Saturday, November 05, 2005

REWRITING HISTORY

If the Democrats have their way, history will be rewritten and they will be absolved of taking any responsibility for having bad thoughts about Saddam Hussein from the late Clinton years up to and includine the days before the Iraq war. Here's Jonah Goldberg:

Meanwhile, the Democrats cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war - except in that they believed Bush's "lies." But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility that the very same intelligence that prompted Clinton to bomb Iraq also informed Bush's decision to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that, after 9/11, the argument over WMDs wasn't the best - never mind the sole - argument for toppling Saddam but the easiest one.

"Never again" was the new rule after 9/11, and - after ousting the Taliban - Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: "Regime change" became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002. Post-9/11, where would you start?

But the Democrats don't care. They don't care about all the previous investigations or that the planet is watching this spectacle. Or that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America's role in the world. Heck, Howard Dean is recycling the charges in fundraising letters. They don't care that Iraq is poised to become either one of America's greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies and scalps.

But does anyone doubt that if there were no insurgency, with Iraq as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bi-partisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about "nation-building" all along?


The truth is that the Democrats don't care much about anything except their Bush hatred these days. Hugo Chavez and his paranoid rants would make an excellent Democratic National Committee Chair (well, perhaps not much better than the delusional person already there).

Let me make a prediction. The Democrats can bask all they want in the glow of flawed Bush popularity polls and riots in South America protesting the President and the U.S., but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the march of history. Soon they will have only the most bizarre and extreme of American politics as their constituency (yes, even more so than today).

Freedom, Democracy, and the free markets that thrive within them are on the move, and you are either for them, or you are against them. The Democrats are hoping to hedge their bets and are trying to rewrite history now. My prediction is that when they lose the whole enchilada--assuming they still exist as a coherent political party--they will be trying to rewrite history to take credit for freedom's success.

Because, you see, they are not actually capable of participting in history real-time; making the hard decisions that change the world for the better; and sticking with a set of principles that support and enable the good-- they can only rewrite the past and try to make it fit whatever agenda they happen to have at the moment.

Friday, November 04, 2005

The Mark of the MSM

"OTHERS HAVE DIED FOR MY FREEDOM. NOW THIS IS MY MARK."-Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr

Cori Dauber at Rantingprofs commenting on this story followed by Michelle Malkin:

If I were a representative of the mainstream press, the fact that soldiers were going off to war leaving behind insurance papers, wills, and letters to be released to the press in case their feelings about the war were misrepresented in the event of their deaths would really hit me hard. Everyone said that all the mutual distrust that had grown up between the military and the press over Vietnam and since Vietnam (wherever you lay blame for that) had been, to a large part, erased thanks to the embedding of journalists during the combat phase.

Clearly the honeymoon's over.
Emphasis mine.

Cori's statement (especially the sentence highlighted) did hit me hard. With all the worries and responsibilities of the modern soldier, can you just imagine having to leave a letter behind to make sure you are not misrepresented in the event of your death in the American press?

It is an eloquent statement of how disgustingly low the MSM has sunk in their tireless efforts to undermine the Iraq war.

Others are dying for our freedom, and this is the "mark" the mainstream media chooses to make.

UPDATE: I almost forgot to mention that the "moral authority" of Cpl Starr's family should at least be as great as Mama Sheehan's, shouldn't it? Shouldn't it? Anyone?....

THE CIRCLE IS COMPLETE

Cindy Sheehan and Hugo Chavez - A Match Made in Heaven...or Hell

The Jesse-Cindy-Hugo Circle is complete. Now, who was it that was demanding that I "name names" when speaking of "Marxists" and "Leftists" who routinely fan the flames of Marxist "class warfare" and blame the U.S. for every evil in the world?

It's certainly a strange request to somehow prove that there is a "Left" and that the Left has totally merged with radical Marxist ideology and abandoned classical liberal values-- particularly when their leaders are on the news every day championing any anti-American cause they can find. These clowns are everywhere.

Some of those leaders are even in the U.S. Congress.

A few are even hoping to win the Democratic bid to run for the next President of the U.S.

UPDATE: The Left and its marxist/socialist/communist minions are merely one serious illness afflicting humanity at the moment. Another, co-occurring and potentially lethal virus is described by Victor Davis Hanson in his column today.

Meanwhile, Westerners far too rarely publicly denounce radical Islam for its sick, anti-Semitic, anti-female, anti-American, and anti-modernist rhetoric. Just imagine the liberal response if across the globe Christians had beheaded schoolgirls, taken over schoolhouses to kill students, and shot school teachers as we have witnessed radical Muslims doing these past few months.

Instead, Western parlor elites are still arguing over whether there were al Qaedists in Iraq before the removal of Saddam Hussein, whether the suspicion of WMDs was the real reason for war against the Baathists, whether Muslim minorities should be pressured to assimilate into European democratic culture, and whether constitutional governments risk becoming intolerant in their new efforts to infiltrate and disrupt radical Muslim groups in Europe and the United States. Some of this acrimony is understandable, but such in-fighting is still secondary to defeating enemies who have pledged to destroy Western liberal society. At some point this Western cannibalism becomes not so much counterproductive as serving the purposes of those who wish America to call off its struggle against radical Islam.

Most Americans think that our present conflict is not comparable with World War II, in either its nature or magnitude. Perhaps — but they should at least recall the eerie resemblance of our dilemma to the spread of global fascism in the late 1930s.

At first few saw any real connection between the ruthless annexation of Manchuria by Japanese militarists, or Mussolini’s brutal invasion of Ethiopia, or the systematic aggrandizement of Eastern-European territory by Hitler. China was a long way from Abyssinia, itself far from Poland. How could a white-supremacist Nazi have anything in common with a racially-chauvinist Japanese or an Italian fascist proclaiming himself the new imperial Roman?

In response, the League of Nations dithered and imploded (sound familiar?). Rightist American isolationists (they’re back) assured us that fascism abroad was none of our business or that there were conspiracies afoot by Jews to have us do their dirty work. Leftists were only galvanized when Hitler finally turned on Stalin (perhaps we have to wait for Osama to attack Venezuela or Cuba to get the Left involved).


Read it all.

THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN !

This week's winners in the Watcher's Council are now posted at the Watcher of Weasels. Every week the Council nominates posts from the blogs of the Council members, and posts from around the blogsphere. The Council then votes to select the "Best" of all these posts.

BEST COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

Wilson-CIA Cover Up? The Strata-Sphere

Second Place (A two-way tie!!)

Command Hallucinations Dr. Sanity

Egypt and the Copts: "Kith and Kin" Gates of Vienna


BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:

First Place

And Another Thing Cathy's World

Second Place

The Cicero Articles Winds of Change


Be sure to check out all the winners at the Watcher's site. It makes for great weekend reading!

Parisian Insurgency



Police arrest some young freedom fighters engaged in the violent insurgency in Paris suburbs. *


*[/sarcasm]
Seriously, what is going on in France is quite shocking and frightening. Check out the devastation documented in the photos at the link. This rioting has been going on for seven days now, presumably because Muslims there are unhappy about their economic situation.

This does not bode well for France (10% Muslim population; and which already provides cradle to grave benefits to everyone) or most of the rest of Europe, which has a significant population of Muslim immigrants.

Is it going to be Civilization versus Islam, after all?

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Any Minute Now

Is anyone going to demand an investigation on who leaked this obviously classified information? Doesn't it put lives of actual undercover CIA operatives currently in the field at risk?

And, what does Carter know and when did he know it?

I assume the Left will be all over this outrageous breach of national security....

Any minute now.

SISTERHOOD


Miss Mabrouk of Egypt (via The Anchoress) alerts us to a multimedia presentation dedicated to the women of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Jordan, and Egypt. Photos are by Amir Normandi and here are three of them--go check out the others.

IS JUSTICE BEING SERVED?

Please read this Investor's Business Daily article:

If stealing and destroying secret documents, stuffing them into your pants and then lying about it isn't a crime worthy of jail time, why is having a different recollection of events than Tim Russert?
If the charges swirling around Scooter Libby — that he deceived those investigating a crime for which he was not charged — seem familiar, they should. Not long ago Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted, not of insider trading in a suspiciously timed stock sale, but of deceiving investigators into a crime for which she was not charged.
In both cases, is justice being served? Or are the prosecutors just trying to justify the time and money spent failing to prove that those charged committed the alleged crime?


I heard Howard Dean on FoxNews opining that this, "lying and perjury and obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and must be taken seriously." He alluded to Clinton's conviction for lying and perjury. He seemed to think the cases were similar.

They are not. Clinton's crime was lying and perjury. He admitted his guilt, was convicted, and lost his law license--among other things.

The crime that Fitzgerald was investigating in the recent case was presumably "outing" a secret agent. No such crime was committed (no matter what the lefties claim). Yet, Libby was indicted for lying to the Grand Jury but not indicted for outing Plame. AND--although he has been tried and convicted by the likes of Howard Dean and the gormless Dems, Libby has not been convicted; and in fact, today plead not guilty. To this day, we have heard only one side of the allegations; and that is the prosecuting attorney's side.

Last time I looked, this was still the U.S.--where a person is innocent until proven guilty.

THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY OF TODAY'S LEFT

NOTE: This will be a rather long post. Just warning you!

Yesterday there was a memorial service in Detroit for Rosa Parks, the civil rights pioneer whose courageous actions sparked an entire movement that was long overdue in a country dedicated to freedom and human dignity.

Watching the service and listening to several people who spoke to honor this incredible woman to whom all Americans owe a great debt, got me thinking back to those days when I was a young, idealistic student and an avid supporter of the civil rights movement and the women’s movement.

The Left of today is considerably different from the liberal Left that I became acquainted with during my college years in the late 60’ and early 70’s. At that time, although I disagreed with many of my fellow students about their methods, I could still completely relate to the underlying idealism and desire to improve the world. Back then, the Left was attuned to the values of classical liberalism—freedom; equal opportunity; the rights of the individual. The Left, at that moment in history was compelled to go beyond mere rhetoric and act to promote the liberal ideals and values they espoused. That is when the Civil Rights movement went mainstream in American society. And, even thought there were undercurrents of the ideological rigidity that was to come later, the Left could be proud of the results of that movement.

Those glory days when the Left believed in freedom and individuality; and that the content of one’s character was more important than the color of one’s skin-- are long gone. Nowadays it seems that the Left only pretends to believe in those values and feels it necessary to mouth the words.

But my observation is that today’s Left pretty much stands for nothing—not freedom, not equal opportunity; not individual rights; not even peace. Trying to right the wrongs and injustices of the world is truly ethical and noble goal, but something happened on the road to that beautiful utopia. The Left made a wrong turn and got lost--somewhere in the vicinity of Vietnam, I think.

But I’m not going to rehash Vietnam again. Instead, I’m going to focus on the behavior of today’s Left and antiwar movement.

At this very moment, every issue supported by the Left, and almost all of the behavior exhibited by the Left is completely antithetical to classical liberal philosophies. There is no longer a commitment to personal liberty or to freedom. The Left is far too busy to promote freedom for the common man or woman, because their time is taken up advocating freedom for tyrants who oppress the common man; terrorists who kill the common man; and religious fanatics who subjugate the common woman.

The intellectuals who once promoted the IDEA of freedom, now are ensnared in an IDEOLOGY that depends for its very existence on the silencing of speech; the suppression of ideas; and the persecution of those who dare to refute its tenets.

Patriotism and love of one’s country is mocked by those who once fought to bring the American Dream to all American citizens; and who once championed those who were prevented from sharing in that Dream. Slowly and inexorably those idealists who once shouted, “we shall overcome,” morphed into a toxic culture promoting a never-ending victimhood that cannot possibly be overcome. Love of American ideals and values was transformed into the most perverse and vile anti-Americanism –where all things originating or “tainted” as American are uniquely bad; and where America became the source of all evil in the world.

The classical liberal tradition is now almost exclusively upheld by what are called “conservatives”. Once “liberal” was synonymous with the “left”. No longer.

What we have witnessed over the 30- 45 years since the Left ascended to dominate political thought in the mid 20th century, is its rapid and unprecedented decline into wholesale intellectual and moral bankruptcy. The noble values and ideals they once stood for have been abandoned; and almost as if a surreal cosmic joke was being played on them, they have—without even noticing!-- embraced the exact opposite of what they once stood for.

Where once they stood for freedom; they now enable dictatorships and apologize for tyrants. Where once they sought to bring justice to the world; they now defend horrific acts of mass murder and enslavement. Where once they rightly demanded equal opportunity, they have embraced all kinds of racial quotas and discriminatory practices and demand equality of outcome. Where once they sought to empower the weak; they are now instrumental in maintaining and expanding their victimhood.

After all, how can you be a “champion of the oppressed” unless you maintain and nurture an oppressed class that will always require your services to help them?

This rather obvious fact, of course, goes a long way to explaining the rather peculiar attitude that the Left has toward any members of its various victim groups who actually escape victimhood and become successful, achieving and independently thinking adults! The previously altruistic and idealistic worldview is now merely a narcissistic one—and a malignantly narcissistic one at that—wholly preoccupied with the possession and retention of power for an elite few.

What was once a concern that equal opportunity be afforded to all members of our society has run amok and is now a shrill, insistent demand that all outcomes be exactly equal... or else.

Let me give an example of the transition from IDEA to IDEOLOGY; and this example will serve as my prototype argument of the modern Leftist model is applicable to all their identified “victim” or “oppressed” groups.

Once upon a time, the women’s Movement –and the civil rights movement stood up proudly to support and encourage their respective constituencies to stop being victims and to stand up for their rights under the law. They demanded equal opportunity under the law, because that was the promise of America.

For too long, that promise had been withheld from these groups. The idea was that women and blacks – and any minority—should enjoy the same basic freedoms and equal opportunity in a country that prided itself on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every individual. This was a very big idea-- a extremely important idea—because underneath it was the key proposition that all human beings regardless of their gender or color or religion or ethnic background should enjoy the blessings of our liberty and be free to pursue their happiness.

That idea, after all, represented the promise of America. It was one of the greatest tragedies of history that, in trying to find a way to compromise with the slaveholding states to form the Union, our Founding Fathers (with the exception of Ben Franklin) permitted slavery and allowed discrimination against women in a document that promoted "universal" human freedom and dignity. (It is interesting to observe similar problems in the negotiations going on with the emerging Iraq constitution).

In all fairness to those Founders—who were light-years ahead of their time—they at least left a way to amend those wrongs and the beginning of that process was the horrible Civil War that nearly destroyed the Union. The mid-20th century became the final intellectual battleground for righting both defects in the US application of its Constitution.

Since my own experience over the years has been primarily with the women’s movement , I will share my observations of that movement over the last 30+ years.

"I am woman, hear me roar--in numbers too big to ignore...." That was the motto then, and I was once proud to be a card-carrying feminist. That was when feminist intellectuals argued that women need NOT be victims; and feminist activists told all women to stand up and live up to the best within themselves; and insisted they be judged not on their gender, but on their merit and capabilities.

NOTE TO MODERN FEMINISTS: There is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the very same women’s movement that I supported back then was instrumental in mobilizing and encouraging women to reach for the stars. One small measure of the success of that movement is that most medical school classes today are 50% or greater composed of women! There is no systematic discrimination any more that keeps women out of medicine. Women are in every medical specialty. They have become presidents of universities and professional societies; deans of medical schools and chairwomen of departments. This is really wonderful. And these gains have been made in almost every profession and area of human endeavor.

The bad news is that the Feminist Movement never realized that the mission had been mostly accomplished. The women who want to become professionals--or do anything for that matter--can do it--including becoming wives and mothers if they choose. The war is won, but the Feminist Movement continues to battle on, oblivious to that fact.

The main justification for the existence of the women’s movement these days is to support and expand the cult of victimhood that they have created among women. Modern feminists have become the mother, once happy to nurture her child and help her leave the nest and go joyfully off to lead her own life; but now extremely bitter and resentful about the fact that her daughter doesn't need her anymore. Feminists have now dedicated their lives to convincing women that they really don't have any power; aren't capable of living and working equally among men; and encouraging them in demanding the "rights" that will ensure women who embrace their party line will be regarded by any person of reason and responsibility as complete losers and whiners.

Because today "feminists" (and today, I use the term with contempt) have a strict party line. Apparently, if you are not a Democrat, or more generally, a person on the left side of the political spectrum, then you are not a woman who counts. If Rosa Parks made a statement for freedom today, and (God help her) she was a...Republican, well, you know what would happen. The same thing that happened to Condi Rice and is happening to Michael Steele.

If you are the Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and happen to be a woman--and not only that, a black woman, you don't count (as either a woman or a black). If you are a Republican nominee for the Judiciary and a woman—you don’t count.

In fact, it turns out that if you happen to disagree with them on any issue you don’t count and are instantly labeled a traitor to your gender; and their most vile and derogatory remarks are reserved especially for you.

Indeed, the Feminist Movement of today is a bizarre parody of the women's movement that once supported and encouraged women like me back in the 70's. Like the mother I mentioned above, this group has now become outraged that I and others like me have excelled and dared to have my own ideas about how things should be in the world. Dared to disagree with them. Dared to grow up and live my own life.

Feminists today are not happy campers. In fact, as women advanced and made real progress and became less discriminated against; broke those glass ceilings etc., the feminists that once cheered them on became more and more shrill and irritable. Women’s success and achievement of equality of opportunity meant that the feminist movement itself was becoming irrelevant! That is when the rhetoric began to change. That is when the IDEA of freedom transformed into the IDEOLOGY of victimhood.

Where once they wanted to erase the real barriers that prevented women from being all they could be; now, the feminists demanded that reality itself must bow to their demands. They insist that real biological or physiological differences between women and men don’t exist and that to address these differences is blatant sexism. They have basically identified reality itself as one of the key “oppressors” of women.

To demonstrate their growing estrangement from reality, the American public was subjected to the ridiculous image of a feminist academic actually swooning at the mere mention of the possibility that such biological differences might play a role in women’s lives. You can't make such self-parody up.

Now I ask you. Haven't these women become totally irrelevant? And not only are they irrelevant, but they stand in the way of any real research, understanding, and progress that in the long-run might advance the cause of all women.

This is what happens when a movement transitions from IDEA to IDEOLOGY. And I submit that this basic progression can be seen in the Civil Rights movement; the Gay movement etc. etc.

Today’s Left and its antiwar clone army are reduced to reliance on mere Marxist rhetoric and tired, worn-out slogans that are trotted out in every circumstance and situation. They dare not face the real and pressing injustices of the world. No one can reason with them or even agree to disagree. They and they alone know the truth, and if you argue with them you are immediately labeled as a “racist”, or a “sexist”; or identified as “hurting poor people”, “hating blacks”, or “against women”. Every argument is defined in these terms. If they are the champions of “X”, then anyone who disagrees with them must hate/discriminate against “X.”

You hear this bullshit constantly. It is impossible to suggest that there are different ways to approach various social problems or societal “injustices”. Or that there are possibly more effective and less damaging approaches that the same old Marxist formulations.

It is useless to point out, for example, that trillions of dollars have already been spent on helping the poor and the disadvantaged in this country. What has resulted in the long run from that effort? We have given people fish to eat, but we haven’t taught them how to go fishing. And, as proof of that, we have the spectacle and pathos of New Orleans during Katrina; with the predictable reflexive response from the Left that, “George Bush hates black people.”

Perhaps--just perhaps-- it is the Left's own policies that “hate” and discriminate against black people? Perhaps it is their victimization of blacks that “keeps them in their places” and not the horrible "racial prejudices" of those awful Republicans. Maybe it is the Marxist ideology that has stripped them of all capacity for thoughtful analysis and that forces them to think only in terms of “oppressed” versus “oppressor”, Whatever, their brains are so limited, they cannot conceive of any other way to view the situation.

Well, I have news for them. There are those of us who view the situation differently and who think that we should try some new approaches to these old, enduring problems. And, SUPRISE! We are not "evil oppressors." Indeed, we rightfully think of ourselves as liberators; our goals are empowerment of the individual and a decrease in the power of the maternalistic/paternalistic state.

And we are the real freedom-fighters of this world.

Someday, it will occur to someone that the Left has not had a single new idea for over half a century and that none of the “great” programs they have created have actually worked. Yet they guard those programs jealously, afraid of any new ideas or approaches that might make them have doubts in their precious ideology.

Instead of reducing poverty, they have created a class of people dependent on the government for their survival and thus they ensure continuing poverty—even through the generations. Motivation is destroyed. Self-respect is trashed. Victimhood and passivity become a way of life whose worse aspects are glorified in the music and culture of the newly created welfare class.

This is social justice?

No. This is the inevitable outcome of Marxist theory in the real world. In spite of the catastrophic failures of applied Marxism in the 20th century to achieve the “ideal” society it espoused, the Left clings desperately to the ideology with which they bluffed their way into the American consciousness.

The twin children of Marxism—communism and socialism—have spawned the bloodiest and most sociopathic despots in world history, causing more death and human misery than at any other time in history. You would think that this abject failure on the part of their ideology when applied in the real world would have made them think twice. Au contraire.

Like Scarlet O’Hara, they won’t think about that today; they’ll think about it tomorrow when that great and glorious utopian vision will be imposed upon the world—and [of course] they will be in charge.

When confronted with the real evil that exists in the world, e.g..the reality of gays being tortured and murdered systematically in Islamic countries; or the reality of the oppression and humiliation of women; they recite facile multicultural and politically correct mantras that conveniently prevent them from making judgments about such behavior, or from having to take action to stop it.

Let’s face it. If feminists can adore Bill Clinton, even after Paula and Monica and all the sordid details; then it is only one small psychological step further down this path for them to embrace the institutionalized misogyny of Islam.

The sickness and bankruptcy of the Marxist ideology is such that, even an attack that kills 3000 of their fellow citizens is insufficient to awaken them to the enemy that wants to destroy us.

The enemy chose their targets well. You could almost say that they chose them to appeal to the Left. What better symbols of capitalism than the WTC towers? What better symbol of the supposed “imperialism” of the US than the Pentagon. It wasn’t long before the symbolism struck a responsive chord in the Left who joyfully and with great enthusiasm pointed out that the US “deserved” the attacks and that those who died were merely “little eichmanns”.

The Left’s fundamental intellectual and moral position is that they strongly feel that there is no basis for universal value judgments in any area of intellectual pursuit. Such judgments, they maintain, hurt other people’s feelings and aren't "inclusive." Diversity thus becomes their primary intellectual objective, not the pursuit truth. And morality becomes meaningless.

It is not at all paradoxical to these great minds of the Left that their intellectual position is itself a not-so-cleverly disguised value judgment. And, it goes without saying by the gurus of “diversity” that “being inclusive” doesn’t mean including anyone on their shit list (e.g., whites, males, capitalists, conservatives, neocons, Republicans, etc.)

It can be argued that the Right was the origin of most conspiracy theories a generation ago. This is fairly well-documented, and it occurred when the classical liberal tradition upon which this country was founded was primarily the focus of those on the Left. Times have changed.

It is now the Left that originates the conspiracy theories and requires a paranoid worldview to defend against recognizing the inadequacies and failures of their own ideology. The bizarrely paranoid theories about 9/11 are a case in point. Another is the delusional theory is that the levees in New Orleans were deliberately blown up. Or that the Iraq war is being fought to benefit the oil companies.

These theories all have one thing in common. They all perfectly fit into a discredited Marxist framework that thinks only in terms of the dialectical of "oppressed vs. oppressors". This framework allows them to continually fan the fires of class warfare and thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a remarkably convenient intellectual and moral tool for any group that doesn’t actually possess any solutions to real world problems.

In fact, this strategy is precisely at the heart of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Left today.

The use of paranoia (and its milder cousin, projection) and delusion can also be seen in the faux concerns about the “erosion of democracy and free speech”. This is plainly hilarious--particularly when it is their own ideological constructs of "multiculturalism" and "political correctness "that actively limits speech and makes a mockery of intellectual freedom.

Well, I must apologize for the length of this rant. But frankly, I have just about had it with the lies, distortions, denial, paranoia, delusion and vitriol that emanate from the Left these days. When events in the 20th century flung their ideology into the dustbin of history, the Left became just another toxic and imminent threat to humanity.

I honestly fear for my country if some of the more pathological of the Left species should obtain power while the base is still in the throes of a millennial psychosis.

My hope is that there are people on the Left, of goodwill and honesty, who are capable of genuine insight (Christopher Hitchens comes to mind) and who have not completely abandoned all rational thought and who are not willing to sacrifice millions in the quest for a new utopian age.

Neither the rational Right nor the rational Left have exclusive rights to Truth or Justice. But there was a time when both “conservative” and “liberal” shared the same classical values and ideas that together coalesced to form the promise of America—i.e., the promise of liberty for all.

We can again unite on this fundamental level--even if our approaches are different. We can return to those values; and together, we can keep America the beacon of freedom and the hope of a weary world.

UPDATE: This is exactly the kind of intellectual and moral bankruptcy I am talking about. The people who propagate this kind of attack are a disgrace. Just imagine, if you will, the incoherent rage that would ensue if the Republican party approved a reference to a Democratic candidate as "simple Sambo". Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

UPDATE II: [ 11/6/05] I have begun a series of posts on "PROFILES IN INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BANKRUPTCY", and will add to the chronicles from time to time, when the spirit moves me.

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Feel free to brouse and comment.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

The Religion of Hate; The Religion of Child Abuse

You won't believe this. MEMRI has the transcript of an Iranian animated film for children that promotes suicide attacks.

And these disgusting barbarians are outraged at some cartoons that depict Mohammed? According to Islam it is blasphemous to make images of the prophet. But clearly it is perfectly ok to make images that encourage your children to hate the Jews and to blow themselves and other innocents to smithereens.

In a cute little animated film.

Yup. A religion that teaches its children how noble it is to be a human bomb; to kill themselves so they can kill others.

If "peace" is defined as institutionalized hatred; and "love" as religiously sanctioned child abuse, then Islam can certainly be described as a Religion of peace and love.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, I find Rod Dreher's comment at The Corner about the Muslim riots in France very interesting:

I just watched a three-minute report on CNN about the Paris riots that never once mentioned the words "Islam" or "Muslims." It referred to the rioters merely as "ethnic immigrants." You cannot tell me this isn't on purpose.


Well, of course it is on purpose. See if you can come up with what that purpose might be.

"More Whoppers Than Burger King"

Max Boot in the LA Times:

'SCOOTER" LIBBY'S indictment was not exactly good news for the White House, but it could have been a lot worse. Feverish speculation had been building that Karl Rove would soon be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," as Valerie Plame's bombastic hubby, Joe Wilson, had hoped. Or even that Dick Cheney would have to resign.

But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime.

Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.


Read the rest.

I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of the distortions, innuendo, and outright lying--from Wilson and his handlers and promoters, in particular-- that is being lapped up by the MSM and regurgitated as "news".

Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi, the terrorist thug triumvirate, must be chortling with glee at the idiocy of the Left in this country.

Not Fit to Print

Jeff Jacoby's column today:

WHAT WAS the most important news out of Iraq last week?

That depends on what you consider ''important." Do you see the war against radical Islam and Ba'athist fascism as the most urgent conflict of our time? Do you believe that replacing tyranny with democratic self-government is ultimately the only antidote to the poison that has made the Middle East so dangerous and violent? If so, you'll have no trouble identifying the most significant development in Iraq last week: the landslide victory of the new Iraqi Constitution.

The announcement on Oct. 25 that the first genuinely democratic national charter in Arab history had been approved by 79 percent of Iraqis was a major piece of good news. It confirmed the courage of Iraq's people and their hunger for freedom and decent governance. It advanced the US campaign to democratize a country that for 25 years had been misruled by a mass-murdering sociopath. It underscored the decision by Iraq's Sunnis, who had boycotted the parliamentary elections in January, to pursue their goals through ballots, not bullets. And it dealt a humiliating blow to the bombers and beheaders -- to the likes of Islamist butcher Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who earlier this year declared ''a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy" and threatened to kill anyone who took part in the elections.

No question: If you think that defeating Islamofascism, extending liberty, and transforming the Middle East are important, it's safe to say you saw the ratification of the new constitution as the Iraqi news story of the week.

But that isn't how the mainstream media saw it.


No, indeed. Anything good out of Iraq is not fit to print. Jacoby goes on to share with us how the MSM saw it, so read the entire article.

And, if you want to know how our soldiers view the coverage of the Iraq war, then you need to check out the video and transcript of two American soldiers responding to a CNN question about how they think the war is being portrayed by the media:

LINDNER: But, uh, we did watch the news when we were back in Baghdad, and we had AFN, and we were able to watch CNN, but I don't know that they always had it right, and I don't know that it's anybody's fault, but for us, we understood our purpose for being there, and we just wanted to make a difference and have an impact, and we definitely did that. But it is kind of disheartening sometimes to see everything focused on just the, the death and destruction and the IED strikes and not focused on how well the U.S. and coalition forces are doing building up the Iraqi police services and the Iraqi army. It really is a tremendous effort being put into that infrastructure and building a self-sufficient government over there. And they're absolutely making progress.


Is the MSM listening? Do they care? DO WE CARE? Or, are our enemies correct about us?

Think Again

The posturing, anemnestic Democrats, currently in hysterics about Iraqi WMD intelligence and CIA leaks and the such, continue with their partisan [and I believe treasonous- as defined by giving aid and comfort to the enemies of our country]-- attempts to delude the American public into thinking that the Iraq war was all a plot by the Bush Adminsitration. It is too bad for them that historical documentation tells a completely different story, with a slightly different timeline: (read all of Reynold's piece)


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, November 10, 1999.

The anti-war fundraising base of the Democrats -- as exemplified by organizations like MoveOn.org -- is powerful enough to require Democratic politicians like Harry Reid to pretend that all the WMD stuff began with President Bush. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, a gross and partisan lie. (emphasis mine)

Not only that. It is a gross and partisan lie during a time of war. It is a deliberate attempt to undermine this country and its President for the sole purpose of regaining their own political power. National interests are way down on their list of priorities.

These posturing fools are the same dissemblers who champion the serially lying Joe Wilson; and who, after a decade of gleefully castrating the CIA and other intelligence services; now are desperately trying to cover up their own incompetence and pretend that they knew all along the hidden truth of all the intelligence.

Their self-righteous, narcissistic aggrandizement is thoroughly repulsive.

And while they are in the grip of this convoluted faux moral enlightenment they are are tying to push the unbelievable hogwash that Scooter Libby is evil incarnate for not confirming to reporters that Plame was a CIA agent (go ahead--actually read what Libby said as documented in the indictment).

All that is needed now to achieve an even more perfect moral duplicity is for them to raise the Clinton Administration's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger up as a symbol of the highest moral authority because his love of country and duty-- and that alone--led to his escapades in classified document theft and destruction during the 9/11 hearings.

The Democrats appear to base their entire set of operating principles firmly upon the famous con-artist perception of of the world: There's a sucker born every minute.

They better think again.

UPDATE: The Anchoress wonders if Bill Clinton lied about WMD--ince the intell came from his administration and since he also acted on it. EXCELLENT QUESTION. Let's ask it, shall we? Let's call in Mr. Clinton's NSA Berger and get to the bottom of this....oh, wait....

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Suicide is Painless

Excuse me if I remain unmoved by the plight of the detainees at Guantanamo. What is the point precisely of this article? (Except of course, to imply that there is horrible abuse going on there). Are they trying to suggest that the detainees are symbolically saying, "Give me liberty or give me death?"

Permit me to doubt. They made their choice. Now they will have to abide by the consequences. I personally don't think that they should be free to pursue their jihad. Let him make a suicide attempt at Guantanamo, rather than engaging in suicide-bombing elsewhere.

I spent quite a bit of time working at jails and prisons over my career, and the one thing you see there constantly is suicide attempts. There are many causes for why this happens. A big one is that a person's mental health tends not to improve in prison.

Another big one is that every prisoner likes the idea of being in a psychiatric hospital as opposed to a prison. Making a suicide gesture or even saying you are suicidal might just be the ticket to somewhere else.

Some inmates are genuinely mentally ill and require treatment. That's why people like me are brought in as consultants.

In this particular case, if the media goes wild over a purported "desecrated" Koran, maybe the suicide bit (remember that suicide is a viable strategy of jihad) can overexcite them again.

But "desperation" -- sorry, I don't buy it. Unless it is the usual desperation that humans experience when they have to face the consequences of their own choices.

Dossari's attempt was a serious one. I hope he gets the appropriate treatment. But prisons and jails all over the world are filled with pathetic people who have done terrible things and made extremely bad choices in their lives. One of the consequences of their terrible actions is that they must learn to live with what they've done. Suicide can be the easy way out in some cases.

It's sad that some people detained in Guantanamo are sad. I'm sad about it. But that doesn't mean that their human rights have been violated.

Or that they are poor helpless "victims" of circumstance.

I Wonder Why?

Has anyone noticed that Bush's job approval ratings are up? On October 31 they were at 45%.

Can't say that I noticed it being reported in the MSM....Gee, I wonder why?

Joe Wilson yesterday made the claim again that his wife had nothing to do with his being sent to Africa. This was not corrected in the MSM report about it. Gee. I wonder why?

Nick Kristof has written yet another column filled with readily checked facts (and Tom McGuire has checked them) but his own editor at the NY Times appears not to have done so. Gee. I wonder why?

The other day, Tony Snow on Bill Maher's show said that the Senate Intelligence Committee had concluded in its report of the matter that "honest Joe" Wilson had lied about his trip to Niger and his findings-and Snow said it to a completely amazed Bill Maher, who was not aware that such a report existed. Gee. I wonder why?

Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Gary Bauer and couldn't seem to understand why the White House would "drag Wilson's wife into the Niger case" ! Gee. I wonder why?

Why do you suppose that none of this information is widely known--not even to those in the news media who are tasked with the responsibility of digging up the facts and keeping the public aware of what is going on?

Do the words "agenda driven", "incompetent", "clueless", "tunnel-visioned", "Bush hating", "completely blind and deaf to the truth" and "in complete denial" suggest any possible motivations to you?

More Threats From the Religion of Peace and Tolerance

From an entertainment news site (hat tip: OBloodyHell)

Islamic Radical Threatens Omar Sharif
Veteran actor Omar Sharif has been threatened with death on an Arab website that often contains messages from al-Qaeda. The Italian news agency Adnkronos International, which closely monitors Arabic media, said that the writer of the message objected to comments made by the actor about his role as St. Peter in a two-part Italian miniseries that aired last week. Sharif, who was born a Christian but converted to Islam when he married an Egyptian film actress in the 1950s, said that after playing Peter, "It will be difficult for me to play other roles from now on." In response, a radical Muslim wrote, "Omar Sharif has stated that he has embraced the crusader idolatry. ... He is a crusader who is offending Islam and Muslims and receiving applause from the Italian people. I give you this advice, brothers, you must kill him."

So, will Hollywood rise off its politically correct ass and condemn this in the strongest possible terms? Inquiring minds want to know.

Monday, October 31, 2005

BLUE FITZMAS

I'll have a Blue Fitzmas without Rove
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)

Dhimmicrat Convictions

Amir Taheri writes in the Arab News about the "strategic brain" of Iran's mullahs, Hassan Abbasi:

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.

The Crux of the Matter

Glenn Reynolds discusses the CIA, who are really the big losers in the entire Plame affair. Money quote:

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

THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE LEFT AND TERROR

Once again, the enablers, apologizers and the collaborators have gone into action, clearly demonstrating the alliance of the Left with Radical Islam. Both are united in their desire to destroy the U.S. and Israel. Here's is a sticker that is now up on the Harvard campus: (hat tip: LGF)



















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.