowed to fade away like some half-forgotten domestic political controversy { like they way you self-censored 9/11 pictures as "too disturbing", thus allowing it to fade away like some half-forgotten domestic political controversy? - ed.}...
That is why Salon is willing to publish these troubling photographs, even as we are ashamed to live in a country that somehow came to accept that torture and prisoner abuse were simply business as usual...

Don't use the royal "we", buddy, 'cause you do not speak for me. And tell me again, why are you against publishing those "troubling" cartoons?
And if it OK to show pictures of alleged torture by US servicemen, how about actual videotaped torture done by Saddam Hussein's cronies? If you have a strong stomach, Saddam's torture tapes can be found here:

The media has allied themselves with the Islamists, fascists, and terrorists worldwide, and are willing to stifle themselves and cover up the vile deeds of our enemies, by trying to swing America's focus to a shooting mishap by the Vice President.

We have met the enemy, and it is the Mainstream Media, forcing enemy propoganda down our throats while frantically distracting us with circus sideshows.
Based on the impotent rage of David Gregory, I have the feeling it isn't working. It therefore becomes incumbant upon the blogging community to point out the half-truths, double-standards, and coverups being perpertrated by the MSM, and make sure the untold stories, of our enemy's evil deeds and the bravery of our soldiers, are getting out.
For some reason, I still don't think the media has truly come to reckoning with the fact that their monoply on information is kaput. Yet annother story that they won't report on, I suppose...

LGF here:
David Gregory via MediaBistro:
It Comes in Pints? here:
And a random story, just a little thing, like how we are slowly but surely winning the war in Iraq, right here:

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Europe: On Their Own?

Lots 'o blogs linking to Victor Davis Hanson's latest,What Will Europe Really Do?; an essay about Europe's realization of, and response to, the Islamist threat. If you please, my choice excerpt is below: letting the Europeans take the lead with the Iranian negotiations, and keeping nearly silent about the cartoon hysteria, the United States essentially has told the Europeans, “Here is the sort of restrained sober and judicious global diplomacy that you so welcome.”

Because of slated troop withdrawals from European bases, and a new American weariness with the old anti-Americanism, some Europeans are beginning to recoil at the idea that they might well be on their own—and in a war against fanatical enemies that they have appeased and without rational friends that they have estranged.


Welcome to the real world, EU member states...not so easy to be quasi-philosphical poseur pacisifists when your burly protector has left your side, tired of barbs about his brains and his brawn. I can almost hear the cold wind whistling by as Europe stands dumbly alone, wondering how they got here...

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Hamas Gears up For War

From Debka, two stories of note:

Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar declares Palestinian war on Israel will go on...

Spelling out the incoming Palestinian government’s agenda, a-Zahar said: We will not recognize Israel; our armed struggle will go on until all of Palestine is “liberated;” we will abrogate the Oslo accords and all the agreements the PLO and the Palestinian Authority signed; all negotiations with Israel must go through a third party; we don’t need money from Israel or “the Satan;” Arab nations will give us money; we have long-range missiles.

Great! Let's hope the EU keeps those loans and grants coming, as to finish the job they failed at in WWII: The extermination of the Jews! Hey, why not help Iran build a reactor to make those nukes it can't wait to use on Israel? Oh, wait, Russia is already on it....
And Fatah, not to be outdone, wants to show that even out of power, by golly, they can still kill Jews too:

DEBKAfile’s military sources: Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah terrorist arm, al Aqsa Brigades has got hold of new 207mm Katyusha rocket....The menacing Russian-made rocket, which the Palestinian terrorists have dubbed Aqsa 2 or Aqsa 207, arrived in the Gaza Strip last week through northern Sinai. It extends the range of Palestinian rocket fire from the Gaza Strip to a maximum of 16-18 kilometers. Well within this range are Ashkelon and its port, power and oil pipeline installations, as well as the southern Israeli towns of Ofakim and Netivot.

Maybe this is how they will decide the next election, by Israeli civilian body counts.... not quite ready for civilization, these Palestinians...


Tuesday, February 14, 2006

"Religion of Peace" Torments American Icon !

Cartoonishly violent rioters, enraged at cartoons portraying them as violent, dragged this poor American hero through the streets of Pakistan today; a man whom has made us laugh, cry, and who has fed billions upon billions:

After this act of cruelty was finished, well, they burnt the whole town down:

Sorry, this may be my fault - I need to spend more time "listening" to the Muslims, and limiting my freedom to speak my mind, and feeling pain for their victimhood. If only I had done all of that, maybe they would have spared poor Ronald.

First, they came for the time, will they come for us?