Monday, October 31, 2005
I'll be so blue and despairing, by Jove
Decorations of red on a green Fitzmastree
Aren't much if Rove's not indicted with Libby
I'll have a Blue Fitzmas that's certain
If Rove's is not behind that curtain
Joe Wilson will shout, that his Valerie's out
But it's just a blue, blue Fitzmas
(inspired by the Cox and Forkum cartoon below....and Elvis)
According to Abbasi, the global balance of power is in a state of flux and every nation should fight for a place in a future equilibrium. The Western powers, especially the United States, still wield immense military and economic power that “looks formidable on paper.” But they are unable to use that power because their populations have become “risk-averse.”
“The Western man today has no stomach for a fight,” Abbasi says. “This phenomenon is not new: All empires produce this type of man, the self-centered, materialist, and risk-averse man.”
Abbasi believes that the US intervention in Iraq, which involved “slightly higher risks” than the invasion of Afghanistan, was the very last of its kind. And even then, the US went into Iraq because of President George W Bush’s “readiness to do what no other American leader would dare contemplate.”
So, is this strategic brain correct? Abbasi sounds a lot like one Saddam Hussein who played 'chicken' with the Bush Administration. Saddam blinked and is now facing trial in Iraq. One thug less in the world.
But the question remains, have we Americans become too self-centered, materialistic and risk-averse to deal with the thugs of the world--even when they attack us on our home soil and threaten our interests and allies?
Personally, I think that Abbasi misunderestimates the vast majority of Americans, but he has described the Democratic Party almost perfectly. If ever there was a political party amenable to being bullied by tyrants, the Democrats are it.
Where is there one, single person in that political party that has the courage to face down the world's terrorists, knowing that freedom and democracy and western civilization are at stake?
Who among them will stand up and shout, "No", as the deranged mullahs of Iran work feverishly to destroy Israel and "wipe it off the map"?
Who among them will be politically incorrect enough to have the moral certainty that freedom and democracy are superior in every way possible to tyranny and oppression--even when it is hiding under a veil of religion?
Who among them will be brave enough to call such fanatics to account?
These risk-averse, self-absorbed dhimmicrats are aggressive enough (and desire power enough) to vociferously and reflexly oppose every action by the elected Republican president--especially his decision to proactively protect the US from a psychopathic maniac who had much the same philosophy as Abbasi's; but if we left the defense of the United States, the free world, and western civilization to them, they would depart the scene as rapidly as John Kerry left the conflict in Vietnam.
They have no convictions, so they cannot have the courage of them.
This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.
The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support.
Reynolds is exactly right. This seems to me to be the crux of the entire Plame affair. Porter Goss has his work cut out for him in cleaning house there. I wonder what he has to say about the entire kerfuffle?
Roger Simon has more; as does INDC Journal.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
and, of course, don't forget the poster from the "World Without Zionism"(aka "The World Without America Conference")--which shows the entire globe excreting the U.S. and Israel. Cool, huh?
This is what passes for academic discourse in our universities these days.
UPDATE: Neo-neocon has some thoughtful observations on the slick propaganda (exemplified by the poster on the left) that is foisted on the international community and helps to demonize the Jews. Check out her post.
These voices are persistant and continual. They are unrelenting. They are often frightening. And like the command hallucinations that torment many of my patients, they are completely and totally untrue. You are bad. Life isn't worth living. They are trying to hurt you. Don't try, it's not worth it.
It is very rare for such voices to say anything at all positive. They have a specific goal--and that goal is the distortion of reality.
So why do patients believe them? Especially the one's that are bizarre and so obviously out of touch with any known reality? You know, the ones that say aliens have implanted electrodes in your brain and are monitoring your thoughts and things like that.
It is a triumph of false perceptions over reality. It is testimony to how profoundly and fundamentally people trust their perceptual faculties and let their peceptions rule, even when those perception come in conflict with common sense, truth, or reality.
We, the American people have come to have a similar trust in the voices of the MSM. Over the years, they have almost become an additional perceptual faculty that we rely on--simply because life has become too complicated and overwhelming, that the use of our ordinary senses is insufficient in the modern world.
In other words, we rely on the media in the same way we rely on our own senses to provide us with the information necessary to make decisions and judgements in the real world.
The MSM has become those evil voices inside our head.
Here is the latest information on our economy that I found online at an MSNBC Business site, but which I did not read in the newspaper, or actually hear on the regular MSNBC news. It was probably on reported on the business channels:
Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy’s stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The latest snapshot of the country’s economic performance, released by the Commerce Department on Friday, even marked an improvement from the solid 3.3 percent pace of growth registered in the second quarter.
Growth in the third quarter was broad-based, reflecting brisk spending by consumers, businesses and government.
WHY ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT NEWS? WHY ISN'T IT SHOUTED FROM THE HOUSETOPS?
Meanwhile, consumer confidence fell sharply.
So, like a patient hearing the command hallucinations we become more and more hopeless and depressed in spite of the reality around us.
We are hearing the voices of the MSM inside our heads and they are tricking us into believing something that isn't true.
The Anchoress points out:
Economists had forecast GDP would advance at a 3.6% rate in the July-to-September quarter. The economy has now expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters.
So when was the last time the economy expanded faster than 3% for 10 straight quarters?
It didn’t happen during the 1990s (the longest streak was eight).
It last happened during the 13 quarters from 1Q 1983 through 1Q 1986. Not coincidentally, a president who believed in lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth was in charge the last time it happened.
So despite being at war, despite devastating storms, and despite legislative and regulatory drags on the economy like Sarbanes-Oxley, this has been most consistently growing economy in almost 20 years.
I would wager that the instant the Democrats take over the White House at some future date, the voices will cease to trouble us and we will be cured of our "malaise". Not because anything will have changed, but because the voices will have achieved their purpose.
UPDATE: Bizzyblog has more details about how well the economy is doing.
Time for the weekly insanity update, where the insane, the bizarre, the ridiculous, and the completely absurd are highlighted for all to see! This has been a week of rare idiocy (as always!). Calling all bloggers! Be sure to send in your entries to the Carnival, which will be posted every Sunday. Entries need to be in by 8 pm on Saturday to make their way into the list that week. Only one post entry per blogger, please. Thanks for all the submissions. SO MANY INSANITIES! SO LITTLE TIME! Here is the Halloween Edition! Be afraid, be very afraid....
1. Halloween Calvalcade of Horrors!
2. Don't click on this link!!! It is far to scary for mortal beings! Monsters from the ID!
3. Hijab chic
4. Cartoons definitely seem like a natural manner in which to depict this religious leader.
5. They don't like to be "insulted", yet insulting others is perfectly acceptable (here or here) You have to admit, they are rather easily "insulted".
6. Just a little touch up to improve ideological acceptability. Here, too.
7. A psychopath speaks; Europe is shocked, shocked! And guess who is strangely silent?
8. I would call it OUR 27 months of hell. Because, you know, they are such private people after all. I thought the findings were pretty sad, too.
9. A child writing poetry sympathetic to the mind of Hitler wins awards , but drawing Jesus on an environmental paper is banned. Go figure that!
1. Newton was an incredible person--discovering gravity and...cat doors.
2. Christ was born on Halloween?
3. "The media are treasonous scum." Don't beat around the bush! Tell us how you really feel about them. And even more bias. And they're not very good at science either! Some say they are searching for the glory days of Watergate.
4. Nazi racoons. Really!
5. So would I, Lt. Bishop. So would I.
6. You have to admit, these guys are hilarious. Here's their strategy. But I think it would be a more effective strategy to lock the three of them in a closet.
7. M.C. Escher and Starbucks. (hat tip: OBloodyHell)
8. These guys are legitimately nuts. Talk about enabling of evil. They would probably win the poetry prize in # . And speaking of being completely out of touch with reality....
1. What Makes the Muslims Laugh? A tricky subject for a film. Here's a clue.
2. I think Ken needs to get a life.
3. The Peace Moonbeam chronicles.
4. Moral authority is relative apparantly.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Not to mention, the beheading of three Christian school girls in Indonesia.
The planned execution of a 14 year old Egyptian boy (Muslim) in Saudi Arabia.
The suicide bombing in Israel earlier this week that killed four innocents.
The killing of Buddhists in Thailand.
The wacko President of Iran urging his fellow neo-nazis to "wipe Israel off the Map" - in a kind, gentle manner of course (since Islam is the Religion of Peace).
Let's see. Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and fellow Muslims. By this you can all see that John is absolutely correct: Islam is a equal opportunity hate cult!
I can just imagine how they might treat Wiccans.
This mark is being reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the seemingly endless European and Pacific conflicts, hastily and, some say, thoughtlessly launched in December 1941 to avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor by radical Japanese Shintoists.
Here in the nation's capital, many urged the U.S. Senate to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen 250,000.
"We owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their courage, for their valor, for their strength, for their commitment to our country," said a prominent Democrat leader.
Critics of the war also acknowledged the sacrifice, even as they questioned the policies of those who lead it.
Very apt analogy, I would say. If left to the Democratic Party of today, there is no doubt in my mind that we all would be speaking German or Japanese.
Friday, October 28, 2005
So, Plame was not outed as Wilson claimed. There was no flauting of national security. There was no treason. And, of course, there was no conspiracy to punish him for opposing the Iraq War. Just the usual lying under oath (e.g., like Clinton--so no BFD according to the Left and the MSM-- remember Cisneros and others??). Ok, now can we get onto more important items? Like this and this, for example?
Too bad Wilson didn't make his famous statements (which have been documented as lies) before a Grand Jury. He only made them in the MSM, who doesn't much care about lying as long as it hurts the right people.
UPDATE: Let me be more precise. Read the indictment here. This is a case of a man (Libby) who behaved very very stupidly and made some very very stupid lies under oath to a Grand Jury. That's it. The book is being thrown at him, as is approrpriate in cases like this. When my daughter lies to me, I throw the book at her, too. However, it is not proof that there is pervasive corruption in my family as some idiots might suggest [I am talking about John Kerry's remarks about the indictment, which I can't find a link to right now].
UPDATE II: Cliff May at The Corner:
The accusation – from Wilson and his allies – was that there was a conspiracy at the highest levels of this administration to expose Valerie Plame, to reveal that she was an undercover agent. And the accusation was that this was done as a way to punish punish Joe Wilson and to send a chill to all others who might criticize the Bush White House. That does not appear to be the case. Fitzgerald is alleging no such conspiracy. And he even added: “We’re not saying that Libby knowingly outted a covert agent.” So did anybody? Or not? Does it really not matter? I’m asking .
UPDATE III: I concur with SC&A's take on Senator Kerry's comments, about how he is completely disgusted at
FULL DISCLOSURE: I really despise John Kerry. If there is more of a hypocrite and opportunist in US government today (and boy, that's saying a LOT when you consider both sides of the political aisle), I'll eat my stethoscope.
Noone does that, do they? You know why? Because that would clearly be racist and sexist. Yet somehow it has become politically correct to actively and enthusiastically promote racism and sexism when any other group is discussed.
It is time to stop. Read Heather MacDonald's article linked above.
Mr. President, just pick the absolute best and most competent person for the job. That is the ideal I fought for when I was a member of the Women's Movement many years ago. The modern women's movement, like the modern civil rights movement has lost all reason and sense. All either do now is to encourage victimhood and entitlement in their respective constituencies. They also actively try to smear any woman or black who doesn't buy into their identity politcal agenda.
Let us stop playing these insane political quota games and put an end to all institutionalized racism and sexism in this country once and for all.
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
Syria and the Hariri Conspiracy Right Wing Nut House
Don’t Secret Cabals Have To Be... Well... Secret? The Sundries Shack
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
Race and the Unconscious ShrinkWrapped
Separation The Unrepentant Individual
Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. It will make for good weekend reading!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Soon, everyone in the world will be so afraid of possibly "offending" someone (by their very existence, perhaps?) that they will lock themselves in their houses and never come out. Either that, or people will be muted at birth as a preventive measure.
Blogging, of course, will be banned. But then, so will all speech. Except, of course, it will always be OK to offend Jews and Christians.
(hat tip: SC&A)
The IHC story suggests that the U.N.'s failures of governance are not confined to such special projects as the Oil for Food program. If anything, Oil for Food looks more and more like a large outcropping of U.N. business as usual. And as with Oil for Food, which ran from December 1996 until the fall of Saddam in 2003, the timeline of IHC business with the U.N. starts in December 1996. That was the month before Kofi Annan took over as secretary-general, and it is on his watch that the IHC-U.N. tale has unfolded.
Headquartered on the sixth floor of a modest midtown Manhattan high-rise, with additional offices in Milan, IHC was, until this June, one of many companies approved by the U.N. as a registered vendor to its procurement division--which handles U.N. contracting for everything from office supplies to rations for peacekeeping troops. IHC signed some deals directly with the U.N., and on others served as a go-between for third-party contractors--despite the U.N.'s officially stated preference for avoiding middlemen.
Since the U.N. handles its contracts with secrecy, the full extent of IHC's involvement in U.N. business is hard to know. But from documents seen by this writer, the amounts around 1999 involved millions of dollars; a few years later they involved scores of millions; and in the past year or two--counting IHC business partnerships--the totals reached hundreds of millions.
IHC's CEO Ezio Testa, has denied any wrong-doing. But IHC's history includes hiring the son of a U.N. official who later (and unrelated to the hiring) pled guilty to corruption in federal court. In addition, a star U.N. diplomat served as chairman of the IHC board of directors while also holding a post as personal representative of the U.N. secretary-general. On top of that, IHC appears to have had access to valuable inside information on U.N. contract bids, which in at least one documented case it shared with a company involved in the bid.
Last year, information was bubbling around in unofficial quarters that something was amiss in the U.N. procurement department. Together with Fox News executive editor George Russell, I began looking into it. A name that came to our attention was Alexander Yakovlev, a Russian staffer in the procurement department. Imagine our surprise when Mr. Yakovlev was depicted in a Feb. 3 interim report from Paul Volcker's Oil for Food probe as a defender of integrity in the U.N. procurement department, where he'd handled Oil for Food inspection contracts.
Read it all. It is a tale of unparalleled corruption and greed on a scale unheard of in history. All under the leadership of Kofi Annan.
Several emailers have asked me to reprise my song parody about the U.N. I am glad to do so (particularly since I have nothing to say about the Miers nomination withdrawal).
From the "PIRATES OF THE UN":
I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A SECRETARY GENERAL
(Sung to the tune of "I am the very model of a modern major general")
SECRETARY GENERAL ANNAN:
I am the very model of a Secretary-General,
I specialize in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I know the heads of every state, preferring those inimical
to all the freedom-loving institutions democratical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters philosophical,
And implementing Marxist theories surely is most practical;
About Oil-for-Food, I'll stonewall anything that's new,
And keep on hiding facts about the way we scammed the lot of you!
And keep on hiding facts about the way we scammed the lot of you!
And keep on hiding facts about the way we scammed the lot of you!
And keep on hiding facts about the way we scammed the lot of you!
I'm very good at making statements quite ridiculous;
Pretending that the money from Saddam was quite miraculous;
In short, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I am the very model of a Secretary General.
In short, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
He is the very model of a Secretary General!
In fact, when I know what is meant by "integrity" and "honesty",
When I can mumble all my lies with obvious sincerity,
And keep the free world all locked up in its myopathy,
And when I know precisely what they mean by my "psychopathy";
When progress has been made treating antisocial personality,
When I know more of leadership than Kerry knows reality--
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental management,
This Secretary General will say much more than "no comment".
This Secretary General will say much more than "no comment"!
This Secretary General will say much more than "no comment"!
This Secretary General will say much more than "no comment"!
Though my knowledge of dictatorships is sly and somewhat dastardly,
I think I will support them with great joy in this new century;
And still, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
I am the very model of a Secretary General!
But still, in matters both nefarious and criminal,
He is the very model of Secretary General!
More to the point than a conference like this:
...attended by suicide bomber wannabees, homicidal maniacs and future hitlerian imitations. What is needed is a conference on "The World Without Islam".
UPDATE: SC&A have two posts (here and here ) about The World Without Zionism confernece. Check out his investigation.
"How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?" - Kirk to Saavik in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.
"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.
And, meanwhile, the Palestinians continue to to be the poster children for the religion of peace.
I'm sure there will be all sorts of apologists with rationalizations and explanations about the supposed "victimhood" of the Palestinians and the grave "crimes" that Israel has committed against the Muslim world. But for anyone who isn't blind, deaf, and completely and totally irrational; we have heard from the horse's mouth the hatred and fanatical zeal that will--without any hesitation whatsoever--send a few nuclear warheads toward the Jewish nation as soon as they are capable of doing it. If you have any doubts about this, then you are likely one of the pathetic apologists mentioned above.
And the way that the nations of world twiddle their thumbs as this is happening; and allow themselves to be manipulated by this sick religion makes it clear that they don't particularly care and intend to let it happen.
Just as they let Hitler happen. Only this time, the Islamic version of the final solution has some real technology to play around with.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
But if I may be so bold to suggest, poor George Galloway is just another tragic victim of pseudologia fantastica.
The sufferers of this sad condition are often smooth-talking narcissists, and so self-centered they construct a detailed reality of their own and are almost able to convince others of its truth. In many instances, the lying gets more significant as the liar obtains more power.
George Galloway and fellow sufferer Joe Wilson should start a support group! They might also invite the grand mythomaniac, Saddam Hussein, to participate for the time he has remaining on earth--particularly since he appears to be the inspirational force behind both of them.
A Halloween Cotillion! And you are invited. Girl on the Right is hosting the fun and you should go on over and check it out! Lot's of good reading linked to--all of them by talented, creative and smart ladies. Of course, I have a link in there somewhere, too!
Yes, we are all hypocrites and I talk about that in the book. But liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy are quite different on two accounts. First, you hear about conservative hypocrisy all the time. A pro-family congressman caught in an extramarital affair, a minister caught in the same. This stuff is exposed by the media all the time. The leaders of the liberal-Left get a complete pass on their hypocrisy. Second, and this is even more important, the consequences of liberal hypocrisy are different than for the conservative variety. When conservatives abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they end up hurting themselves and their families. Conservative principles are like guard rails on a winding road. They are irritating but fundamentally good for you. Liberal hypocrisy is the opposite. When the liberal-left abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they actually improve their lives. Their kids end up in better schools, they have more money, and their families are more content. They're ideas are truly that bad.
It is definitely an interesting point. Can anyone think of a counter example on either side--e.g. one where the liberal is hypocritical and only hurts his/her family or one where a conservative is hypocritical and it improves his/her lives?
BUY THE BOOK:
Schweitzer's book is Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy
While the Bush administration hunkers down on indictment watch, Congress should take a look at political — and possibly illegal — activity by agenda-driven intelligence operatives.
Whatever fate befalls White House adviser Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and any other administration official caught up in the prosecution over the leaked name of a CIA officer, there's a back story to this case that should not be ignored.
It's about the CIA itself.
This is a story that most of the media will be trying hard not to cover. They share former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's stated desire to see Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "frog-march" Rove out of the White House in handcuffs.
So Congress should leave the media no choice. Hold hearings. Put the CIA on the spot and blow the lid off any politically motivated funny business. Bring some transparency to what has become a very murky issue.
We believe that someone needs to answer the questions raised recently by Joseph F. DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel:
Was there a covert operation against the president?
If so, who was behind it?
These aren't the musings of the tinfoil-hat brigade. A sober-minded case can be made that at least some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.
As the IBD article points out, this is the same CIA that abjectly failed at least two presidents and the entire American public. If there is a rotten core in at the center of this outfit then we must excise it, precisely because the work that they should be doing is so absolutely critical to the safety of our country.
I know all about CYA government politics and the lengths the "career" people in government positions of trust will go to in order to protect their positions and undermine the very job their agency is asked to do. I saw this kind of behavior at NASA--particularly after the Challenger accident. I witnessed, in disbelief, as the innocent were punished and the guilty promoted. That strategy, is the essence intellectual and moral rot that exists in many of our government agencies.
For the most part, organizations like the CIA and NASA (and many others, I'm sure)have layers of managers and bureaucrats that have over their careers finely honed their skill at taking credit for anything good and blaming someone else in the food chain for anything bad that happens. The many capable, honest, and hard-working grunts are considered disposable assets manipulated by the bureaucrats for the purpose of accumulating their own power in the system. These bureaucrats create the groupthink culture and live happily in their own little echo chambers--refusing any new ideas or thinking if it disturbs the soundwaves in the chamber. Anything that reflects well on them is good and anything that threatens their power is aggressively attacked.
I have no doubt that what I saw at NASA was a mere bagatelle compared to the capability for mischief that would be possible by one narcissist who had an agenda at the CIA.
Presidents come and go. But the personnel in the CIA --especially the bureaucrats--stay in place for an entire career. They have a lot of entrenched reasons to maintain the status quo.
The CIA badly needs to clean house, but how to do it when civil service makes it next to impossible to alter the culture?
UPDATE: Michael Barone has something interesting to say about all this:
Well, I think that whoever those people were, what they were involved in here was trying to discredit what they took to be the president's policy. I mean, there seems to be a thinking in some parts of the foreign policy establishment that an elected president, and the subordinates that he chooses as persuant to law, are not entitled to follow a policy that the career people at the CIA think is a bad policy. I had the sort of thought American government works the other way. That is to say civil servants, government employees, follow the policy of the elected officials. But this case, clearly there were people at the CIA that were trying to discredit Bush's policy of military action in Iraq. And clearly, Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson were part of that. And in addition, we also know that Joseph Wilson told numerous lies about this situation. He characterized his report, which was not a written report to the CIA, as disclosing no evidence that there was attempts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people that took a look at what he reported, or heard what he reported, concluded that he actually found some evidence that Iraq had made an attempt to obtain uranium in Niger.[emphasis mine)
Monday, October 24, 2005
Here is a hypothetical family constellation: A black person who has grown up in the entitlement system will have been subject to the message, over and over again, that he or she is unable to compete on a level playing field with whites. They are empowered by the liberal entitlement workers (social workers talk about "empowerment" which is defined as a better ability to extract what they are entitled to from the system) to maintain their status as a dependent on the state. Even without noxious government employees, this is a set up to feel humiliated and condescended to. A dependent adult struggles with feelings of inadequacy (after all, the message is that they are inadequate!) and internalizes such feelings. Unfortunately, even those black Americans who are successful are tainted by such stigmata. They will wonder if they are truly capable and qualified or have attained their position by virtue of assistance from the more powerful, more capable white man.
Matters become even more complicated when a generation grows up raised by parents who feel devalued and imagine themselves to be devalued, lesser people. When you add in that the father has been completely devalued and marginalized by the radical feminist "scholars" who hold sway in our liberal arts universities and the PC-thought that is an outgrowth of radical feminism, the young black male as an endangered species is inevitable.
Psychologically, the process that ShrinkWrapped delineates works in both directions. Not only are black persons who have grown up in the entitlement system subject to the message, over and over again, that they are unable to compete on a level playing field with whites; but whites who interface with this system end up believing the same thing about blacks--which only reinforces any latent racism or tendency to think of the poor black person as" inferior".
This reverse process also impacts the loving and compassionate social workers and other liberal do-gooders, who also absorb this toxic message, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Though they don't care to admit it, the effects of the message are demonstrated in their own behavior (see here, for example). Another example is discussed here by Betsy at Betsy's page).
So, many times in politics, programs that originate with the "best of intentions" end up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. Yet, many people are so ideologically committed to one way of thinking that they not only refuse to change, but keep pouring money into programs that can be shown to actively harm the people they are meant to help; and reinforce the stereotypes they are meant to end.
What makes matters worse is that the "champions of the poor and oppressed" (as they like to think of themselves) then virtually demonize anyone who suggests an alternate strategy-- even when that strategy has been proven to work. We see this time and again in their attempts to portray the Republicans as the party that "hates the poor"; or that their policies reinforce racism, hunger, and deprivation. Since they are incapable of reasonable discussion on this point, one must conclude that it serves some intense psychological need for them to portray others in this light, particularly when their own rhetoric and behavior clearly demonstrate that these are their own beliefs. We refer to this psychological mechanism as "Projection".
Many people --both democrats and republicans-- genuinely want to end racism and poverty. Many sincerely want to help the poor to have better lives. So, why not go with what works, instead of what doesn't and has never worked?
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: POVERTY HAS A CURE --but it is not in the psychologically devastating social programs that promote victimhood and encourage a politically correct version of racism.
The cure is economic opportunity. It is not even more "compassionate" and condescending social programs that artificially encourage "self-esteem" or promote "Black history"; or endless affirmative action. Nor is the solution to continue to pour $$trillions into the "war on poverty".
Can we all admit that the so-called "war on poverty" -- a war that has been going on for decades--is in reality one war that actually meets any and all criteria for the "quagmire" designation? Not only is it a perpetual quagmire (as recent events in New Orleans aptly demonstrate), but it has victimized another generation of poor blacks who compensate for their humiliation through our young black culture's "glorification of their devalued status" (as SW refers to it). This is the antisocial and deplorable behavior campaigned against by Bill Cosby and other notable successful black thinkers. It is a subculture that devalues education; and extols attitude, violence, and hypersexualized misogyny.
Policymakers whose goal is fighting poverty need to pay attention to the link between economic freedom and prosperity. They need to empower the black family economically. They need to stop encouraging victimhood by their policies; and encourage personal responsibility that gives people a tangible stake in their own lives. If they do that, the psychological benefits will automatically follow.
Eason Jordan? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?
UPDATE: Cori Dauber suggests that the terrorists were trying to drag news coverage away from Hurricane Wilma. It seems they share with Mother Sheehan an intense dislike of being upstaged by a mere hurricane.
So it seems clear to me that an indictment under either of these statutes would be a gross injustice. It is a general principle of law that when the government wants to criminalize acts other than traditional common law crimes like murder or theft, it must set out with great specificity the conduct that is forbidden. To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice.
That leaves the question of whether Rove, Libby or someone else will be indicted for perjury, obstruction of justice or making false statements in the course of the investigation. But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?
True, Rove and Libby did seek to discredit Joseph Wilson -- as they should well have done. As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports. He said that he pointed out that certain other intelligence reports were forged. But the forgeries did not appear until eight months after his trip. He said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger. But it was she who recommended him for the trip. And on and on.
In the absence of a violation of the underlying espionage acts, any indictment here arising from the course of the investigation would be, in my view, unjust and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
Barone goes on to make the same point that I quoted in this post:
Rooting for Rove's indictment in this case isn't just unseemly, it's unthinking and ultimately self-destructive. Anyone who cares about civil liberties, freedom of information, or even just fair play should have been skeptical about Fitzgerald's investigation from the start. Claiming a few conservative scalps might be satisfying, but they'll come at a cost to principles liberals hold dear: the press's right to find out, the government's ability to disclose, and the public's right to know.
But when you are dealing with people in the grip of mass hysteria, common sense gets lost in the feeding frenzy.
A Pakistani newspaper Ausaf published from Multan has reported that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died four months ago in a village near Kandahar of severe illness.
According to the newspaper report, Bin Laden was campaigning at Bamiyan, fell very ill, returned to Kandahar where he died and was buried in the Shada graveyard in the shadow of a mountain.
The controversy continues to surround Osama bin Laden and while US and Pakistan officials have often been quoted by the media as saying that his mortal status was just a matter of detail, the hunt is still on and the issue remains a topic of great interest for the media and governments alike.
Funeral prayers have been said for Osama bin Laden over these years with one reported now by the Ausaf, and another in an Egyptian newspaper Al Wafd as far back as December 2001.
Osama bin Laden has a reward of $25 million on his head. Despite this he remains elusive, and could remain that way for a long time, alive or dead.
I am certainly hoping that he remains elusive because he's already dead. I have suspected this is the case, particularly since we are hearing so much about Number Two Thug Zawahiri lately.
But, we've heard this before, so I won't get my hopes up.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault, beatings, or murder. When the press publishes your photo [together with] the photo of the criminals and [descriptions] of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered [by a veil] or not?' If she was covered up, [the question arises:] 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' In the event that your husband is the one who broke your ribs, [people will say] that no doubt there was good reason for it.
"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks her nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, [for the Qadi], beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, [as the saying goes]: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'
"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a 'limousine' with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you [must] wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you [must] bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.
"Imagine you're a woman in the 21st century, and you see fatwas [issued] by some contemporary experts in Islamic law dealing with the rules regarding taking the women of the enemy prisoner and having sexual intercourse with them. Moreover, you find someone issuing a fatwa about the rules of taking the women of the enemy prisoner even in times of peace, and you don't know to which enemy women it refers.
"Imagine you're a woman who writes in a newspaper, and every time you write about your [women's] concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"
Now, I have a scenario that I would like the ladies of the Left to consider.
Try to imagine that you are a Muslim woman almost anywhere in the world. Then remember that you were born in this country, where even Muslim women are equal under the Law; and the only things that keep them from pursuing their own individual ambitions and dreams are the cultural and religious prohibitions of Islam. Which, by the way, strongly and violently disapproves of anyone choosing to opt out of their belief system.
Of course, this is perfectly consistent with the tenets of multiculturalism, a late 20th century doctrine that praises the differences among various cultures and maintains that one culture is not better than any other. In fact, it positively extols the virtues of even those cultures where women are treated worse than dogs. As the gurus point out, who are we to judge?
Now, imagine that you are a truly progressive and liberated woman of the modern-day feminist movement; earnestly marching against the evil empire of America in support of ANSWER or UPJ or Code Pink etc.etc.; proclaiming the beauty of multiculturalism and denouncing American culture (by strange coincidence, the only culture that is assumed to be inferior and not considered "equal" by the multicultural gurus).
In fact, your behavior is aggressively enabling the very tyrannical regimes that humiliate and oppress women llke the courageous author of the above article; while trashing the culture that offers her and others like her freedom and opportunity she has never known.
But that's one of the more ironic aspects of freedom, isn't it? You are free to make bad choices and behave stupidly.
"I am neutral on the Miers nomination." That was the option closest to my position, which is really, "I don't care about the Miers nomination.".If you have a blog and want to participate in the poll, then go to the link above!
OTOH, just for fun--you can find out how much your blog is worth. I did. And was amazed. I LOVE THESE KIND OF THINGS! (It's my inner child expressing herself...)Check it out here (hat tip: Who Tends the Fires). Here are my results:
Next morning, I got information from the Army that there had been 19 attacks on polling sites throughout Iraq, and in January there had been 108. There may be some garble in the numbers (there usually is). There had actually been somewhere between 300 and 350 total attacks on the January election day. And the army would later say that there were 89 total attacks during the voting last week. Who knows? I know that it was quiet from my perch, and that the guns had been silenced long enough that we could hear the Iraqi voice speak for a second time. The voice was louder, stronger, and prouder than it had been in January.
Read the entire article.
1. He probably knows more about how to make people hungry than anyone. Why should anyone be shocked or amazed at anything the UN does anymore?
2. Next we will have an in-depth report about his garbage. OTOH -- maybe this is just more "staged" news?
3. And speaking of that, the press should be outraged at this staged event.
4. Does the term "child abuse" mean anything to people like this? How about the term "ironic"? Or "religion of peace"?
5. Captain Ed has a great way to keep your sanity these days. But these poor people are truly suffering!
6. Democratic operatives are invisible to the MSM.
7. Piglet and Pooh reprieved!
8. Of course, the best debunking would be to ask her if she said it or not.
9. Oh, right. They always tell the truth.
10. Just what the world needs: more hallucinating, sleep-deprived people!
11. A quasi-totalitarian feminist state. That's something to look forward to as the feminist movement gets weirder and weirder.
13. Aiming for the penis is probably a good strategy.
14. Underwear confined to the dustbin of history? Phew!
15. Karma? Divine Justice? Irony? Coincidence? You decide.
16. Simpsons in the Middle East? [Omar: (to himself) Mmmmm. Kahk]...no telling what impact this piece of virulent American culture will have! Hope they don't have a cow, man.
17. I suspect that Hilary will think this is fantastic. If I were as paranoid as those who despise Karl Rove, I might even think she put Cindy up to it!
18. Paganism is back! But the prisons draw the line at nudity. Magazines don't, however!
19. Top PETA comic book titles!
20. Ahhh. The pleasures of autumn!
21. The Headmistress is really tough on those who suffer from idle pity.
22. I love my Ipod, but this seems a bit over the top.... (did you know you can buy a Kate Spade or Gucci cover for the darn thing?)
23. Saying what needs to be said about psychotic professors of any color.
The evil within men's souls (and women's, of course) hides behind many different masks. Here is an example of the darkest and most depraved side of human nature masquerading as comedy.
Your mask is slipping, Mr. Franken. If you take it completely off, even you will be able to see how much in common you have with Mr. Zarqawi.
(H/T The Anchoress)
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Thank goodness for real journalists like Claudia Rosett who--if there were any justice in the world-- would be the recipient of both the Pulitzer prize for reporting, and the the Nobel Prize for Peace. Her persistance and courage in sticking with a story that will have the farthest-reaching consequences of any in our time is incredible.
Just think for a minute about what the UN Oil for Food Scandal tells us about the world body that the Left has entrusted with its hopes and dreams for world peace. Just note for a moment the lack of interest of most MSM news outlets in this story. Just read the link above to see how Rosett has uncovered connections between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the UN.
People died and the UN lied. People starved, and the UN let them; while pocketing blood money from Saddam. Where are the protestors? Where is ANSWER? Where is the Left? Where is Kos (well, at least we know where the last two are--chortling hysterically about their eagerly anticipated early "Fitzmas" but just a wee bit anxious that they may only get a lump of coal)
The UN has really raised the bar for future generations by taking corruption and greed to unimaginable levels; while at the same time excelling in the category of cynical and self-serving rhetoric. Never in the history of the world has there ever been an organization--ostensibly devoted to the pursuit of peace-- that has encouraged and enabled so much of the opposite.
There is no question that the world would be a far better place without the UN and its leeches sucking it dry. Nobel Peace Prize for El Baradei and the UN? Surely that must be one of the biggest jokes in human history.
The UN is the REAL scandal of our times.
He was referring to the fact that a woman who claimed that President Bush had said that rich people shouldn't pay taxes. When he questioned her further, it turned out that she believed the top 1% of rich people pay only 1-2% of total taxes in the U.S.
For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.
People should know this. Even if you live in Seattle.
Yes. People should know a lot of things. But they don't.
For instance, I just recently bought a new Special Edition DVD for my family of "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" - a comedy that I enjoyed wholeheartedly back in the 80's when it came out. In particular, I really liked the first segment in which a tired old insurance company in an old building with old people slaving away is suddenly taken over by the old people who then become pirates and sail away with the building to capture brand, spanking new companies. Then and now, I thought it was a clever idea, brilliantly executed.
My mistake was in buying the "Special Edition", where we have hours of commentary about all aspects of the film. Because I liked that initial segment a lot, I decided to listen to Terry Gilliam discuss how it was made and offer his insights.
Well--just like the intrusive man and woman at Larry Elder's dinner party--he certainly offered his "insight". In the middle of talking about some of the technical aspects and problems that occurred when he directed that portion of the film, quite gratuitously he started talking about how it all tied into "making up stories about WMD" and "sending young people off to fight in wars" etc. etc. etc.
There I was, right in the middle of my own living room, watching a film from the 80's and suddenly listening to a diatribe against current American foreign policy. Like Elder, initially I simply let it pass. Living in Ann Arbor, I am quite used to such Bush hatred suddenly popping up in the most benign conversations. (Example: "Oh, Pat! Have you tried this new flavor of ice cream yet?" "No, not yet." "Well, that simpering bushchimphitler would probably prevent you from enjoying it if he could.")
But Gilliam persisted in tying the theme of people rising against an autocratic system that abused them to the Iraq war. So I stopped the video.
But I wondered. What in heaven's name had he thought he'd been saying all those years ago when he actually wrote and directed the scene? I had seen it as a triumph of human freedom and dignity. The feeble old men taking on the young men was a clever way of generalizing the quest for freedom to all of humanity. Or so I thought.
Obviously, Gilliam had been going not for the broader implications, but only for the superficial; the anticapitalistic, Marxist-style oppression/oppressed class struggle theme. That was his narrowed view of the world, and meaning of life--nothing more.
And beyond that, I realized, that he believed that the Islamofascists we are fighting in Iraq today--who celebrate death and wish to destroy individual freedom-- were like the oppressed old people in the faded insurance company. Why shouldn't they take arms against us and use whatever means they had at hand to try to destroy us?
Sad to say, After hearing the reflexive Leftist talking points spouted so naturally and effortlessly by Gilliam, I will never be able to appreciate the abstract meaning of Python's antics (anti-authoritarian, subversive, piratical nonsense that celebrates freedom and life) in quite the the same way again.
Like Elder, I too am disappointed that people can be so incredibly ill-informed...and so foolishly concrete in the way they view the world and the meaning of life.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Let me recommend the Shakespearean Insult Generator!
It will ratchet up the level of invective and gives even the most inappropriate ad hominem argument a touch of class. The best thing about it is that most people or groups on which the insult is used will recognize they've been insulted, but won't be sure exactly what you've said about them! So you'll be laughing while they're trying to find a dictionary so they can figure out how to respond!
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
A Sketch History of U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East: The Overthrow of Mossadegh
The Glittering Eye
The Counterterrorism Blog Looks Into the Face of Evil Gates of Vienna
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
Iraqis Preparing to Decide... Iraq the Model
Second Place (A three-way tie!)
Steps to Limited Government The QandO Blog
Chemical Weapons, Drug Smuggling, and Other Crimes of the Yemeni Dictator
Armies of Liberation
Andrew Bostom: The Legacy of Jihad RedState.org
These are all great posts and highly recommended! Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site!
Oh, and one more thing - THERE IS A COUNCIL SEAT UP FOR GRABS! So, if you are interested, go here and follow the instructions for applying. Good Luck!
The fundamental feature of the United Nations is its policy of opening membership non-judgmentally to all nations--whether free or oppressive, peaceful or belligerent. This is upheld as the UN's central virtue and a vital means to peace. Admitting blatantly tyrannical regimes, proponents say, creates opportunities for "dialogue" and rehabilitation. As Kofi Annan explains, the very fact that such "non-democratic states" sign on "to the UN's agenda opens an avenue through which other states, as well as civil society around the world, can press them to align their behavior with their commitments."
But UN membership did not prevent the USSR (a founding member) from herding its citizens into gulags and forced-labor camps, murdering untold numbers of them, and invading other states; nor China from crushing under its military boot pro-freedom demonstrators and peaceful ideological dissenters; nor Iran and Saudi Arabia from infusing Islamist terrorist groups with abundant financial means and the ideological zeal to wage jihad against the West.
The UN's policy of neutrality accomplishes precisely the opposite of its putative effect; it actually protects and bolsters vicious regimes.
Participation in the UN confers on them an unearned moral legitimacy. That the leaders of such regimes are routinely invited to speak before the UN rewards them with an undeserved respectability. So it was with Fidel Castro: his self-justifying UN speech after seizing power in Cuba elicited rapturous applause. He was raised to the dignity of statesman -- a man who deals in reasoned argument -- despite being a totalitarian ruler who brutally silences dissidents. And the unwarranted recognition of arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat as a statesman arguably began when he first spoke at the United Nations in 1974. Though such men attain and hold power by force, though they preach murderous ideologies, though they devastate the lives of their subjects -- the United Nations unfastidiously endorses them and their regimes.
The United Nations thus gives them a means to entrench their power.
Is it any wonder that the once noble vision and hope that led to the formation of the UN has now evolved into a "League of Looters" that plunders the goodwill and prosperity of productive and free nations and rewards those led by despots and tyrants?
Well, live and learn.
The time has come to dissolve the UN and accept it was a terrible, horrible mistake that has increased world suffering and become the biggest impediment to the spread of Freedom around the world.
If idealists still exist after watching the UN debacle unfold over the last half century, then I would suggest that the next time around, membership should be restricted to those countries that demonstate a committment to real freedom for their citizens--and not the "Jimmy Carter" kind of country that pretends to have democratic elections so some despot can get the former President's approval and high fives from other tyrants in key UN positions.
What is needed is a League of Freedom to promote and encourage democratic and free institutions around the world.
League of Looters versus League of Freedom. A real no-brainer.
Poor Saddam Hussein!
Poor Saddam Hussein!
Night and day
He pines away! Oh, poor Saddam Hussein!
All day long he thinks about the time when he was the number one;
Doesn't rest; Doesn't eat;
Doesn't have much fun!
Poor Saddam Hussein!
Poor Saddam Hussein!! His WMD was fantasy;
Oh, poor Saddam Hussein!
Just because he killed some Kurds
He not as bad as neo-nerds!
It was an illegal war...! He really still is quite a star!!
So enter a “ Not Guilty” plea,
We're on your side, we hope you see!
Bush is evil, he will pay. Pounding pounding in our brain.
Saddam's just misunderstood—as proof, we offer "Plame"...
The Name of Plame is making me Insane!
By George, indict them! I said indict them!
Now, once again what is her name?
It is Plame! It is Plame!
And who's mentioned that name?
Our bane! Our bane! (now, what’s his name?)
The name of Plame will make the Right insane!
The name of Plame will make the Right insane!
In Halubja, Haditha and Harvard...?
...Terrorism hardly happens!
How kind of you to use my name!
Now once again, what is her name?
It is Plame! It is Plame!
And who's whispering her name?
Karl, our bane! Our bane!
The Name of Plame Makes Everyone Insane!
**SPECULATION ALERT** Is it just a coincidence that“Saddam Hussein” happens to rhyme with "Plame"? I don't think so....
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Great lede: “The big irony to savor at the center of the Valerie Plame case is that everything everyone thinks they know about Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation has been leaked.”
Also: “ Where would the president's critics be without anonymous and classified disclosures from CIA analysts, diplomats, and military officers unhappy with the president's policy? Without these intelligence leaks the public would never have learned that, say, Ahmad Chalabi allegedly fooled the entire American intelligence community into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, was a leaker when he, acting anonymously, shared his story of a secret trip to Niger with the New Republic. A whole literature devoted to demonizing the neoconservatives is at risk.”
And: “The editor of the trade publication, Editor & Publisher, Greg Mitchell, called for the New York Times to fire Ms. Miller, complaining that he found it hard to believe Ms. Miller could not remember who told her the name "Valerie Flame," as she wrote in her notebook. Let's get this straight. The editor of a publication devoted to covering newspapers is angry that a reporter didn't disclose enough of her confidential sources to a grand jury in a criminal prosecution.”
One more: “Mr. Wilson also said that Mr. Cheney authorized his trip to Niger and therefore the vice president knew that it was false to claim Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Based on the accounts of reporters Ms. Miller and Matthew Cooper, it appears that if there was a mention of Mr. Wilson's wife by Messrs. Rove or Libby, it was an effort not to burn an official at the Central Intelligence Agency but to correct Mr. Wilson's own misstatement about Mr. Cheney's knowledge of his secret mission.”
Read all of Lake's piece (and check out The Corner sometime, too). Of course, such hypocrisy has been the staple of the MSM for some years now. Seeing it burst full-bloom in the Plame case only tells us that they smell blood; and like any other mindless beast, are ready to finish the kill.
Makes you kinda hope the blood they smell is their own.
"When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, there was not a single Arab who did not express the opinion that it was a despicable, mean [act] contrary to humanist values. They are right about this. But these people swiftly forgot their humanism and sealed their lips when the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi declared war against the Shi'ites in Iraq, and began to dispatch his booby-trapped soldiers to blow themselves up among children, women, and the elderly. None of those [who denounced the Abu Ghraib scandal] uttered a word and none shed a tear for the hundreds and thousands of Iraqis being murdered and whose bodies are being mutilated.
"The first to denounce [the Abu Ghraib scandal] were the Americans themselves, who thought that the acts of some of their soldiers distorted the image of the U.S. and served as a mark of shame...
"But don't the Arabs feel an even greater sense of shame when some of them kill and massacre Iraqi citizens? Don't the rest [of the people] feel pangs of conscience when they try to come up with excuses and justifications for the murderers and criminals whom they call the 'resistance?' How can someone outraged at the torture of or disrespect for another person be silent and ignore [Al-Zarqawi's] declaration of the [program of] extermination of millions of people because of their sectarian affiliation?
"How is one to [describe] the Arab silence [in general] and the Sunni [silence] in particular in light of the murder of Shi'ite Iraqis and their intimidation in the most despicable and base of ways?... After all, the murderers declare their positions publicly, brag about them, and consider them Jihad for the sake of Allah. [Even] if what has happened does not stir up the regular Arab citizen – who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded – how is one to explain [this same position when it is adopted by] politicians and members of the media?"
Not only is this a good question to ask the Sunnis and Arabs in general, but it is a really excellent question to put to the clueless protestors of ANSWER and their ilk, who reflexly condemn the U.S. military and curiously never seem to be bothered by the savagery of the enemy that our military are fighting.
Is it possible that they still think of them as Michael Moore's "minutemen", valiently fighting for freedom in Iraq? Just to remind you, here is what Moore said:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win....I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle...the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
To Mr. Moore and the Left: The Revolution has happened--you just can't see it. It happened in January when the Iraqi people voted on a provisional government. It happened this month when they voted for a new constitution. It is happening now, as they put their former president and sadistic dictator on trial for the murder of thousands of his own citizens.
How can it be that you missed these momentous events?
I can only conclude that like the "regular Arab citizen" (described by Omran Salman in the article above), "who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded": the American Left is also suffering from the effects of an indoctrination so pervasive that it has blinded them to the events of the real world.
They scream about the evil of Abu Ghraib over and over, but are completely unmoved by the ongong barbarism perpetrated against innocent Iraqis by Zarqawi and his thugs.
They rail against the Bushchimpeyhitler, while ignoring the fact that one of the most savage and brutal dictators in the world is going on trial for his crimes against humanity.
They say they want a revolution, but are unable to recognize one--when it is for democracy and freedom anyway-- zs it stares them in the face and reverberates around the world.
They whine about how Christian and Jewish symbols must be excluded from our schools to keep them pure; but introduce an Islamic curriculum ok'd by CAIR to promote "diversity" and "tolerance".
They harp on the religious right and it "oppresssion" in the US; but seem willfully blind about the religious oppression done all over the world in the name of Islam.
To paraphrase our Bahraini journalist and the pseudoprophetic Mr. Moore: Are they unable to feel the shame and disgrace of their carefully orchestrated and selective outrage? Their silence about the deaths and atrocities committed by Al-Qaeda in the name of Islam make it doubtful that either God or the Iraqi people will forgive them in the end.
The following points were made by Weldon by those who heard it on TV (and these are tentative until I can find the official link!):
1. Weldon has a new witness, with a sterling reputation, who claims that Able Danger data still exists.
2. Weldon stated that Wolfe Blitzer claims that the DIA told him that Lt. Col Shaffer was having an affair with someone in Weldon's office. Weldon is demanding to know who gave Blitzer that information.
3. Weldon is suggesting apparantly that the DIA is atively attempting to discredit Shaffer. Besides the above gossip that was passed to Blitzer; the DIA apparently sent Shaffer some boxes "personal" belonging gathered after his security clearance was recinded. These "belongings" included $500 of government property, including government pens (remember that Shaffer was accused of stealing government pens as a justification for his security clearance suspension) and even classified memos!
4. Weldon is demanding an investigation into all this, or he will resign from Congress.
I have not been able to find a link to Weldon's speech yet either on his own site, or elsewhere, but will post it when its available. All the information I
have was sent to me by two people who listened to the speech on C-Span.
Able Danger remains extremely interesting. In a previous post on this subject, I said:
This story is just slowly getting more and more interesting. There are powerful forces at work here trying to hold it back. From that alone we can estimate its importance.
Like Weldon, I would like to get to the bottom of these powerful forces trying to hold it back. In fact, my first "loose association" when I learned of these latest revelations, coming after I have been reviewing the CIA's (or at least a portion of that Agency) aggressive attempts since 9/11 to undermine the Bush Administration and selectively leak information to a gullible press (who will print anything that is detrimental to Bush), was how completely screwed up the priorities of our intelligence agencies seem to be.
What precisely is going on here? Someone, somewhere in the executive and/or oversight legislative branch needs to get them under some control and all working on the same page. I can live without knowing all the national security secrets that are entrusted to these people every day in the course of their work.
But, what I can't live with is being continually manipulated by the selective release of information for purposes that undermine our government and country--especially in a time of war.
Bush Derangement Syndrome may have infected some of the analysts committed to the previous administration. If that's the case, then it's well past time to clean out all those closets, I think. If it's something deeper, or even uglier-than-usual politics, then those closets need to be cleaned AND disinfected.
UPDATE: The Strata-Shpere and Michelle Malkin have lots more! For all the details, go there. Here is a UPI article on the call for a new probe.