From Scrappleface:
Abu Musab Zarqawi In a dramatic address reportedly crafted by a 'neoliberal' speechwriter within his administration, Mr. Zarqawi urged the Iraqi people to "throw off the oppressive mantle of self-determination."
"We are led," said Mr. Zarqawi, "by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of Islamic rule in our land increasingly depends on the success of Islamic rule in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the destruction of democracy in all the world. Freedom, after all, is just another word for 'nothing left to lose.'"
U.S. Senator John F. Kerry, D-MA, said the Zarqawi speech reinforced his own repeated calls to withdraw American troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, "to avoid imposing our culture-bound values on its people."
"Zarqawi offers a powerful alternative to Bush's provincial rhetorical hubris," Mr. Kerry said. "Even though Mr. Zarqawi is Jordanian, he has won the hearts, and often the heads, of the Iraqi people."
Brilliant, Scott! Go read all the news that's fit for satire here.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
One-Of-A-Kind
Even as the Democrats nip at her ankles, Condoleeza Rice should --by every tangible measure--be celebrated as one of the most influential and intelligent American women in history. Brendan Miniter reminds us in his WSJ Opinion piece:
With 24 new women elected to the House and five to the Senate, 1992 was called the "year of the woman." But how much did Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray or Carol Moseley Braun really change the world? Now, though, a woman is on the rise who has already helped reshape geopolitics. Today Condoleezza Rice will face another round of hearings as she prepares to be confirmed as secretary of state--a position Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe used as a springboard into the presidency. If Ms. Rice were a Democrat, the media would have dubbed 2005 the "year of Condi."
Ms. Rice has already exerted tremendous influence on world affairs. As President Bush's national security adviser, she was instrumental in developing the administration's response to 9/11 into a policy that involved more than raiding terrorist camps throughout the world. Ms. Rice, who well understands the larger global political forces at work since the end of the Cold War, was one of a handful of powerbrokers who came to realize the best defense against terrorism was to spread freedom and democracy in the world.
For this she is mocked; her integrity impugned by the likes of a Barbara Boxer; and she is subjected to the demagoguery of people whose vision does not extend beyond their noses.
Dr. Rice does not need me to defend her--she has shown herself superbly capable of doing that herself. I am simply appalled at the unbelievable attitude of dismissal and loathing directed toward her from the Left. If she were one of them, she would be their darling. But because she thinks for herself and does not bow in deference to their failed policies, they refuse to recognize her incredible accomplishments. If they believed even half of the Democratic Party propaganda they crank out, then the Democrats --above any other group--should be in 7th Heaven celebrating the life and achievements of Condoleeza Rice. But when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters to them is Party loyalty.
I've waited my entire life to find a woman on the national political stage that I could admire unreservedly--one who did not get there on her husband's coattails; and one whose intellect, vision, capabilities and judgement are second to none.
Woman of the year? Hell, she's one-of-a-kind--a woman of a lifetime. CONDI 2008
With 24 new women elected to the House and five to the Senate, 1992 was called the "year of the woman." But how much did Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray or Carol Moseley Braun really change the world? Now, though, a woman is on the rise who has already helped reshape geopolitics. Today Condoleezza Rice will face another round of hearings as she prepares to be confirmed as secretary of state--a position Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe used as a springboard into the presidency. If Ms. Rice were a Democrat, the media would have dubbed 2005 the "year of Condi."
Ms. Rice has already exerted tremendous influence on world affairs. As President Bush's national security adviser, she was instrumental in developing the administration's response to 9/11 into a policy that involved more than raiding terrorist camps throughout the world. Ms. Rice, who well understands the larger global political forces at work since the end of the Cold War, was one of a handful of powerbrokers who came to realize the best defense against terrorism was to spread freedom and democracy in the world.
For this she is mocked; her integrity impugned by the likes of a Barbara Boxer; and she is subjected to the demagoguery of people whose vision does not extend beyond their noses.
Dr. Rice does not need me to defend her--she has shown herself superbly capable of doing that herself. I am simply appalled at the unbelievable attitude of dismissal and loathing directed toward her from the Left. If she were one of them, she would be their darling. But because she thinks for herself and does not bow in deference to their failed policies, they refuse to recognize her incredible accomplishments. If they believed even half of the Democratic Party propaganda they crank out, then the Democrats --above any other group--should be in 7th Heaven celebrating the life and achievements of Condoleeza Rice. But when push comes to shove, the only thing that matters to them is Party loyalty.
I've waited my entire life to find a woman on the national political stage that I could admire unreservedly--one who did not get there on her husband's coattails; and one whose intellect, vision, capabilities and judgement are second to none.
Woman of the year? Hell, she's one-of-a-kind--a woman of a lifetime. CONDI 2008
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
The Shortsighted and Foolish Among Us
This is a report that was 30 years too early (hat tip: Dagney):
Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological ''dirty bombs'' to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by the Associated Press.
''Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss,'' Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.
The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.
The Task force met once. ''It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism,'' Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.
''It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad,'' the president said.
The full committee met only once, in October 1972, to organize, but its experts did get together twice a month over nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions, the memos show.
Eventually, the group's influence waned as competing priorities, a change of presidents ushered in by Watergate, bureaucratic turf battles and a lack of spectacular domestic attacks took their toll.
But before that happened, the panel identified many of the same threats that would confront President Bush in the 21st century.
Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.
I guess what this tells us is that defending our country is a choice we make, or a choice we put off as we pursue other priorities. The panel that evaluated this threat in the 70's seems to have done a particularly good job of predicting what was to come, yet we were preoccupied with the day to day realities of the Cold War, and had a difficult time imagining the reality of a war on terror. It was brought to our attention only by the isolated incidents (like the 1st WTC bombing or the USS Cole); and by then we were distracted by the potential opportunities for peace after the Cold War.
But we were shortsighted and foolish, weren't we? We did not take seriously the gathering threat to our nation. And we ignored the multiple warnings that we had over a 30 year period. We needed to cultivate the capacity to analyze national and international trends; rate them for their potential to impact our national interests at home and abroad, and propose a course of action to effectively deal with them. In other words, we needed to become proactive and not just reactive.
In a country whose elected officials are incapable of thinking beyond the next election and only seek to score points on the opposition, thinking and planning ahead is considered a waste of time and resources, since assigning blame after a tragedy always gets you more points. If you prevent something from happening, how would you prove it, and who would give you credit?
No, far better to oppose every action or reform; denounce any new idea; and impugn the integrity of anyone who has the courage to act; and then you are in a perfect position to play the blame game! Some of us are still extremely shortsighted and foolish.
And that is the kindest and gentlest way I can describe certain bubble-headed, intellectually-deficient morons, who for reasons that are beyond human understanding, are currently members of Congress. I wouldn't want to victimize the poor little dears, since I know how sensitive and fragile they are. So I won't say anymore.
Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological ''dirty bombs'' to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by the Associated Press.
''Unless governments take basic precautions, we will continue to stand at the edge of an awful abyss,'' Robert Kupperman, chief scientist for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, wrote in a 1977 report that summarized nearly five years of work by the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism.
The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show.
The Task force met once. ''It is vital that we take every possible action ourselves and in concert with other nations designed to assure against acts of terrorism,'' Nixon wrote in asking his secretary of state, William Rogers, to oversee the task force.
''It is equally important that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively in the event that, despite all efforts at prevention, an act of terrorism occurs involving the United States, either at home or abroad,'' the president said.
The full committee met only once, in October 1972, to organize, but its experts did get together twice a month over nearly five years to identify threats and debate solutions, the memos show.
Eventually, the group's influence waned as competing priorities, a change of presidents ushered in by Watergate, bureaucratic turf battles and a lack of spectacular domestic attacks took their toll.
But before that happened, the panel identified many of the same threats that would confront President Bush in the 21st century.
Committee members identified commercial jets as a particular vulnerability, but raised concerns that airlines would not pay for security improvements such as tighter screening procedures and routine baggage inspections.
I guess what this tells us is that defending our country is a choice we make, or a choice we put off as we pursue other priorities. The panel that evaluated this threat in the 70's seems to have done a particularly good job of predicting what was to come, yet we were preoccupied with the day to day realities of the Cold War, and had a difficult time imagining the reality of a war on terror. It was brought to our attention only by the isolated incidents (like the 1st WTC bombing or the USS Cole); and by then we were distracted by the potential opportunities for peace after the Cold War.
But we were shortsighted and foolish, weren't we? We did not take seriously the gathering threat to our nation. And we ignored the multiple warnings that we had over a 30 year period. We needed to cultivate the capacity to analyze national and international trends; rate them for their potential to impact our national interests at home and abroad, and propose a course of action to effectively deal with them. In other words, we needed to become proactive and not just reactive.
In a country whose elected officials are incapable of thinking beyond the next election and only seek to score points on the opposition, thinking and planning ahead is considered a waste of time and resources, since assigning blame after a tragedy always gets you more points. If you prevent something from happening, how would you prove it, and who would give you credit?
No, far better to oppose every action or reform; denounce any new idea; and impugn the integrity of anyone who has the courage to act; and then you are in a perfect position to play the blame game! Some of us are still extremely shortsighted and foolish.
And that is the kindest and gentlest way I can describe certain bubble-headed, intellectually-deficient morons, who for reasons that are beyond human understanding, are currently members of Congress. I wouldn't want to victimize the poor little dears, since I know how sensitive and fragile they are. So I won't say anymore.
Freedom Fanatics
Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner observes:
You know, it dawned on me the other day that Bush's inaugural address and it's emphasis on the unique power of freedom undermines -- or should undermine -- the popular conception that Bush is a "theocon." According to those who were horrified when Bush cited Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher, our president is a Christian "crusader." How many times have we read that?
Well in his speech, he said:
Now, I understand that Christians and particularly evangelicals have a theologically and morally serious understanding of free will, liberty etc. But, according to the caricature of Bush, he should have said that the only historical force which can do all of those wonderful things is acceptance of Jesus Christ or, at minimum, acceptance of God or "faith."
He didn't say that. Indeed, the notion that political freedom is the only proven weapon against tyrants and tyranny which can "reward the hopes" of decent people would be something akin to heresy if Bush were anything like the religious fanatic so many people tell us he is.
Now I can't tell you the number of my friends who were dismayed that I supported Bush precisely because of the "Christian Crusader" aspect that Jonah mentions. I found it interesting that this bias against Christianity has become a focal point for many people's dislike of Bush. To be honest, that aspect of his personality never seemed to me to be much different from any other politician on the national scene. Except that it seemed more sincere.
There have been numerous articles about the invocation of God in speeches--every President since Washington has done it. Lincoln mentioned God numerous times in his Gettysburg Address and many of his other speeches. FDR refers to the Deity over and over again in his speeches during WWII. So what is the big deal with President Bush doing the same?
As far as I can determine, the one thing that most people have said--and they say it in some disbelief--is that Bush means it! Instead of giving God lipservice, we find in President Bush a person who is sincere and means what he says. Why, he even admits to (shudder) praying. The obvious question is what kind of fanatic actually believes what he says and admits that he has faith in God?
Now, I am an unredeemed sinner myself, but some of my best friends are religious and even I find it a fairly normal thing to be around them. As long as noone trys to convert me to their particular way of thinking about God and matters ecclesiastical, I am content to let them be who they are.
I find the most obnoxiously religious people to be people on the Left, whose evangelical zeal in trying to make everyone believe what they do to be unsurpassed by most traditional religious types. And the fervor with which they believe in Marx and Chomsky and other similarly Leftist theologians is indistinguishable from those in the throes of religious ecstasy.
What is especially annoying about some religions and some people who practice them--whether Christian, Isamic, or Leftist, or a combo thereof-- is their predeliction for trying to pass laws to make me think and/or behave as they do. And for this, I am willing condemn all religious zealots who want their beliefs imposed on everyone, no matter their specific religious orientation.
But for the record, I don't think President Bush qualifies in the religious fanatic category. Maybe he's a Freedom Fanatic--but then, so am I.
You know, it dawned on me the other day that Bush's inaugural address and it's emphasis on the unique power of freedom undermines -- or should undermine -- the popular conception that Bush is a "theocon." According to those who were horrified when Bush cited Jesus Christ as his favorite political philosopher, our president is a Christian "crusader." How many times have we read that?
Well in his speech, he said:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and
resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the
decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
Now, I understand that Christians and particularly evangelicals have a theologically and morally serious understanding of free will, liberty etc. But, according to the caricature of Bush, he should have said that the only historical force which can do all of those wonderful things is acceptance of Jesus Christ or, at minimum, acceptance of God or "faith."
He didn't say that. Indeed, the notion that political freedom is the only proven weapon against tyrants and tyranny which can "reward the hopes" of decent people would be something akin to heresy if Bush were anything like the religious fanatic so many people tell us he is.
Now I can't tell you the number of my friends who were dismayed that I supported Bush precisely because of the "Christian Crusader" aspect that Jonah mentions. I found it interesting that this bias against Christianity has become a focal point for many people's dislike of Bush. To be honest, that aspect of his personality never seemed to me to be much different from any other politician on the national scene. Except that it seemed more sincere.
There have been numerous articles about the invocation of God in speeches--every President since Washington has done it. Lincoln mentioned God numerous times in his Gettysburg Address and many of his other speeches. FDR refers to the Deity over and over again in his speeches during WWII. So what is the big deal with President Bush doing the same?
As far as I can determine, the one thing that most people have said--and they say it in some disbelief--is that Bush means it! Instead of giving God lipservice, we find in President Bush a person who is sincere and means what he says. Why, he even admits to (shudder) praying. The obvious question is what kind of fanatic actually believes what he says and admits that he has faith in God?
Now, I am an unredeemed sinner myself, but some of my best friends are religious and even I find it a fairly normal thing to be around them. As long as noone trys to convert me to their particular way of thinking about God and matters ecclesiastical, I am content to let them be who they are.
I find the most obnoxiously religious people to be people on the Left, whose evangelical zeal in trying to make everyone believe what they do to be unsurpassed by most traditional religious types. And the fervor with which they believe in Marx and Chomsky and other similarly Leftist theologians is indistinguishable from those in the throes of religious ecstasy.
What is especially annoying about some religions and some people who practice them--whether Christian, Isamic, or Leftist, or a combo thereof-- is their predeliction for trying to pass laws to make me think and/or behave as they do. And for this, I am willing condemn all religious zealots who want their beliefs imposed on everyone, no matter their specific religious orientation.
But for the record, I don't think President Bush qualifies in the religious fanatic category. Maybe he's a Freedom Fanatic--but then, so am I.
A Brief Moment of Sanity?
Hollywood has issued its Oscar nomination list...and guess who is not on it? Anywhere! BooHoo. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was left out across the board. One can only wonder if Hollywood was siezed by a brief moment of sanity?
Stranger things have happened. I suppose.
Stranger things have happened. I suppose.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Oil-For-Food Money Funded Suicide Bombers
From The Counterterrorism Blog comes this reminder:
...the House International Relations Committee last November 17, Rep. Henry Hyde, committee chairman, stated that "Saddam paid $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the Iraqi ambassador to Jordan out of accounts in the Rafidain Bank in Amman which held kickback money Saddam demanded from suppliers to his regime."
Andrew Cochrane, the editor of the site also posts a very nice diagram used by the Committee to show the flow of money. Check it out. By the way, it appears to be a very interesting blog, with losts of good information.
...the House International Relations Committee last November 17, Rep. Henry Hyde, committee chairman, stated that "Saddam paid $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the Iraqi ambassador to Jordan out of accounts in the Rafidain Bank in Amman which held kickback money Saddam demanded from suppliers to his regime."
Andrew Cochrane, the editor of the site also posts a very nice diagram used by the Committee to show the flow of money. Check it out. By the way, it appears to be a very interesting blog, with losts of good information.
Do They Mean It?
An important Sheikh has denounced terrorism in an Eid sermon in Mecca:
The warning came, amid a surge in militant attacks in Muslim countries and beyond, from Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, while addressing Haj pilgrims in a customary Eid sermon. The imam also advised Islamic scholars to preach moderation to confront this “rotten” phenomenon.
“Islam is the religion of moderation. There is no room for extremism in Islam,” he said.
He called on Muslims to “protect non-Muslims in the Kingdom and not to attack them in the country or anywhere. Islam is a religion of peace that abhors attack on innocents.” Militants were using misguided interpretations of Islam to justify violence, he added.
Are the moderate Muslims beginning to stand up against this monster that has arisen in their midst? Do they really mean it? I hope so.
The problem is that there is ample evidence in the Koran that the terrorist-minded can point to justify their sick behavior. The problem is....well, the problem is Islam itself. If ever there was a religion in need of reform it is Islam. If ever a religion needed to be dragged out of the Middle Ages--it is Islam. If ever a religion needed to come to grips with its misogyny and suppression of women--it is Islam as it is practiced in most of the world. If ever a religion needed to face the psychological denial and projection it uses to cope with the realities of the 21st century--it is Islam. Wanting Islam to be a religion of peace, does not make it so.
In psychiatry we say that the first step in getting well is recognizing you have a problem. Taking responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and behavior is absolutely necessary if you want to take the next step and be able to change them.
Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, has at least recognized there is a problem (but not necessarily Islam's problem, unfortunately) and his way of dealing with it is to say that those who embrace terror are not "true" muslims. One thing we can count on is that somewhere there is yet another Sheikh saying the opposite--i.e., that the only true muslim is one who embraces the jihad and kills the non-believer. If the imam had said "Islam is not yet a religion of peace, but our goal is to understand why terrorism has found its home in our beliefs and fix the problem" --I might feel a bit more hopeful.
If Sheikh Al-Sudais means what he says, I want to know what his religion is going to do about this "phenomenon" within Islam? Talk is cheap. Take the first step and admit responsibility.
The warning came, amid a surge in militant attacks in Muslim countries and beyond, from Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, while addressing Haj pilgrims in a customary Eid sermon. The imam also advised Islamic scholars to preach moderation to confront this “rotten” phenomenon.
“Islam is the religion of moderation. There is no room for extremism in Islam,” he said.
He called on Muslims to “protect non-Muslims in the Kingdom and not to attack them in the country or anywhere. Islam is a religion of peace that abhors attack on innocents.” Militants were using misguided interpretations of Islam to justify violence, he added.
Are the moderate Muslims beginning to stand up against this monster that has arisen in their midst? Do they really mean it? I hope so.
The problem is that there is ample evidence in the Koran that the terrorist-minded can point to justify their sick behavior. The problem is....well, the problem is Islam itself. If ever there was a religion in need of reform it is Islam. If ever a religion needed to be dragged out of the Middle Ages--it is Islam. If ever a religion needed to come to grips with its misogyny and suppression of women--it is Islam as it is practiced in most of the world. If ever a religion needed to face the psychological denial and projection it uses to cope with the realities of the 21st century--it is Islam. Wanting Islam to be a religion of peace, does not make it so.
In psychiatry we say that the first step in getting well is recognizing you have a problem. Taking responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and behavior is absolutely necessary if you want to take the next step and be able to change them.
Sheikh Abdulrahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, has at least recognized there is a problem (but not necessarily Islam's problem, unfortunately) and his way of dealing with it is to say that those who embrace terror are not "true" muslims. One thing we can count on is that somewhere there is yet another Sheikh saying the opposite--i.e., that the only true muslim is one who embraces the jihad and kills the non-believer. If the imam had said "Islam is not yet a religion of peace, but our goal is to understand why terrorism has found its home in our beliefs and fix the problem" --I might feel a bit more hopeful.
If Sheikh Al-Sudais means what he says, I want to know what his religion is going to do about this "phenomenon" within Islam? Talk is cheap. Take the first step and admit responsibility.
Cynicism and Delusion
That's what the Dems are peddling, according to Mark Steyn:
There's a big lesson for the Democrats there that goes way beyond the merits of abortion or gay marriage. On Sept. 11, the world came unspun: There's no shame in acknowledging, as Condi Rice did last week, that previous policy -- Republican and Democrat -- toward the Middle East is wrong. But there's something silly and immature about a party that, from Kerry to Boxer to Byrd, can't get beyond spin, grandstanding and debater's points: Joyce Smith sees through it, even if David von Drehle thinks it's ingenious. If the president's speech yoked idealism and realism, that doesn't leave much for dissenting Dems except their own peculiar combination of cynicism and delusion.
Read how he got to this conclusion--there's noone like Steyn who can be as humorous and deadly serious at the same time. Let me just add that the Dems come to this "combination of cynicism and delusion" by way of denial. They have yet to accept the fact of 9/11, preferring to remain in the Clinton era of "perfection", where they imagined they were loved and respected by the world and that everything was good. In a way, they are like the little hobbits of Tolkien, living innocently in their idyllic, protected land--unaware of the wider world and the evil that lurks just outside the borders of their consciousness. Unfortunately for them, the evil will penetrate their landscape whether they appreciate its reality or not.
Denial and delusion are, after all, primitive psychological defenses and neither work well for very long; nor bode well for psychological health.
There's a big lesson for the Democrats there that goes way beyond the merits of abortion or gay marriage. On Sept. 11, the world came unspun: There's no shame in acknowledging, as Condi Rice did last week, that previous policy -- Republican and Democrat -- toward the Middle East is wrong. But there's something silly and immature about a party that, from Kerry to Boxer to Byrd, can't get beyond spin, grandstanding and debater's points: Joyce Smith sees through it, even if David von Drehle thinks it's ingenious. If the president's speech yoked idealism and realism, that doesn't leave much for dissenting Dems except their own peculiar combination of cynicism and delusion.
Read how he got to this conclusion--there's noone like Steyn who can be as humorous and deadly serious at the same time. Let me just add that the Dems come to this "combination of cynicism and delusion" by way of denial. They have yet to accept the fact of 9/11, preferring to remain in the Clinton era of "perfection", where they imagined they were loved and respected by the world and that everything was good. In a way, they are like the little hobbits of Tolkien, living innocently in their idyllic, protected land--unaware of the wider world and the evil that lurks just outside the borders of their consciousness. Unfortunately for them, the evil will penetrate their landscape whether they appreciate its reality or not.
Denial and delusion are, after all, primitive psychological defenses and neither work well for very long; nor bode well for psychological health.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Troops' Perspective
Here are a series of pictures taken by our troops in Iraq. They give a good perspective of what life is like there. Take a look! (hat tip: Rantingprofs). Or, you might try here, to get some news the Mainstream media doesn't bother to report.
And here is a firsthand report from a soldier on the frontlines of the tsunami relief effort. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin). It dovetails nicely with the diplomatic perspective from the Diplomad (here, and here, for example).
And here is a firsthand report from a soldier on the frontlines of the tsunami relief effort. (hat tip: Michelle Malkin). It dovetails nicely with the diplomatic perspective from the Diplomad (here, and here, for example).
Weekly Insanity Update
It's time for the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the obnoxious, and the completely unbelievable! Overall, despite bright spots, it has been a fruitful week for those of us in the mental health field. Moonbats were joyfully at play, mindless of the delusional quality of their thoughts. Pretetentions abounded and there was plenty of tinfoil to go around. And that was just a summary of the insane items! Here's the list:
1. Make love, not war
2. Now this is the kind of scandal I could get behind!
3. Other important national secrets entrusted to "Say-no-more" Hersh.
4. What a complete jackass Kerry is. (IMHO, of course)
5. These Ayatollahs are pathetic. Note the rant about "Western and Zionist capitalists", and you will understand why the Left can relate to these thugs.
6. Clearly she hasn't been straight with the American public. Perhaps her loyalty to the mission she was given, overwhelmed her respect for the truth?
7. He voted FOR Condi Rice, before he voted AGAINST her?
8. Really? Really? Oh, Geez! But then it turns out that the NYTimes may have been exaggerating....I'm just shocked. (hat tip: Glenn Reynolds)
9. An example of political pragmatism? Or, "I'll do ANYTHING to get elected!"?
10. Flip - Flop - Putin style!
11. "He did a terrible thing, but it wasn't murder." What do YOU call stabbing someone to death during a bank robbery, I wonder? (hat tip: Frank)
12. You just can't disagree with some people without them wanting to kill you.
13. Somebody better tell the Texas Longhorns!
14. The question is --has anyone discovered a terrorist with one?
And, an Extraspecialbonus insanity:
15. Any really brave ANSWER people out there? You're needed again! (via Rantingprofs)
1. Make love, not war
2. Now this is the kind of scandal I could get behind!
3. Other important national secrets entrusted to "Say-no-more" Hersh.
4. What a complete jackass Kerry is. (IMHO, of course)
5. These Ayatollahs are pathetic. Note the rant about "Western and Zionist capitalists", and you will understand why the Left can relate to these thugs.
6. Clearly she hasn't been straight with the American public. Perhaps her loyalty to the mission she was given, overwhelmed her respect for the truth?
7. He voted FOR Condi Rice, before he voted AGAINST her?
8. Really? Really? Oh, Geez! But then it turns out that the NYTimes may have been exaggerating....I'm just shocked. (hat tip: Glenn Reynolds)
9. An example of political pragmatism? Or, "I'll do ANYTHING to get elected!"?
10. Flip - Flop - Putin style!
11. "He did a terrible thing, but it wasn't murder." What do YOU call stabbing someone to death during a bank robbery, I wonder? (hat tip: Frank)
12. You just can't disagree with some people without them wanting to kill you.
13. Somebody better tell the Texas Longhorns!
14. The question is --has anyone discovered a terrorist with one?
And, an Extraspecialbonus insanity:
15. Any really brave ANSWER people out there? You're needed again! (via Rantingprofs)
Saturday, January 22, 2005
They Couldn't Care Less About Freedom
With just over a week until the Iraq elections, Amir Taheri in the Arab News notes what is at stake:
Never have so many people pinned so much hope on a single day of voting, Jan. 30, 2005, that is to give Iraq its first freely elected Parliament plus provincial and regional councils.
The election will not only set the course for the 25 million Iraqis but could also determine a new balance of power in the Middle East. Beyond Iraq, the election will confirm or challenge the United States’ status as a “superpower” capable of reshaping the regional status quo. President George W. Bush has vowed to bring the Middle East into “the global democratic mainstream”, with Iraq as the starting point. Success could boost his prestige and encourage local democratic forces. Failure would mark the beginning of a decline in American influence, and revitalize forces determined to keep Muslim nations out of the modern world.
You begin to see why so many on the Left yearn for a resounding defeat of democratic ideals--they are desperately hoping for a "decline in American influence". The same hope abounded about Afghanistan before its elections, and now that that country has transitioned to democracy, the Left couldn't care less. Now that women are not under the hateful oppression of the Taliban, the Women's Movement couldn't care less. Now that the Afghanis and the Iraqis have a chance--for the first time in history--to determine their own fate--International ANSWER couldn't care less.
Since Bush was successful in Afghanistan, the Democrats couldn't care less about Afghanistan. They now hang their pathetic hopes on Bush's failure in Iraq. They couldn't care less about Freedom.
What they actually care about is Power, and in that, they share motivation with the likes of OBL, Zarqawi and every totalitarian scumbag from Washington to Baghdad and beyond.
Ah, come on! you might say--50% of the U.S. population doesn't like the war in Iraq. You can't say that they are all scumbags! Well, that is true. Some of them are just idiots. But about 25% of them have sold their soul (if they ever had one to begin with) to the ideologues whose main goal is the destruction of everything this country stands for--and to prevent the spread of Freedom and Democracy. If being liberal EVER stood for something, it stood for those two things. If being "progressive" EVER meant anything, it meant the joyful celebration of freedom and looking forward, not backward.
The line in the sand has been drawn. Iraqis will choose which side they are on in a week. The Afghanis have already chosen. Let us not forget who it was that gave them the chance to choose. It won't be smooth-going; it might not be pretty; it could continue to be violent and contentious. But like the formation of a brilliant star from the cataclysmic reactions in its core--it will be wonderful to behold. I sincerely wish the Iraqi people the all the strength, courage, and wisdom they require to reclaim their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The Left and the Democrats must also choose. Will they come down on the side of Freedom? Will they have the courage to stand up and say "YES" to democracy in Iraq? To Freedom in the Middle East? To Liberty for All? Or will they whine and whimper and sulk and pout, shouting NO, NO, NO to the wave of Freedom sweeping the world? Either way, the future is coming, and it has Liberty written all over it.
The Iraqis understand what is at stake for them--to read their thoughts, go here, here, and a summation here.
Never have so many people pinned so much hope on a single day of voting, Jan. 30, 2005, that is to give Iraq its first freely elected Parliament plus provincial and regional councils.
The election will not only set the course for the 25 million Iraqis but could also determine a new balance of power in the Middle East. Beyond Iraq, the election will confirm or challenge the United States’ status as a “superpower” capable of reshaping the regional status quo. President George W. Bush has vowed to bring the Middle East into “the global democratic mainstream”, with Iraq as the starting point. Success could boost his prestige and encourage local democratic forces. Failure would mark the beginning of a decline in American influence, and revitalize forces determined to keep Muslim nations out of the modern world.
You begin to see why so many on the Left yearn for a resounding defeat of democratic ideals--they are desperately hoping for a "decline in American influence". The same hope abounded about Afghanistan before its elections, and now that that country has transitioned to democracy, the Left couldn't care less. Now that women are not under the hateful oppression of the Taliban, the Women's Movement couldn't care less. Now that the Afghanis and the Iraqis have a chance--for the first time in history--to determine their own fate--International ANSWER couldn't care less.
Since Bush was successful in Afghanistan, the Democrats couldn't care less about Afghanistan. They now hang their pathetic hopes on Bush's failure in Iraq. They couldn't care less about Freedom.
What they actually care about is Power, and in that, they share motivation with the likes of OBL, Zarqawi and every totalitarian scumbag from Washington to Baghdad and beyond.
Ah, come on! you might say--50% of the U.S. population doesn't like the war in Iraq. You can't say that they are all scumbags! Well, that is true. Some of them are just idiots. But about 25% of them have sold their soul (if they ever had one to begin with) to the ideologues whose main goal is the destruction of everything this country stands for--and to prevent the spread of Freedom and Democracy. If being liberal EVER stood for something, it stood for those two things. If being "progressive" EVER meant anything, it meant the joyful celebration of freedom and looking forward, not backward.
The line in the sand has been drawn. Iraqis will choose which side they are on in a week. The Afghanis have already chosen. Let us not forget who it was that gave them the chance to choose. It won't be smooth-going; it might not be pretty; it could continue to be violent and contentious. But like the formation of a brilliant star from the cataclysmic reactions in its core--it will be wonderful to behold. I sincerely wish the Iraqi people the all the strength, courage, and wisdom they require to reclaim their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The Left and the Democrats must also choose. Will they come down on the side of Freedom? Will they have the courage to stand up and say "YES" to democracy in Iraq? To Freedom in the Middle East? To Liberty for All? Or will they whine and whimper and sulk and pout, shouting NO, NO, NO to the wave of Freedom sweeping the world? Either way, the future is coming, and it has Liberty written all over it.
The Iraqis understand what is at stake for them--to read their thoughts, go here, here, and a summation here.
NEWSFLASH! UN to End Poverty in the Galaxy!
From the Diplomad:
What's your UN up to? It's going to end world poverty! Having ended the poverty of UNocrats, your UN will now spread the wealth. How will do it this magical thing? It has a report! And no ordinary report -- as they say, "Not Available in Stores" -- this one is extra special. The report, "A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals" is 3,000, yes, three thousand pages long! The Diplomad is sure all of you will go to the link right now and download three thousand pages of UN prose. Fill up your hard drives! Burn out your printers!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen that is approximately 1,200,000 words (I counted the words on several representative pages and multiplied). By contrast, President Bush expended a little less than 2000 words and 20 minutes on his Inaugural address which outlined a rather simple plan (I thought) to end tyranny. If Kofi Annan recited this report to end poverty it would take an astonishing 12,000 minutes, or 200 solid hours to complete it!
The UN report begins with "the [great] ideas of [our dear leader] Mr. Annan." (words in parentheses are mine, actually), and basically proposes that the rich countries like the US give more money to the poor countries! What an innovative idea! What a marvelous achievement of soaring intellect!
You might want to read the Diplomad's entire post. You might want to skip the entire UN report. My take: if you want to end poverty, then end tyranny and embrace Freedom and its economic partner, Capitalism. End of Report.
What's your UN up to? It's going to end world poverty! Having ended the poverty of UNocrats, your UN will now spread the wealth. How will do it this magical thing? It has a report! And no ordinary report -- as they say, "Not Available in Stores" -- this one is extra special. The report, "A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals" is 3,000, yes, three thousand pages long! The Diplomad is sure all of you will go to the link right now and download three thousand pages of UN prose. Fill up your hard drives! Burn out your printers!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen that is approximately 1,200,000 words (I counted the words on several representative pages and multiplied). By contrast, President Bush expended a little less than 2000 words and 20 minutes on his Inaugural address which outlined a rather simple plan (I thought) to end tyranny. If Kofi Annan recited this report to end poverty it would take an astonishing 12,000 minutes, or 200 solid hours to complete it!
The UN report begins with "the [great] ideas of [our dear leader] Mr. Annan." (words in parentheses are mine, actually), and basically proposes that the rich countries like the US give more money to the poor countries! What an innovative idea! What a marvelous achievement of soaring intellect!
You might want to read the Diplomad's entire post. You might want to skip the entire UN report. My take: if you want to end poverty, then end tyranny and embrace Freedom and its economic partner, Capitalism. End of Report.
LET IT SNOW
Well, it's really lovely out. The trees are loaded with snow and the view around my neighborhood is breathtaking. Snow is still falling, and we have about 5 inches so far on the ground. It is unnaturally quiet, because noone is venturing out in their cars. So far this has been about the best winter we've had in Ann Arbor.
There is something infinitely beautiful about snow....something startingly peaceful and contemplative. Snow falling is the poetry of winter. Most people regard it as a pain in the ass, but if you don't have to go anywhere in it, and can just watch and enjoy, it can be very restful. We'll worry about digging out later--for now, let it snow!
Here's my favorite poem about snow:
Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
There is something infinitely beautiful about snow....something startingly peaceful and contemplative. Snow falling is the poetry of winter. Most people regard it as a pain in the ass, but if you don't have to go anywhere in it, and can just watch and enjoy, it can be very restful. We'll worry about digging out later--for now, let it snow!
Here's my favorite poem about snow:
Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
-Robert Frost
A Prediction
I thought of this, but a reader at The Corner beat me to actually saying it:
my prediction...the student lead revolution that will take place in Iran over the next 4 years will look back on Jan. 20, 2005 as the day George Bush told them that the United States of American was ready to aid them in their cause of bringing freedom to their nation, and that this speech will be the catalyst for their action
That's exactly the kind of speech it was. Bush has once more lifted the "lamp beside the golden door" and lit the shining beacon that could inspire many who live under oppression and totalitarianism to take action and shrug off their chains. I believe that George W. Bush could well become one of the greatest U.S. presidents in history (and wouldn't that be a kicker to the Bush-bashers of today! ) I guess we shall see if his inspiration is powerful enough to mobilize the nascent freedom movements around the world.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door" -from "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus (on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty)
my prediction...the student lead revolution that will take place in Iran over the next 4 years will look back on Jan. 20, 2005 as the day George Bush told them that the United States of American was ready to aid them in their cause of bringing freedom to their nation, and that this speech will be the catalyst for their action
That's exactly the kind of speech it was. Bush has once more lifted the "lamp beside the golden door" and lit the shining beacon that could inspire many who live under oppression and totalitarianism to take action and shrug off their chains. I believe that George W. Bush could well become one of the greatest U.S. presidents in history (and wouldn't that be a kicker to the Bush-bashers of today! ) I guess we shall see if his inspiration is powerful enough to mobilize the nascent freedom movements around the world.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door" -from "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus (on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty)
Friday, January 21, 2005
A Few Links
This is pretty funny (OK, I have a weird sense of humor). This is not. [hat tips: The Corner]
Three great posts from Wretchard-- here, here, and here.
A really funny post from Iowahawk.
And, mothers don't let your children grow up to be moonbats!
Three great posts from Wretchard-- here, here, and here.
A really funny post from Iowahawk.
And, mothers don't let your children grow up to be moonbats!
Media Negativity Quantified
Arthur Chrenkoff who pens a weekly "Good News From Iraq" roundup (here's the most recent), has tallied up the number of negative stories in the mainstream about Iraq in just one day. The results will astound you.
How can it possible be so different from what troops are saying on the ground there? (see here, here for example) And from what Iraqis are saying? (see here and here).
Of course, you must choose for yourself which perspective is the more accurate--or rather, whose agenda you are buying into. Just remember what Bush said yesterday:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
Those words represent one agenda. The one that I buy into. And this is clearly the other.
You choose.
How can it possible be so different from what troops are saying on the ground there? (see here, here for example) And from what Iraqis are saying? (see here and here).
Of course, you must choose for yourself which perspective is the more accurate--or rather, whose agenda you are buying into. Just remember what Bush said yesterday:
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
Those words represent one agenda. The one that I buy into. And this is clearly the other.
You choose.
WhooooooHoooooo!
The Council has spoken!
Not to refine too much on it, but Dr. Sanity has chalked up another win in the weekly Best Council Post at Watcher of Weasels! And believe me, the competition is fierce!
Here are the top winners this week:
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Welcome Neighbor! at Varifrank
And coming in at #2- a great essay from a soldier in Iraq: Aiding and Abetting the Enemy at Blackfive
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake by the ever so humble Dr. Sanity
and #2- a little insight into Ted Kennedy's intentions for your money:
Ted Kennedy’s Contract on Your Paycheck at The Sundries Shack
Check out all the fine Winners over at the Watcher's site! It makes for some great reading.
Not to refine too much on it, but Dr. Sanity has chalked up another win in the weekly Best Council Post at Watcher of Weasels! And believe me, the competition is fierce!
Here are the top winners this week:
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Welcome Neighbor! at Varifrank
And coming in at #2- a great essay from a soldier in Iraq: Aiding and Abetting the Enemy at Blackfive
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. WMD and Death By Chocolate Cake by the ever so humble Dr. Sanity
and #2- a little insight into Ted Kennedy's intentions for your money:
Ted Kennedy’s Contract on Your Paycheck at The Sundries Shack
Check out all the fine Winners over at the Watcher's site! It makes for some great reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)