Sunday, December 31, 2006

A Nightmare, Ended?

From Gates of Vienna, life under the late Saddam Hussein (you know, the guy whom many Democrats and UN bureaucrats said Iraq was better off with): every household that someone had already lost his or her mind; in other societies such a person would be in a mental hospital. I also realized that there wasn’t a household that did not mourn at least one family member who had become a victim of this police state.

I wept with relatives whose son just screamed all day long. I cried with a relative who had lost his wife. Yet another left home every day for a “job” where he had nothing to do. Still another had lost a son to war and a husband to alcoholism.

As I observed the slow death of a people without hope, Saddam Hussein seemed omnipresent...

Of course, some can only consider the "crime" of Hussein's execution; since a quarter-million deaths at an Arab hand
pales before the execution of one tyrant by a Western hand:

Generally, said the columnist Tim Hames in The Times of London, the response to the execution would be different in Britain and Continental Europe from the reaction in the United States. “Even those of us who supported the invasion in 2003, and continue to do so today,” he wrote, “will harbor within their ranks, like me, those who find the notion of this crime offensive.”

Mainstream middle-class sentiment in Europe now regards the death penalty as being as ethically tainted as the crimes that produced the sentence,” he added.

You are incorrect; and hopelessly out of touch, you pathetic liberal elitist. Take a look at Der Speigel's survey of
European attitudes towards "swinging Saddam" before you speak for them, jackass.

But for how long will Saddam's evil resonate after his death? The gleeful slaughter that takes place in Baghdad on a daily basis seems to be orchestrated by a generation poisoned by Hussein's hateful and bloody rule. Can Iraq ever fully wake up from this nightmare, or will the killing go on until the last infected man falls, full of shrapnel and bullet holes? Or can the goodness that resides in all men rise up within the hearts of those whom have lived under the shadow of evil for so long? Can the Iraqis say "enough!", and finally, truly, put an end to Saddam's reign of terror?

Or will they share Saddam's fate, and consign themselves to a living grave? The aftermath of Hussein's rule only goes to demonstrate the pure horror of his regime - what a shame it is that he could only be killed once; while his nation dies a thousand deaths....

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Saddam Swings, Media Spins....

The AP joins the fray, negative-spinning the execution of Saddam Hussien, because:

Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's death by hanging has fueled opponents of the death penalty in the United States, which is at odds with many of its closest allies who view the practice as barbaric.

Too bad that lead statement is, well, a lie...
David Medienkritik sets them straight:

The recent results of a poll conducted by Novatris/Harris for the French daily Le Monde on the death penalty shocked the editors and writers at
Germany's left-leaning SPIEGEL ONLINE. W hen asked whether they favored the death penalty for Saddam Hussein, a majority of respondents in Germany, France and Spain responded in the affirmative. Here the results by country:

Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:
USA: 82%
Great Britain: 69%
France: 58%
Germany: 53%
Spain: 51%
Italy: 46%

"At odds"? No, actually, a better headline would have stated "World Shows Support for Saddam's Execution". But that might have been perceived as possibly endorsing an American-approved outcome, and 'tis better to lie, in the media's eye, that show the US as anything except go-it-alone unilateralists.

The American Thinker shows us the type of justice most genocidal meglomaniancs have recieved in the last century, and points out how Saddam's end was different:

Most of the great butchers of the 20th century died of old age, in their own beds, some ofthem honored by millions. Not a single one met justice in the sense accepted in free states across the world. The handful who died otherwise are aberrations, victims of strange events that act as models for nothing.

There is one single exception - the hanging of Saddam Hussein on December 30, 2006 after a careful, lengthy trial carried out under extremely difficult circumstances according tointernationally recognized judicial norms. The state of Iraq has succeeded where the rest of the civilized world has failed. It is a singular achievement, and it will stand.

It should stands as an example of what American force, and even the bare bones of a democratic government where one had never before existed, can accomplish.

Now let's finish the job in Iraq...

Friday, December 29, 2006

A Well-Deserved End (and watch for the whitewash!)

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S.-backed Iraqi television station Al Hurra said Saddam Hussein had been executed by hanging shortly before 6 a.m. (0300 GMT) on Saturday.

Arabic satellite channel Arabiya also reported the execution had taken place.

Reuters now shills for the insurgents:

But the hanging could complicate efforts by Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to heal Iraq's sectarian divisions with violence spiralling out of control and threatening to pitch the country into full-scale civil war ...

What did they want, to have him released to appease the Sunnis? Or for him to stay "imprisoned for life", yet always at the ready to be called upon to lead a new Sunni revolution in Iraq?

More anger from Reuters:

During his three decades in power, Saddam was accused of widespread oppression of political opponents and genocide against Kurds in northern Iraq. His execution means he will never face justice on those charges ...

Er...I believe his swaying at the end of a rope is likely more justice than the Kurds ever hoped of before the Americans came along. Any more reasons why the execution of a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, supported terrorists worldwide and started two bloody wars should have been spared?

Well, I am sure Reuters will find a few.

The AP actually gives us some facts which Reuters could not bring itself to mention:

The execution came 56 days after a court convicted Saddam and sentenced him to death for his role in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from a town where assassins tried to kill the dictator in 1982.

At his death, he was in the midst of a second trial, charged with genocide and other crimes for a 1987-88 military crackdown that killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Experts said the trial of his co-defendants was likely to continue despite his execution.

Many people in Iraq's Shiite majority were eager to see the execution of a man whose Sunni Arab-dominated regime oppressed them and Kurds.
Before the hanging, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Friday called Saddam's execution "God's gift to Iraqis."

"Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves. Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam," said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Funny how Reuters could not come up with one anti-Saddam quote or statistic. Too busy filming insurgent attacks on American forces, I'd reckon....

Even the Washington Post can do better:

By the end of his rule, human rights groups estimated, he had presided over the killing of at least 300,000 Iraqis and the torture and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.

Someone want to call Reuters and tell them that just being anti-American does not automatically make you a good guy?

'Bye, Saddam. You'll be missed - by terrorists worldwide, members of the Democratic party whom thought Iraq was better off under your heel, and by the European intelligentsia. Oh, and Hans Blix and his UN cronies, of course.
May you rot in hell 'till the end of time....

Click here for video, links and updates from Gateway Pundit...

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Waging War: Those Who Get It

Ralph Peters understands why things are going awry in Iraq, and what need to be done to correct it. To paraphrase myself, if you are going to wage war, then wage war:

One thing's clear: If we can't enforce security, nothing else matters. So the wisest course of action seems obvious - except to the Washington establishment: Return to a wartime footing.
Focus exclusively on security. Concentrate on doing one thing well. Freeze all reconstruction and aid projects. Halt every program and close every office that doesn't contribute directly to pacifying Iraq.

Someone please call Nancy Pelosi - opening up new day care centers will not pacify Iraq; only killing the killers will . It's called war. If you can't stomach it, then don't wage it. Simple enough? Peters

We need an exclusive focus on the defeat of the foreign terrorists, uncooperative Sunni Arabs and Muqtada al-Sadr's Shia thugs. Our enemies control Iraq with fear. We need to make them fear us more than the population fears them.

And that means no negotiations until we have them by the throat - our State Department has been virtually a Fifth Column working against our military with its bumbling givebacks and appearances of weakness:

The worst failure has been that of the State Department. State couldn't get enough volunteers even for its 90-day stints in Iraq - every major program that it insisted on running failed.
Worse, military officers complain that our diplomats in Baghdad undercut their efforts. Even if State were competent, you can't have parallel chains of command in wartime. Our blundering diplos only fall prey to sharper-minded Iraqis.

As for negotiations offering the only way forward, where in the Middle East have negotiations ever produced enduring peace?

Shifting to the Somalian front, diplomats there are trying to snatch victory away from the Ethiopians and hand it back to the Islamists:

...predictably, the U.N. is calling for a ceasefire and negotiations "without preconditions." This could only benefit the Islamic Courts militia, since they are being decisively defeated. Ethiopia is in it to win, nice to see a country in the developing world (or anywhere for that matter) that can take care of business.

The UN will be the death of us all - can we disband them now, or do we have to wait until the Secretary-General dons a headress and a beard?

Finally, on the Iranian front - the UN snactions placed against Iran are so laughably weak that it most likely encouraged the Islamist government to move forward with their nuclear plans; however, the Great Satan stands in their way even now; and they know a real foe when they see one - via
Captain's Quarters:

Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh has lamented that the development of Iran's oil industry was suffering from US pressure.
"Iran has been under different sanctions for years and many companies have not been able to cooperate with our country for fear of US pressures," Vaziri Hamaneh said, according to the semi-official news agency Fars on Tuesday.
"They even do not easily deliver some dual-purpose equipment that we had previously bought. They cause trouble for us under different pretexts," he said.

Mr. Vaziri seems to think his sworn enemies should help him aquire the tools needed to help generate additional funds to be used to build weapons for future attacks against said enemy! Well, Vaziri, don't lose all hope - the Democrats will be sworn into office in just a few weeks....

But imagine what we could do if we really brought pressure to bear on Iran - this regime is unloved save for a hardline of no more than 10% of its population; a rapid economic disintergration (blockades, anyone? Hello?) could turn this country topsy-turvey and into the hands of the young (median age:
25!), democracy-minded Persian secularists. Ironically, most of Iran's peoples are fond of America, have little ill will towards Israel, and favor a more modern brand of Islam. But under the boot of the insane Islamist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad , this nation is careening headfirst into war, and threatening to drag the whole of the Middle East into Hades with them.

Someone tell Washington that if we want to win this war, Iran must be confronted, not with a carrot, but with a myriad of sticks. And the sooner it is done, the more lives will be saved. Negotiating now, from a position of near-weakness, would be a disaster.

Wage war to win, folks, or get out of the game and start working on our retreat...oops, sorry, isn't that what the Democrats and the mainstream media are already doing?

When you Wage War, You Must Wage War

Two examples of nations at war - first, the American way, as shown to us by Mr. Ledeen:

We have arrested some Iranians in Iraq, including “senior military officials.” If you want to understand the failure of the Bush Administration to understand the real war, a couple of quotations tell you everything you need to know.

The United States is now holding, apparently for the first time, Iranians who it suspects of planning attacks. One senior administration official said, “This is going to be a tense but clarifying moment.”

...the heart sinks, as the senior official explains: it’s not about us at all. It’s all about the Iraqis.:

“It’s our position that the Iraqis have to seize this opportunity to sort out with the Iranians just what kind of behavior they are going to tolerate,” the official said…“They are going to have to confront the evidence that the Iranians are deeply involved in some of the acts of violence.”

I imagine a parent of an American soldier in Iraq shrieking at Rice and Hadley “what do you mean, they? The Iranians are killing our kids, how dare you run away from this?”

Those killer quotes from the Times show once again the failure of strategic vision that has plagued us from the beginning of the war. We can only win the war—the real war, the regional-or-maybe-even-global war—if we stop playing defense in Iraq and go after regime change in Damascus and Tehran....

Never going to happen; what would the Washington Post and the New York Times editorial pages say? Not to mention Christopher Dodd, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi...perish the thought! We might squander goodwill !

Now, let's turn to that
military powerhouse Ethiopia, and check in on how they are doing against an al-Qaeda armed and financed militia in Somalia:

It does indeed appear that the Ethiopians are defeating Islamist forces there. Why are they achieving what American forces in Somalia in1993 did not and what American forces in Iraq today apparently are not?

More “boots on the ground” may be part of the explanation.
The Ethiopians are not attempting to have a “light footprint.” They are not worried about whether they will be seen as “occupiers” or whether their “occupation” will be viewed as benevolent. Secondly, the Ethiopians are not overly concerned about whether their tactics will win approval from the proverbial Arab Street – or the European Street or Turtle Bay.

They are fighting a war; their intention is to defeat their enemies; everything else is secondary or tertiary...

What do you mean - the Ethiopians are not building schools, handing out food, or observing the customs of the locals? How can you fight a war this way? Where is the begging for forgiveness every time they scowl at a civilian? And where is the UN Mandate for their mission anyway?

Well, geez, I dunno...I guess they just want to win. Less casualties in the long (and short) run that way. Maybe someone ought to send a memo to W.....

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Iran breaks their "silence"...

...and we can note with no surprise that they have decided to take on the role of the victim:

Iran Monday held occupiers of Iraq responsible for the arrest of its diplomats by the US military troops, stressing that Washington should account for the illegal acts of its forces.

After US military troops arrested some Iranian diplomats who were visiting Iraq at the invitation of that country's government, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini described the measure as a blatant violation of the international rules and norms and warned that it will result in undesirable consequences and aftermaths.

Well, they should know something about "violations of international rules and norms" (not to mention seizing diplomats)....but let us please take seriously their threat of "undesirable consequences". Remembering how the referral of Iran to the UN Security Council was followed within days by the outbreak of this summer's Hezbollah-Israel war, one would not be surprised to see an uptick in insurgent attacks in Iraq or a spate of missiles out of Lebenon/Gaza.

Interesting that when Iran cannot directly get its hands around an American throat, they will gladly slaughter Iraqi or Jewish civilians in order to further their own agenda.

And expect George Bush to say nothing either way, of course...

Monday, December 25, 2006

Iran's War against America

When does a smoking gun become a bullet in the head? For many American soldiers, unfortunately, that time has already come. Iran is in Iraq, fighting with the "insurgents" to kill American servicepeople:

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in
Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

Used to be that this kind of action was as much of a declaration of war as bombing a flag ship (but I guess Bill Clinton's non-response to that provocation put paid to that 'ol saw, right? And how much did his fearful inaction contribute to the boldness of the 9/11 plot? Plenty, sez me), so what has President Bush had to say? Well...nothing, again:

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Maybe those recently UN-approved sanctions that even the NY Times describes as "mild" will learn them their lesson! Yeah, right - instead, our ridiculous policy is catapualting us towards another 9/11 disister.
Andrew McCarthy in the National Review:

But as for Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, the approach has been strictly old school — as in, recklessly passive. That is a growing catastrophe. In their relentless anti-American jihad, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and al Qaeda are one.
Still, negotiating, appeasing, and looking the other way is exactly what we have been doing.

But really, why should Iran stop waging its 27 year old war against the US and the West? Look at just a brief roundup of their successes:

-American Embassy takeover in 1979; forcing Jimmy Carter from office (not a bad thing, but still...)
-Creation of Hezbollah - let's see, what anti-Americanism have they been up to? Well, they bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut back in '83, killing over 60. Of course, the organization six months later truck-bombed a military barracks in Beirut, murdering 241 United States Marines. Even tough-guy Ronald Reagan bugged out after that ordeal. Not to mention, of course, the quarter-century war that Hezbollah has been waging against Israel, including this summer's attack that wound up backfiring a bit (although it gave Iran good battle knowledge regarding a future war against Israel; not unlike the Nazi's involvement in the Spanish Civil War - remember Guernica?)
-nukes! nukes! nukes! Why bow to the West when you can snub them, and still get away with building weapons of the apocalypse while threatening your neighbors with mass destruction? With barely a slap on the wrist from the entire international community, to boot!

And they are still planning ahead - more, from
McCarthy (who has a great roundup on all the evil that Iran has done):

recorded Yahya Safavi, a commander of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, repeatedly referring to the United States as “the enemy” in an interview on Iranian television. “The Americans,” Safavi brayed, “have many weaknesses. In fact, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they clearly displayed their strengths and weaknesses. We have planned our strategy precisely on the basis of their strengths and weaknesses.”

They are planning for war, and our commander-in-chief just sweeps their daily provocations under the rug. I wrote yesterday that Tony Blair is finally starting to get on board; when will George Bush even admit the threat exists? Bill Clinton followed an identical course with al-Qaeda, and the end result was the worst attack on American soil in our history. Bush has done well so far to keep the mainland safe since 9/11; but a static strategy against an opponent that continues to evolve is doomed to failure. How many servicepeople in Iraq, and how many citizens of the United States, will pay for this strategic blindness?

Andrew McCarthy says that as far as Iran and the American perspective goes, it is September 10th all over again. Are our intelligence divisions that incompetent? Or have diplomatic considerations overwhelmed military necessities, and thus demand that we offer up another 3,000 American lives rather than face off premptively against our enemies? If this is so, can it be fixed? Or has the poison of political correctness and dictator-love become so ingrained in the State Department and Intelligence (and the media, of course) that even another 9/11 will only bring about the most minute of policy changes?

Where is our Winston Churchill; where is our Franklin D. Roosevelt? We seem to be surrounded by nothing but Chamberlains, and Quislings...

UPDATE: On the same subject at Gates of Vienna, Dymphna comments:

With the arrest of people it suspects of targeting Americans, the military has thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s see if anyone picks it up. So far, Iran is uncharacteristically mum - considering these events started on Thursday, that silence in itself is interesting.

If Imay beg to differ - the silence is characteristic; Iran is watching, judging, gaming the response America might make. As Commander Yahya Safavi noted above; they are carefully observing so that they know how to strategically alter their methods in the future (if it is actually necessary at all). And is there even a gauntlet thrown down? In this summer's Hezbollah-Israel war, captured Iranian soldiers were paraded out by Israel whom admitted they were fighting with, and arming, terrorists in Lebanon as per Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's orders. The world's response? A collective yawn. Expect very little different from W. and US policymakers, as they mimick the "See no/hear no/speak no evil" monkees.

And trust me, Iran will learn much from this skirmish as well....

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Tony Blair - Tougher than Bush !

Well, if the free world is going to be saved from fascist extremism in the 21st century, perhaps it will once again take a British leader to do it, since my man W. sure isn't going to be the one to get the job done. Blair speaks the plain truth about Iran:

In an address to business leaders and journalists in Dubai, Blair said combating extremism and the violence it foments was the greatest challenge of the 21st century. He said the lesson he had drawn from his five-day Mideast trip was "startlingly real, clear and menacing."

"We have to wake up. These forces of extremism - based on a warped and wrongheaded misinterpretation of Islam - aren't fighting a conventional war. But they are fighting one, against us - and us is not just the West, still less simply America and its allies," Blair said

Blair said there were "elements of the government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon; flaunting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine - at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability; and yet a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious.

"We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses," Blair added. "Not its people, possibly not all its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy."

Thank you Tony! The active support of the Iraqi insurgents by the Iranian government is the primary reason it still even exists at all. It has been
well-known for some time that over the past year most American and British causalties in Iraq were caused by IED's built in Iran. In any other war, this would be cause for cross-border expeditions and strategic bombings in order to halt the flow of cross-border weaponry. But for some reason, Bush prevaricates on Iran, and Coalition forces take unnecessary deaths. Imagine if we had taken early but decisive military action againt both Iranian arms smuggling and Syria's blind eye towards terrorist movement across its borders....yet instead, we beg Assad for talks (and apparently, he is setting the terms)while Iran builds nukes. Any wonder why a Western victory in Iraq is uncertain? When you fight a war, fight it, and don't fret about the whiny editorial pages in the national newspapers. Seems as if Blair has come to that understanding, if not Bush...but is it already too late?

Michale Ledeen spreads the blame around for our current predicament:

I think the self-blinding of the West took place at a higher, and more political, level. I blame the intelligence community and the diplomats. They were the ones who refused to accept information from proven sources, because that information was in total conflict with the alternate version of reality they sold to the president: that Iran had been helpful to us in Afghanistan, that there were “moderates” in Tehran with whom we could work, and that a “grand bargain” could be struck, if only we made nice to the mullahs.

And of course I blame the president and his people–from his personal staff to the National Security Council people in charge of the region and the war—who bought the alternate reality. They had numerous opportunities to listen to the truth, and invariably declined.

With the right amount of bravery and intestinal fortitude, we can certainly achieve victory in the current Iraq/Iran war. We must fight a few battles simultaneously:

-first, can we please fight to win in Iraq? Let's boost up the troop levels, and engage in town to town, hand to hand combat with the Iraqi insurgancy, including the Sadr army. Once a town is cleared and secured, let's hand it over to the Iraqi forces. They must be able, six weeks from now, to at least have the operational ability to "hold" a sector. Will there be American and civilian deaths? Absolutely. But of course, had we adopted this policy two years ago, we would never had reached the friendly/military casualty levels we see today.

-Iran must be squeezed hard. Sanctions must be strictly enforced; by air and sea if necessary. Russsia and China may be miffed, but they won't be sending forces over to Persia to defend the mullahs, either. We already have them surrounded on two sides; let's move our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Iranian border and make our presence known. All it will take will be a handful of seizures of IED's and other Iraqi support material to allow coalition forces to justify deeper raids. And with France now leaving Afghanistan (likely moving troops to the Lebanese border to engage in some good old fashioned Jew-killin'), that's one less enemy we need to concern ourselves with. But let it be said that if our forces are unable operationally to spread themselves out along this front, than we really need to rethink the compostion and makeup of the American military.

-a firm hand with terrorist "governments", please. No quarter for Hezbollah; they started the summer war with Israel and hid behind civilians for cover (which Kofi Annan and his UN cronies were more than happy to give them). Nor Hamas, who despite having been handed over the whole of Gaza, comes up with a new excuse every day to launch rockets at civilian targets inside of Israel's 1948 borders! Groups like these must be held to the same standards of human decency and behavior as all other national leadership groups; applying a double standard to these hate groups only allows new ones to spring up and demand the same considerations. Govern responsibly, control your borders, or be held responsible.

That's it. Three simple steps that can win the Middle East in less than eighteen months; both Blair and Bush can step down as warrior-heroes, and the world may be bought a greater period of peace than can be purchased by appeasment with the likes of Hezbollah's butcher Imad Mughniyah, Iraq's menacing al-Sadr, Syria's bumbling Assad, and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Seems like Tony Blair finally gets it, and is on the right track. Will it trickle down to Bush, and can these two weakened leaders front a strong military strategy of this type?

The fate of the future may lay in the balance....

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Jimmy Carter - A Eulogy for his Sanity?

From an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Melvin Konner, a professor of anthropology at Carter's beloved Emory University, wonders what went screwy with his favorite ex-president:

A former president whose legacy has rested on bringing about peace between Arabs and Jews has turned his back on that to become a partisan. A man whose Christian values made him see both sides in a tragic conflict has become blind to one side's suffering. A man who walked in paths of peace has now become an obstacle to peace.

For me, it means the loss of one of my greatest heroes. I have never allowed a snide remark about Jimmy Carter's "failed" presidency to pass without contradicting it. I have said countless times that he is the greatest former president...

I don't recognize Carter any more. I am afraid of him now, for myself and for my children. He has not just turned his back on the balance and fairness that all peacemaking depends on. He has become a spokesman for the enemies of my people. He has become an apologist for terrorists.

He has said or hinted repeatedly that Jews control the Congress and the media, a classic anti-Semitic slur. It seems that Cuban-Americans can speak up on Cuba, Irish-Americans can support the IRA, Mexican-Americans can lobby on immigration law, but when Jewish-Americans speak our minds about Israel, we don't deserve the same constitutional protections and a former president can try to silence us.

Carter has changed. Something has happened to his judgment. I don't understand what it is, but I know it is very dangerous. At a minimum, his legacy is irrevocably tarnished, and he will never again be a factor in the quest for Middle East peace. At worst, he is emboldening terrorists and their apologists in the Arab world, encouraging them to go on with their terror campaign and refuse even to recognize Israel's right to just exist.
We know what happens when the right of Jews to exist is denied, but Carter has forgotten. The "Historical Chronology" at the beginning of his book starts with Abraham and grows more detailed in modern times. But between 1939 and 1947 there is . . . nothing!
In the text, the history of Jewish suffering is accorded five lines, and the Holocaust is barely mentioned in passing.

Carter's bizarre book is a poisoned holiday gift for Jews and Christians, and a danger to Jews throughout the world.

More from
Glenn Renyolds:

I think Carter hoped that this book would cement his reputation for history. And I think it has.

I am curious to see which way media coverage of Carter begins to tilt. More coverage suggests an endorsement of his ideas (see Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha); less implies that even the MSM believes there may be a peanut loose in Jimmah's brain. What does trouble me is the seat of power Carter held at the 2004 Democratic Convention. How much sway does this doddering racist hold over the rest of his party? Not that there is any lack of willing ears for his rants - see James Moran,
Earnest Hollings, Richard Durbin - for openers...

The great philosopher Homer J. Simpson had it right when he
said, after quaffing a can of Billy Beer:

Mmmm...we elected the wrong Carter.


America Loses, the World Wins?

This is the mantra of left wingers the world over (hence their open cheerleading for al-Qaeda, the Iraqi insurgents, et al), but I was surprised to see Charles Krauthammer fall for it, even if he was applying it in a slightly different context. I am going to take 'ol Charles apart here, although it may be hearsay in some right-wing circles:

Americans abroad have long been accused of such blinging arrogance and display. I find the charge generally unfair. Arrogance is incorrectly ascribed to what is really the cultural clumsiness of an insular people less exposed to foreign ways and languages than most other people on Earth.

You mean, like the way Muslims deeply understand and appreciate the cultural norms of the West? No, Charles seems to be referring to Europe here, where the Contintent (which includes Western and Eastern Europe as well as parts of Southeast Asia), at a relatively small 10,430,000 square kilometres has dozens of countries/languages/cultures; usually at war with one another. The United States, merely one country, has a total area of 9,631,420 square kilometres - and although you will certainly find a different culture in Venice Beach than you will on Madison Avenue, we are generally one and the same people, with common threads of moralities that hold us together. If we were at each other's throats, killing each other for control of Missouri River rights, would we be 'less insular" than the Europeans?

Americans abroad have long been accused of such blinging arrogance and display.

Maybe it is not arrogance, but the joyful exuberance of living in a free nation where anything is possible, where a man/women can cut their own way based on their ability and desire to succeed, and where we take care of ourselves so that a meddling European-style nanny-state doesn't have to do it for us. I'll remember to act more depressed the next time I'm abroad; maybe then I'll fit in with the withering European citizenry....

But here is where Krauthammer really ticks me off a bit:

My beef with American arrogance is not that we act like a traditional great power, occasionally knocking off foreign bad guys who richly deserve it. My problem is that we don't know where to stop -- the trivial victories we insist on having in arenas that are quite superfluous. Like that women's hockey game in the 2002 Winter Olympics. Did the U.S. team really have to beat China 12-1? Can't we get the coaches -- there's gotta be some provision in the Patriot Act authorizing the CIA to engineer this -- to throw a game or two, or at least make it close? We're trying to contain China. Why, then, gratuitously crush them in something Americans don't even care about? Why not throw them a bone?

Well, Charles, you know what - the women on the American Ice Hockey team trained for years to play in the Olympics and were trained to play their best; and if China was able to beat us 12-1, they certainly would do it without hesitation.

Now, I notice you do not ask that we fix to lose men's basketball and baseball events, only sports you deem less important. Well - what about soccer? Certainly less important to America than the rest of the world, where it borders on religion - should we throw the World Cup? What do we tell the hundreds of thousands of youths playing soccer all over America today - play your hardest, strive to win, but if you finally get to a world championship match, you'd better throw it so we do not hurt the feelings of the French?

Part of the reason so many people admire (and, admittedly, occasionally resent) America is because we are winners. We do not struggle under a class based system where only certain elites get to participate, we do not suffer under a dictatorship where friends get coaching jobs and starting roles, but we work under a talent and abiltity based system in everything we do - from business to sports to military promotions (no President has ever had his brother on the Chiefs of Staff). And when something doesn't work, we take it apart and fix it, as opposed to blaming others for our failures and putting out the same weak product(team), expecting to win the next time because it is due to us.

I will not throw a hockey game, or any other sporting event, to appease the leaders of communist China. Sorry, Charlie - if they are so much better than us, why can't their women beat ours in ice hockey? Why should American women (or, say, male soccer/baseball/basketball players) who train their whole lives for an event throw a game to salve the feelings of those who are simply not as well-prepared or well-trained?

Perhaps, Charles, we should throw a war or two instead - you know, just to give the Arabs their dignity! Perhaps a failed invasion of Syria would be up your ally?

Don't like it? Then lay off the United States women's hockey team!

Friday, December 22, 2006

Again, please forgive the brief and intermittent posting - it's the whole work/holiday thing raising its head again; should be back consistantly by the weekend, latest...

And fear not! The outrage has diminished not a whit....

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Why we SHOULD NOT talk to Iran

Let the people speak instead:

Final results in the election race for Tehran City Council on Thursday showed allies of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had gained the fewest seats among the main political groups.

Analysts see the results, which confirm preliminary counts, as a political setback for the anti-Western president and a possible sign of public frustration with Iran's increasing diplomatic isolation and economic woes.

Why legitimize a theocratic terrorist when his very own people are using what few tools they have to de-legitimize him? I mean, sure, Jimmy Carter could give us some reasons why we should ignore the Iranian people and deal directly with Ahmadinejad (and perhaps even help him with his final solution to the Israeli problem), but at this point, is that the direction we should be heading?

Right now, ratcheting up the pressure seems to be having an effect; let's continue forward and give no quarter to the Iranian madman - for that would be defying the will of the Iranian people...

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Recording Industry Hits Rock Bottom!

Well, this was a 6AM jaw-dropper:

Piracy suit being dropped against NY mom

The recording industry is giving up its lawsuit against Patti Santangelo, a mother of five who became the best-known defendant in the industry's battle against music piracy.

However, two of her children are still being sued.

The five companies suing Santangelo, of Wappingers Falls, filed a motion Tuesday in federal court in White Plains asking Judge Colleen McMahon to dismiss the case. Their lead counsel, Richard Gabriel, wrote in court papers that the record companies still believe they could win damages against Santangelo but their preference was to "pursue defendant's children."

Can't beat up the grownups, so let's gang up on little kids! Isn't that the same mentality that drives child molesters?

Maybe if the music industry would actually try to develop new artists, instead of constantly churning out one-hit imitations of last week flavor (then dropping them when they fail to sell a million units), they might actually have, you know, a more successful business model? So that you don't constantly have to stalk the nation's children in order to serve legal papers to ten year old file swappers?

As a music lover, it pains me to say this, but I have never seen an industry so worthy of its own demise...

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Fascist Fantasies of Colbert King

Well, if you don't live in a jack-booted theocracy, you can always create one in your imagination, right? That's what Colbert King does in today's Washington Post; and it's a pretty roundabout way to go in order to for him to expose his economic ignorance, but I guess he has to use at least 500 words today....

Darrell's barbershop was as quiet as a monastery this Saturday morning -- an alarming development in a shop that always does a booming business on weekends..."Man, this place is usually jumping about now," Darrell said.
"Think the police are conducting another roundup of brothers?" asked Fatmouth, putting into words their worst fear. Peering out the shop's picture window, he said, "Man, the streets are empty".

A police roundup of "brothers"? Er, Colbert, remember how it was the Democrats who fought the concept of desegregation down to the final filibuster, and have a sitting Senator who was a former Klansman, and how...oh, never mind. Why let the facts get in the way of the fantasy?

"Jerome, where's everybody?"
This time, Jerome didn't play around.
"Man, they're gone," he said.
"What'd you mean 'gone'?" asked Boogie, anxiety rising in his voice.
"Read my lips," Jerome said, grinning. "Gone as in -- gone to Iraq"
"....Around midnight, nine busloads of young men left our community for Iraq. Lord knows how they're gonna get there, once they reach New York. But those young brothers are Baghdad-bound," he said.

And why are these poor "brothers" taking "buses" to Iraq? Why, to get jobs, of course!

With a wistful smile, Mr. Carl read aloud a quote from Army Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the top U.S. field commander in Iraq: "We need to put the angry young men to work."
That, Anderson Carl told the assembled in Darrell's barbershop, is why our own jobless and angry young brothers are trying their best to get to Iraq.
Grabbing his hat and rushing out the door, Jerome exclaimed: "Baghdad, here I come!"

Colbert King is commenting on a Bush Administration plan to re-open shuttered factories in Iraq in order to get the economy there moving again; of course he feels that the same types of programs should be operating in America. I guess they would be set-asides for unemployed black folk only; since those are the only people he seems to mention in his tale of fascist America.
But too much time in the barbershop has sheltered Mr. King to some key facts:

- unemployment is around 4.5%; among the lowest (if not the lowest) in any iundustrial nation. Jobs a bit harder to come by in the "'hood"? No doubt; but I see plenty of successful black men and women every day. Most of them, however, don't have gold bridgework, talk like gangsters, dress like thugs, or were supporting multiple children before they were 21. Any thought about critisizing the culture that reaps this unemployment? No, it's intellectually easier to just bash George Bush instead! Yee-Haw!

-the stock market closed yesterday with the Dow at 12445.52, near an all-time high. Glitter for the rich? Well, they'll make their share, but King would do well to remember that most middle-class blacks (as well as most non-union Americans nowadays) have their retirement in 401(k) plans. They'll live better in their retirement, and be less likely to fall under state care in their old age, in this economic climate. Still want to talk strictly about poor blacks? If you and the Democratic party hadn't fought so hard against allowing people to push some of their future Social Security payments into the stock market, the black community would literally be more wealthy today, and with better prospects for tomorrow, than they currently are under your "rely on the government" policy of economics. Well, I guess the point of King's theories are "screw Bush!", and if black people suffer down the road, well, they are simply collateral damage. Kings answer seems to be - send them off to Bagdad...

-finally, government jobs programs simply do not work. Taxing business (who always wind up paying) in order to create "job training programs" and the such is insane; cutting taxes on business so that they can grow and create more jobs is what actually works in reality (see Bush tax cuts, Dow at 12445.52, the 4.5% unemployment rate, and this -
Consumer prices flat in November ). Job programs are good for the community rabble-rousers (that whole vicious feeding chain with Al Sharpton on top of the pyramid) who show them off as evidence of their power and influence; they usually wind up empty, ignored, and shuttered....

But shhhh! Don't tell Colbert King! He's too busy nodding off again, drifting into his twisted liberal dreamworld where young black men hop buses to Iraq in order to avoid the midnight roundup of Dick Cheney's stormtroopers...nighty-night, Colbert.....

Friday, December 15, 2006

The Iraq Study Group: A European-Style Recipe for Disaster

Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post mocks the ISG report, and rightfully so. Two salient points:

Syria should stop infiltration, declares the report. And Iran "should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq." Yes, and obesity should be eradicated, bird flu cured and traffic fatalities, particularly the multi-car variety, abolished. Such fatuous King Canute pronouncements give the report its air of detachment from reality.

Almost European in its nature, no? I didn't read all 79 of the ISG's proposals (that must be taken as a group, says Jim Baker, and dare not cherry-picked); but was there one that urged more "strongly worded" letters and "condemnations in the strongest terms"?

Well, I'll tell you what is European in the nature of the ISG report - its near-sexual urge to blame the Jews for everything. Was Jimmy Carter a stealth panel member? Krauthammer, again:

A major objective of the New Diplomatic Offensive (as if pompous capitalization makes for substance) is to bring Arab-Israeli peace. Baker thinks that if only the Israelis would surrender to Arab demands, all would be well in the Middle East.

Okay. Imagine that there is peace between Israel and the Arabs. No, imagine an even better solution from the Arab point of view -- an earthquake that tomorrow swallows Israel whole and sinks it (like Santorini, 1650 B.C.) into the Mediterranean. Does anyone imagine that the Shiites stop killing Sunnis? That al-Qaeda stops killing Americans? That Iran and Syria work any less assiduously to destabilize post-Saddam Hussein Iraq? It's these obvious absurdities that made the report so dismissible.

One of the bitter ironies of the ISG Middle East "peace plan" is that it recommends that Israel
not be involved in negotiations regarding an Arab-Israeli peace - yup, you read that right:

According to Thursday's issue of the conservative Washington Times' Insight magazine, the White House was looking into proposal by former Secretary of State James Baker to hold a Middle East peace conference without
Israel .

.....officials said the conference would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq's future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war.
A source in the US government was quoted in the report as saying, "As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the US to strike a deal without Jewish pressure.

Yeah, just like the great nations of Europe met in 1938 in
Munich and decided to hand Czechoslovakian territory over to Nazi Germany - without a Czech representative present, of course. And remember how well that worked out? Boy, that Hitler guy sure was appeased by that gesture, huh? Now Jim Baker proposes we do the same thing all over again, this time with Israel as the designated victim that will allow the West perhaps 15 addtional minutes of peace. But perhaps he can sell it to Iran as a "twofor" - we'll get rid of Israel, and all of the Jews therein - then you won't need that "peaceful" nuclear technology, right? How brilliant!

Bush is right to dismiss this Euro-centric, anti-Semitic report out of hand. It offers no more than bad ideas and the rehashing of policies that have failed spectacularly in the past.

Wait; I'll correct myself - it does offer more. It provides us with a glimpse into the soul of the members of the Iraq Study Group - a cowardly bunch, afraid to even ask the Arab leaders to sit down with their "enemies", the Jews (and do the Arab people really have any greater enemy than their own leaders?), and willing to sell out a nation made up of the descendants of the greatest European Holocaust to a sick man who
doesn't even believe this Holocaust even occured?

Democracies like Israel and Jordan (barely even mentioned in the report) be damned; we've got facists to coddle! That's the consensus built by the likes of Jim Baker, Sandra Day O'Connor, Alan Simpson and Vernon Jordan (not to mention plagerist/failed ex-president Jimmy Carter). Thank God we have a president as strong as Bush who is able to reject these absurd recommendations out of hand; and God help us if a liberal Congress, and their "amen!" corner in the mainstream meadia, allows these twisted ideas to move forward...

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

So sorry about the paucity of posting lately - the busy season at work is coinciding with the holiday season (as it always does); great ideas die in my head as I doze on the last bus back to Old Bridge, never to see reality online...

Will return with a righteous vengeance towards week's end!

Monday, December 11, 2006

Alex Baldwin Befouls New Jersey !

Celebrity idoicy is unbound; between Rosie and Mel and the overexposed Miss Spears, even commenting on it is becoming passe; but when you are doing it in my state, well...

Today's tale regards the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, which has provided clean energy and has never had an accident throughout its existence; yet Alex Balwin decides to come to New Jersey to speak up against a license renewal...once again, whether it is building windmills or retaining a CO2 free energy source like the O-Creek facility, New Jerseyans are told to forget it and stick to oil, for as our intellectual superiors tell us:

"The people who are in favor of the license renewal are looking to line their pockets," said Baldwin.

Er, is my desire for an honest oil alternative "lining my pockets", exactly? If we close Oyster Creek, where will state residents turn to make up the energy shortfall? Not wind power; the state has essentially ixnayed it (may disrupt someone's vistas, you see). Any thought besides a $10K per homeowner investment in solar panels, or living in tranquil darkness like the North Koreans? What's that? Build another oil or coal-fired power plant? Is that what you are telling us, genius?

Alex then shows his appreciation for our freedom of speech by hosting a "talk" on Oyster Creek, and refusing to allow representatives of the plant to be present to defend themselves against celebrity slander!

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobbying organization, sought permission to participate in the rally, but was denied. Baldwin... made no apologies.

"Only the NEI would make themselves out to be some sort of political prisoner in this debate," he said.

Alex Balwin, silencing all dissent while eliminating less oil-dependant energy options for the state of New Jersey...dude, isn't there a B-movie calling your name on the West Coast somewhere?

Just get your sorry ass out of Jersey...

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Time to Riot !!

I'm drawing up some inflammatory banners, strapping dummy dynamite around my waist, and practicing shaking my fist in rage. Based on this report via Tim Blair:

Two Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire.
The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.
Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing “grave concern” about an “inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims” at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers.

My demands are simple:

-a directly apology from the Grand Mufti
-sensitivity training for all Melbourne Muslims
-the suspension of Ramadan celebrations henceforth unless the Islmist prove they understand the joy of Christmas (and Hanukkah!)

Otherwise, my aggrieved bretheren and I will skip work to riot in the street, demanding blood to avenge our honor. Our angry faces and heated slogans will strike fear and obediance into all ! Riots will conclude by looting and buring local chain stores.....

I don't understand why Newsweek didn't report this story - after all, they ran with a fabricated tale about the alleged desecration of the Koran that resulted in a multitude of deaths; why wouldn't they print this fully documented horror? Well, I am sure they are waiting till Christmas Eve or the first night of Hanukkah in order to maximize the effect, right?


Friday, December 08, 2006

"Blood Diamond" and the Future of Accessorizing...

Where would we be without Hollywood to provide us poor schnooks with moral direction? Some reviews of Blood Diamond - first, the New York Post:

LEFTY voodoo: the belief that anytime anyone in the world is hurting, America must be sticking a pin in a doll. "Blood Diamond" holds that the 1990s civil war in Sierra Leone stemmed not from that country's long history of lawlessness and corruption but from the sparkly ring fingers of our Melissas and Ashleys.

Picture Indiana Jones reading aloud a couple of huffy editorials from the New York Times while he's dodging boulders and you'll get the idea.

Zwick, the "Thirtysomething" creator who still proclaims his points with blaring TV earnestness, is flexing his narcissism, seeing the world through his American guilt. He wants Americans to demand certification that the diamonds we buy are "conflict-free." A certificate! No chance of those being forged by the world all-stars of corruption!

Next, The New York Daily News weighs in:

Beware a Hollywood movie that ends with a plea for social action. Chances are it's trying to convince you you've just seen something more important than you have.
That actually may be true of Ed Zwick's pointed spectacle "Blood Diamond." The movie, about the intrigue over a walnut-size pink diamond, is an old-fashioned adventure story, while its backdrop is the serious contemporary subject of how the international diamond trade fuels civil wars in unstable African countries.
But if a filmmaker can't work his message into his movie, a disclaimer at the end telling us how to behave at the jewelry store is both an insult and a distraction.

Then, you get the message to add a fifth "C" to your diamond-shopping guide: In addition to cut, color, clarity and carat-weight, be sure to ask your jeweler whether the diamond you're considering comes from a "conflict" country.
Assuming he knows, he would surely tell you rather than take your money. No?

Of course, at the Washington Post, the liberalism oozes down the food chain to the movie critic, who gushes over the lines that make our other reviewers queasy:

....the first two hours of "Blood Diamond," which was filmed in South Africa and captures with vivid, kinetic energy the beauty of the African countryside, the cultural mash-ups of its cities and the rank horror of its myriad bloody wars, here put firmly in the context of 300 years of colonization and exploitation

See the top review again about the lefty voodoo doll, and so's more:

Zwick strikes a terrific balance between Indiana Jones-style adventure and an ongoing dialogue about the uneasy and largely opaque politics of globalization. How many women would want that diamond engagement ring, Connelly's character asks at one point, if they knew someone had lost a hand getting it?

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have stumbled upon the birth of a new left-wing crusade! Maybe diamonds can be the new fur, and we can throw blood on any women who dares sport an engagement ring! Maybe Hollywood starlets will demand their brooches and rings be made of "non-conflict" stones like agate, jasper, and obsidian! (yeah, right!)

I wonder what Ann Homaday, the Washington Post movie critic, wears on her finger? Or around her neck? Or in her ears?

Those who own "blood diamonds" should not be casting...stones?

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Operation Surrender

From the wonderfully acidic tongue of Ann Coulter:

The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.

Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a runaway train and can't stop it now...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Know Your Enemies, Know Thyself

The AP tries to do a hit piece on John Bolton:

Bush agenda came 1st for Bolton at U.N.

Shocking! Exactly whose agenda should have come first? Do other nation-states like Russia or China or Iran put other nation's agendas ahead of their own? Or is the United States (like Israel) forced to abide by different rules?

Tanzania's U.N. Ambassador Augustine Mahiga called Bolton's approach "sometimes abrasive" and "too rigid" and said it provoked "unnecessary controversies" and made compromise and consensus difficult

Wow! The Tanzania Ambassador! That's pretty scary; almost as scary as how far the AP had to go in order to get a negative quote on John Bolton from a member nation.

Negativity was much easier to come by from within the bureaucrats who run the UN itself:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose strained relations with Bolton were no secret, reacted coolly to his resignation, saying he "did the job he was expected to do."

If Bolton made five minutes of Annan's life miserable, for that alone he was worth the appointment.

Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, the target of stinging criticism from Bolton, made his delight clear, telling reporters seeking reaction: "No comment — and you can say he said it with a smile."

And why does Malloch-Brown hate Bolton so? Because Bolton would not stand for a supposedly neutral UN administrator
bashing his homeland:

Secretary General Kofi Annan's chief of staff called the United States an "ungainly giant" that only plays by its own rules, criticizing the U.N.'s largest donor in unusually strong terms Sunday...
...Malloch Brown's comments were unusually forceful for an organization whose leaders tend to abide by an unwritten rule of not criticizing member nations.

Ah, there's that "different ruless" things again. Bolton
complained that "The fundamental problem is the illegitimacy of his commenting about the affairs of a member government and the people of that government"; but no matter, Annan backed Brown. Malloch Brown, by the way believes Hezbollah should not be designated as a terror group - no doubt that the latest photos of them using human shields during their war on Israel this past summer has swayed his limited mind not a whit...

But this may be the crux of the issue:

Bolton antagonized the powerful Group of 77, which represents 132 mainly developing countries and China, by leading other wealthy countries who pay about 85 percent of the U.N.'s budget to impose a cap on budget spending in December 2005 to press for U.N. management reforms.

What type of person can feel rightous indignation that the people paying 85% of your bills are asking (after a multitude of scandals) for a more transparent financial arrangement? Yeah, the type of people that populte the UN, and the type of people who despised United States Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

So look at Bolton's enemies - Korrupt Koffi, anti-American anti-Semite Mark Malloch Brown, and the Associated Press. Oh, and the Ambassador of Tanzania.

Hold your head up high, Mr. Bolton...I will repeat what Claudia Rosett said yesterday:

Cold comfort indeed, but the upside of John Bolton resigning as ambassador to the UN is that the UN does not deserve to be dignified by ambassadors of the stature of John Bolton. His presence there endowed the place with a seriousness it has not earned.

...nor deserves. It is a den of vipers, and we just killed our mongoose; and are prepared to offer our legs up instead. Hold still, it will only hurt for a moment, and death will come quickly, quickly...

Monday, December 04, 2006

A Tragic Loss

This is bad news, no matter how you dice it:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton announced on Monday he will step down and give up his bruising fight to convince enough Senate opponents to back him for a post they said he was ill-suited to fill.

And the proof they offer is...what, exactly? No proof is given, save for the Democrats craven desire to oppose anything and everything Bush:

When Bolton turned out to be far less of a lightning rod than expected, Bush tried again to gain Senate confirmation for him, but the opposition largely remained and the Democratic takeover of the Senate in November elections made the path even more difficult.
Bush blamed "shallow politics of the Senate" and said Bolton had done a fine job despite his critics.
"He proved the critics wrong, I mean flat wrong," Bush told the Fox News Channel in an interview. "They weren't even close as they characterized John Bolton, as they anticipated his office, what he would do in office."

W. is right, of course. It is impossible to point to any defeat at the UN (like it matters anyway) and lay it at the feet of John Bolton. Too bad the Democrats can't take their own advice and "look at the facts on the ground" - 'cause the only fact they know is our position has to be anti-Bush, right or wrong. Can't wait to see what the Democrats will try to do to national security - our current policies may have kept us terror-free in the homeland for over five years, but hey! It's a Bush policy, so we gotta overturn it and institute the opposite!

And what is the opposite of vigilence? Just ask Bill Clinton...

Some more from Bush on Bolton:

Iam deeply disappointed that a handful of United States Senators prevented Ambassador Bolton from receiving the up or down vote he deserved in the Senate," Bush added. " They chose to obstruct his confirmation, even though he enjoys majority support in the Senate, and even though their tactics will disrupt our diplomatic work at a sensitive and important time. This stubborn obstructionism ill serves our country, and discourages men and women of talent from serving their nation."

Atlas adds:

Anybody happy about this is an America hater.

Indeed. Bolton understood that the UN is not a place for the world's nations to come together in peace and harmony (alas), but an arena where despots and zealots fight to protect their ill-gotten positions, and gain sanction for it. Bolton stood tall for the United States and its values, and took no quarter with the bald-face lying from the mealy-mouth representatives of evil who sit in positions of power at the UN.

Multilateralism can occur in Turtle Bay, but only within groups of nations within the UN, not with the body as a whole. John Bolton understood that, and built different coalitions for different ends; one group to thwart Iran, for instance, and another to stop the madness of Kim Jung Il. This is diplomacy backed with the iron fist of unrelenting values and moral clarity, and it is successful. Nevertheless, he must go because...he is Bush's man.

This is a tragic loss at a critical point in America's history. Our enemies, emboldened, are openly rising against us; and the most effective negotiator on our behalf is tossed aside because of partisan ideology. We are in trouble, folks - and wait until we see the appeaser that Bush must appoint in order to pass Democratic muster. Better to leave the post open.....

Nice roundups of the Bolton affair (with more links) at Right Truth and Atlas Shrugged - oh, and don't forget The Rosett Report:

Cold comfort indeed, but the upside of John Bolton resigning as ambassador to the UN is that the UN does not deserve to be dignified by ambassadors of the stature of John Bolton. His presence there endowed the place with a seriousness it has not earned.

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Prince George's County, New Jersey Cops, and George W. Bush...

Leonard Pitts usually fills the role of resident race-baiter at the Washington Post, but I am sure that he has a legitimate complaint today when he writes about how his children have been subject to more than their share of police harrassment in Prince George's County, Maryland. There is one point he makes that I want to highlight, one that is not necessarily "racist" as Pitts believes, but is typical of a more uniform type of suburban police aggression:

....I went because of the obstructed windshield.

That's what it said on the citation when Bryan
[Pitts' son] was pulled over last year. He went to court and took the "obstruction" with him: one of those air fresheners in the shape of a Christmas tree. The judge barely bothered to hide her contempt while dismissing the charges.

Sunday night at the mall, I got into an argument with a couple of officers and mentioned that incident as an example of blatant, oppressive harassment. One officer responded that "technically" the citation was correct.
I found that a telling defense. I mean, "technically," you can probably be arrested for spitting on the sidewalk.
How can citizens have confidence in police who justify such transparent harassment with such flimsy excuses?

Now Prince George's County - with a population of 800,000 - is certainly larger (by a factor of 4 to 10) than most counties in New Jersey. However, while the "transparent harrassment" that takes place in Jersey seems pretty similar to what Pitts describes, it is less racially-based and more class-conscious.

In New Jersey, law enforcement hides behind every tree and flower, ticketing automobiles for "obstructions" like Pitt's ornament. Personally, I was pulled over for running a "red" light (and when I pointed out to the officer that it was a still yellow even after I went through? The officer looked over his aviator glasses, put his face in mine, and sneers, "I said it was red"). I was ticketed for invalid registration because I handed the officer my expired card before offering him my current one - a $180- fine, highest allowable (higher than the red light). Went to court, told my story, showed the judge my registration and he magnaminously lowered the fine to $150-, with a $30- court fee, of course. An exhortion racket, with a judge and the local police all working hand in hand. Hey Leonard - want to know what it feels like to be a black man in Alabama in the 1960's? Try driving in New Jersey in the current century! The only bonus is that you don't even have to be black!

Other stories of cops issuing "technically" correct tickets in New Jersey:
- getting pulled over for "going too fast over a speed bump" - when the woman asked which tire (front or rear)he radared, he wrote her two more tickets.
-inproper use of hi-beams - when a friend was almost run off the road by a car cutting him off, he flashed his brights. The cops couldn't bother chasing down the speeder, easier to ticket a family sedan. And after all, the middle class victim will pay the ticket, likely without a fight.

And when you are giving out tickets for lights, speed bumps, and two copies of a registration, you are not actually serving or protecting your community, are you? Really, you are simply harrassing the residents of the township in order to raise revenue the easiest way possible. And if innocent people are ticketed? Who cares - they'll more likely pay than fight! And if they do dare to come to court, we'll teach them a lesson about sticking up for their rights!

The list goes on and on. Jersey police are no better than those in Price George's; small men with small minds with big guns who hunt down the middle class to raise revenues for their respective townships. Now, I spend much of my time in New York City, and their police force is usually beyond reproach (
current investigations pending, of course) - polite and professional, and more interested in protecting the middle class than vicitimizing them with harrassment tickets. Maybe the police forces of suburban counties from Prince George, Maryland to Middlesex County, New Jersey need to take some big-city policing lessons in order to earn the respect - rather than the disdain - of their constituents.

And what does all of this have to do with George W. Bush? For all of the whining (by the likes of Pitts, and
these useful idiots) about how W.'s anti-terrrorism laws are taking away the freedoms of ordinary Americans, I am willing to bet that none of these new regulations have changes the lives of any American one bit. However, look at how Pitts' life, and the lives of all of his children, are changed and threatened on a consistent basis not by George Bush, but by local law enforcement, which has an agenda all of its own.

Worried about your rights being taken away? Shaking your fist at W. may make you feel like a big man, but your real threat is your average small-town cop, who with the knowing smirk of a judge, can shake you down, lock you up, and take your cash. Doesn't matter whether you are black or white, the power trip is all that matters. These guys, flying under the radar, smacking down black kids and stealing the money of the multicultural middle class, are the real threat to your freedom, and they can exercise their will upon you at any time they want.

Maybe what needs to be exercised is greater oversight over these police forces; whether in Prince George or New Jersey. Maybe these amateurs ought to take a hint from the big-city cops, and actually try to serve and protect, instead of extort and abuse....