Saturday, February 24, 2007

A CARNIVORE'S DELIGHT: STEAK WSJ

From WSJ to Fausta's Blog to you, how to make the Perfectly Cooked Steak. I and several labs were left salivating as we read it.

Preheat your oven to 450F degrees

On the stove top, heat a large, dry skillet until it is very hot. Season the steak (a 4-5 lbs porterhouse or bone-in-ribeye steak, 1 1/2" to 2" thick) well with salt and pepper and sear for 2-3 minutes on each side, until it has a dark crust [Note If your smoke alarm is very sensitive, like mine is, make sure to run the hood fan or you'll get blasted]

Place skillet in preheated oven for about 14 minutes for a 1 1/2" steak. Cook to between rare and medium rare, because residual heat will continue cooking the meat while it is resting. To test for doneness, press your finger to the meat: it should yield to the touch but not be soft. The chef says a thermometer will pierce the meat and allow the juices to run out.

Rest steak for at least 5 minutes before slicing or serving


My only additions would be to season the steak with Dale Sauce, and as it cooks, carmalize an onion sliced into thin strips, using olive oil. When the onion is just about done, add some soy sauce and a few sprits of lime juice to the onion and cook til done.

Read More...

UK TAKES UP NATO SLACK IN AFGHANISTAN

Britain is deploying another 1,500 troops to Afghanistan after pleas for more combat soldiers made by the NATO commander to the other European members of NATO fell upon deaf ears.


“Those [extra] troops should be coming from countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain who have so far not shown the adequate resolve to be part of a full Nato complement in Afghanistan,” he told Today on BBC Radio 4.

Nato is running the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan with a total complement of about 35,000 troops, but most of the contributions from Nato members are small. The United States has provided the biggest force —27,000, of whom 15,500 serve under Nato — followed by Britain.

“Too many of our European partners are now pocketing the Nato security guarantee but leaving UK taxpayers and the UK military to carry the cost,” Dr Fox said.

Read the whole story.

I could not agree more with Dr. Fox on this one, though I would add the U.S. taxpayers and military to his last statement. The showing of Germany, France, Italy and Spain has been disgraceful. And the problem of Afghanistan is not going to go away anytime soon. Allowing an enemy a power base that is untouchable is a sure recipe for a long, and possibly losing war. That was the true lesson of Vietnam. And now we are seeing it repeated again as the Talian has a secure base in Pakistan's Fronteir Provinces, protected from attack by NATO because it is nominally a part of Pakistan. And now protected from the Pakistani military as a result of Musharraf's treaty with the provinces. Both the NATO problems and Taliban safe havens will have to be addressed as the war in Afghanistan progresses.

Read More...

UK DESIGNER BABIES

Britain is preparing to take that first step into a realm where only science fiction writers have dared tread -- genetic modificaiton of human embryos. "It said that it could eventually lead to "germ-line" gene therapy, where DNA changes are passed down generations, and to genetic enhancement, where embryos are altered to boost intelligence or for cosmetic purposes." Read the whole story.

Read More...

IN THE SURGE, GENERAL ASKS FOR PATIENCE

From LTG Odierno in Iraq:

. . . the Iraqi government is just 10 months old and is working to put its institutions in order while fighting a war. The stepped-up security operation under way in Baghdad reflects the importance of securing the Iraqi capital to the overall effort in the country, Odierno told reporters. “Baghdad is key to stability in Iraq,” he said.

He said Operation Fard al-Qanun – Enforcing the Law –already is paying off. U.S. troops are arriving in the city, and two brigades of Iraqi troops have already arrived. With four more battalions of Iraqi forces due in Baghdad in the next four weeks, the government will have lived up to its pledge, he said. The idea behind the operation is to give the government enough breathing room to reach out and prove to the people of Iraq that the government “is able to protect all its citizens regardless of sect or ethnicity,” . . .


Read the whole story

Read More...

SURGE OPERATIONS CONTINUE IN IRAQ

The DOD reports that "Five insurgents were killed, 12 terrorism suspects were captured, and hidden weapons were seized in various operations in Iraq over the last few days, military officials reported." Read the whole story.

Read More...

WHAT SCARES IRANS MULLAHS?

Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian studies at Stanford, answers:

After a meeting with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader’s chief foreign policy adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, declared last week that suspending uranium enrichment is not a red line for the regime — in other words, the mullahs might be ready to agree to some kind of a suspension. . . .

The mullahs are keen on damage control on another front as well. After his meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Velayati announced that the Holocaust is a fact of history and chastised those who question its reality. Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, also declared the Holocaust a “historical matter” to be discussed by scholars (and not, he implied, by ignorant politicians). In short, there is a new willingness among the Iranian political elite to avoid the rhetoric of confrontation and to negotiate.
. . . .
The mullahs have historically shown an unfailing ability to smell out and, when pragmatic, succumb to credible power in their foes. Indeed, the presence of the American ships has helped encourage them to negotiate. But no less clear is the fact that the mullahs’ attitude change began in late December, when the United Nations Security Council finally passed a resolution against the regime in Tehran.

The passage of the resolution hastened the demise of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s confrontational approach to the West. And the falling price of oil, leading to declining revenues for the regime, magnified the resolution’s economic impact. Top leaders of the Islamic Republic, from Ayatollah Khamenei to Mr. Rafsanjani, have made it clear that they consider sanctions a serious threat . . .

I agree with the basic analysis. However, I think these few bon mots are the mullahs' attempt to manipulate the West into reopening negotiations without more economic sanctions. And as I noted in another post, there is a good probability that many nations, motivated by their own profit margin, will quite cynically take them up on the offer.

Much more pressure will need to be applied before Iran stops its march towards a nuclear arsenal. Whether this will ultimately end in a military confrontation is, I think, critically dependent on the ability of the West to impose meaningful sanctions outside of the Security Council and to do so in the near future.

Read More...

Friday, February 23, 2007

A HILARIOUS GUARDIAN HIT PIECE or HOW TO TWIST THE FACTS WHEN THEY ARE ALL BAD

A few words on The Guardian before jumping in. The Guardian is the leading far left newspaper in Britain. Its politics lie somewhere in between the Communist Workers Party and the New York Times. Much of its straight reporting is some of the finest out there. The really whacky stuff comes in the Opinion pieces, but occasionally the reporters and editors can't help themselves and they let their leftist bent bleed heavily into their straight reporting. Such is the case with this gem, "US intelligence on Iran does not stand up, say Vienna sources."


The situation in Iran is nearly the polar opposite of that of Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Iran is openly, now at least, developing nuclear capacity. They have built a facility to make heavy water. Heavy water is necessary for making weapons grade plutonium. If Iran's goal is simply peaceful harnessing of atomic power for energy, they would use the safer and less waste producing light water reactor. Most power reactors worldwide, and all in the United States are cooled by ordinary “light” water. The question of whether Iran has a "right" to develop a full fuel cycle with heavy water is really Ahmadinejad's red herring. The penultimate question is Iran's motivation for doing so. If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon, they have nothing to hide. There is no reason whatsoever to keep the IAEA from inspecting and documenting its nuclear development. On these facts alone, even a blind man could see that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. Add in plans for ICBM's and enriched uranium spheres whose only use is in nuclear weapons . . . well, you decide.

With all of that in mind, let's dissect the Guardian article.

THE GUARDIAN SAYS:

Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.

The claims, reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war, coincided with a sharp increase in international tension as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was defying a UN security council ultimatum to freeze its nuclear programme.


TRANSLATION: Those CIA numbnuts are at it AGAIN. Can you believe these guys. They need to put down their spy decoder rings before they hurt themselves. They got it wrong on Iraq nuclear weapons program, and this is just a repeat. Any U.S. intelligence -- and any reasonable inferences from information in the public domain -- are to be ignored. Like any good journalist, ours gets his main premise out early.

THE GUARDIAN SAYS:


At the heart of the debate are accusations, spearheaded by the US, that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by IAEA inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.

"Most of it has turned out to be incorrect," said a diplomat at the IAEA with detailed knowledge of the agency's investigations. "They gave us a paper with a list of sites. [The inspectors] did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of [banned nuclear] activities."
TRANSLATION: What actually appears to be going on here is that the U.S. is trying to turn over all the rocks where they have any suspicion that there might be problems. Sounds like the right way to do things to me. Not to our intrepid reporter and his reliable source. They spin this like Linda Blair's head in the Exorcist. Thoroughness now equals incompetence.

THE GUARDIAN SAYS:


One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran.

Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.

TRANSLATION: Hey, if Iran says its a forgery, that's good enough for me. I mean, as anyone with a tinfoil hat knows, the CIA regularly falsifies intelligence about the nuclear programs of Middle Eastern countries in order to provide BushHitler with the cover he needs to continue his imperialistic march towards world domination.

THE GUARDIAN SAYS


"First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away," one official said.

whoa. WHOA. WHOA-GD-WHOA. How did they keep a straight face writing that one. Secret documents in this day and age almost invariably originate from and are stored on a computer medium which, then itself becomes classified. And laptops with classified information get lost or stolen all the time, as this snippet from THE GUARDIAN'S archives of last year attests:

Secret military/intelligence documents and laptops seem to have an alarming tendency to end up accidentally left in pubs or abandoned in ditches. From such places, their next destination is often the newsrooms of national tabloid newspapers.
How embarrassing.

Damn those archives.

But then again, the author here is only quoting his highly reliable "source." So would the "source" consider the plans to be credible only if hand drawn with a crayon? For some reason, I am picturing stick figures, a mushroom cloud, and several arrows pointing out the direcions. At any rate, perhaps that is typical of security precautions in the "sources" home country, but it does not seem to hold true for the rest of the known world. Who the hell is this source, Borat?

And now for the grand finale . . .

THE GUARDIAN SAYS

One of the "outstanding issues" listed in yesterday's report involves a 15-page document that appears to have been handed to IAEA inspectors by mistake in October 2005. That document roughly describes how to make hemispheres of enriched uranium, for which the only known use is in nuclear warheads. Iran has yet to present a satisfactory explanation of how and why it has the document.

Last night Iran, which says its nuclear fuel programme is designed only to produce electricity, remained defiant.


TRANSLATION: OHHHH NOOOOOO . . . . the SMOKING GUN.

Now, to the author's credit, he did include mention of this smoking gun in his article, but he just couldn't bring himself to identify which party gave the document to the IAEA inspectors in the lead sentence. Maybe he hopes we won't notice.

Can't you feel the author's pain and anguish in the tortured language of this paragraph? I for one am sympathetic. I think it is just very fortunate that the author had a literary palliative that he could quickly pen to assuage his pain -- that of Iran explaining the true, peaceful nature of its nuclear (weapons) program to the incompent Americans.

This one has to go down as a classic of leftist literature. Our author displays an absolute refusal to draw any reasonable inferences from the facts that he must face up to, and he gets an alternate take on the facts wherever he can -- an alternate take even more reliable then the IAEA report itself, apparently. This is truly a work of art. And because of all his effort, his is able to maintain the purity of his ideological equations:

BushHitler = Evil; CIA = Incompetent; Iran = Peace Loving, Honest and Democratic Mullahs.

I have my own equation. LEFT'S POSITION ON IRAN = SUICIDE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

Read More...

SENATOR TRENT LOTT

I have never had any respect for this Senator who, to my mind, personified all of the reasons the Republicans lost in the last election. He is addicted to pork, he revels in back room machinations -- not transparency, and he is either supremely arrogant or he has a tin ear in the extreme, I am not such which (or both). His latest cause celebre is strong arming the insurance industry for personal gain in a manner that would do Vito Corleone proud. He disgraces our Republican party. Please see this article in the WSJ, particularly if you are from Mississippi and voted for Senator Lott.

Read More...

NYT DEFINES SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

The New York Times takes the low road to give us their definition of what the democratic mantra, "support the troops" means, at least among the anti-war liberal elite. All soldiers -- and soldier's families -- know when they sign up that they face extended periods away from home. There is no guarantee of a rotation policy out of a combat zone to come home and be with one's family during wartime. That is an aberration growing out of Vietnam. Further, during long deployments, military families always will band together for support. What the NYT does is cherrypick occaisions where that system breaks down in this front page NYT hit piece -- which is utterly disgusting in its content. The clear message being conveyed is that if you "really care" about soldiers, you will bring them home so that they can be with their families. What utter craven scum they are to print this trash.

Read More...

KRAUTHAMMER ANALYZES DEM PLANS TO END THE WAR

And he finds them sorely wanting. An excellent article.

Update: See Powerline's post on the same topic.

That sounds like a really great idea. If someone plants an IED or shoots at our troops, they can't fire back until they determine whether the attackers are al Qaeda or garden-variety insurgents.

Read More...

CHINA'S MIXED SIGNALS

China is increasing its military capability far beyond that necessary for its own defense and is taking actions, most recently the destruction of a satelite, that are highly provocative. But while China is becoming a military threat that will only grow in the future, our relations with them otherwise remain in many respects good.

Read More...

DEATH TO AMERICA -- THE IRANIAN PROBLEM RATCHETS UP

The MSM documents that Iran has failed to comply with UN resolutions requiring it to cease its nuclear production. The best of the articles comes from the Washington Post:


Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported. The report also said that Iran "has not agreed" to permit sufficient scrutiny of its nuclear program as required to determine whether it is pursuing nuclear weapons. "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear program," the six-page report said.

The IAEA said Iran has not been forthcoming in its response to documents obtained by U.S. intelligence indicating that Iran was trying to build a missile to accommodate a nuclear warhead and constructing a covert facility to convert uranium.


Read the entire story.

The ball is again in our court. Our next move is dependent on how our government assesses the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

As a threshold matter, no one, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, not Joe Biden, not Jacques Chirac, and not even Jack "retreat to Okinawa" Murtha -- hmmm, scratch that, maybe only Jack Murtha -- can possibly believe that Iran's nuclear activities are intended for anything other then building atomic weapons.

Two, we know that Iran is a theocratic police state that, to quote Amir Taheri, seeks to see its religion . . . transformed into a political ideology [that can be used throughout the Middle East as] an instrument of power for the ruling clergy." It is aggressively expansionist.

Three, the unique brand of Shiaism practiced in Iran is a triumphalist religion that, as interpreted under the ageis of Khomeinism, glorifies death and suicidal actions, seeing in them "martyrdom" that is a sure ticket to particularly earthly delights in heaven (for the males, at least). And there are very many true believers in the Shia world. How many tens of thousands of teenage boys drank the Kool Aid offered by Khomeini, took the plastic key made in Taiwan that Khomeini told them was the key to heaven, and then marched weaponless across the sands of Iraq to clear minefields and to die charging Iraqi positions during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is clear that true believers in Khomeini's Shiaism do not operate from the same set of rational principals that protected us during the cold war -- i.e., MAD, the concept of mutually assured destruction. Bernard Lewis, the preeminent Middle East scholar in America, expounded upon this in an article some months ago:

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.


Coupled with this mindset, we know that the Iranian government has no moral qualms with murder and that the government is unconcerned with collateral damage, whether it be Christian, Jew, or even Islamic blood spilled. A common refrain is that Allah will sort them out in Heaven.

So if the mullahs of Iran get nuclear weapons, what is the likelihood that they will use them and how would they use them? The permutations and scenarios are endless. But clearly, no one can possibly expect the theocracy in Iran to lessen their aggression or bellicosity once they have nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite. Thus they will become even more of a threat to their neighbors and to the Western world. Several possible scenarios and their probability are discussed in detail here, including:
Abdullah and Mubarak, two of the most prominent Sunni leaders, have, along with senior Saudi officials, evoked the specter of a new Middle East divided along sectarian lines. It would set the ­long-­downtrodden Shia against their traditional Sunni masters, rulers, and landlords. If the first battlefield was Iraq, the two leaders suggested, the next would be the ­oil-endowed regions of the Persian Gulf, southern Iraq, and Azerbaijan, where Shia happen to live. In this scenario, the ayatollahs of Shiite Iran could then secure control of the Iraqi, Saudi, and Caspian oil and gas fields by placing them under the protection of their own nuclear arsenal, thus establishing the first Islamic state to achieve great-power status since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in
1918.

Given the clear threat, it is impossible to see how we could allow the mullahs in Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Failure to make the tough decisions now will only increase exponentially the potential for war and casualties on a grand scale later.

That does not mean that we should act militarily now. Our window for military action against Iran -- without having to worry about a nightmare scenario such as described above -- is between one to five years. There is no question that we would decisively win such a confrontation, but the costs would be dear. Further, if we only engaged in an air strike to "set back the clock" on Iran’s nuclear development while leaving theocracy intact, that could prove very problematic. It raises a significant possibility of imbuing a nationalism among Iranians that is now absent and, with the population backing them, there is no doubt that Iran would become very aggressive in attacking American and Western interests world-wide.

So our aim must be to exploit Iran’s weaknesses by other means. There are many. Twenty-eight years of theocratic rule has alienated and secularized a large portion of the population. There is wide scale unemployment and very high inflation, As one commentator has described it:
Despite ample natural resources, Iran continues to suffer double-digit rates of inflation and unemployment. A million young Iranians enter the job market every year, but the economy produces less than half that many jobs. The clerics' penchant for centralization has bred an inefficient command economy with a bloated bureaucracy. Extensive subsidies for basic commodities, such as wheat and gasoline, waste tens of billions of dollars but do little to alleviate poverty. Massive foundations that are philanthropic only in name monopolize key sectors of the economy, operating with little competition, regulation, or taxation. Inefficient state-owned enterprises drain the government budget, and a vast gray market of commercial entities has been spun off from government ministries. The recent increase in oil prices is not a long-term solution to Iran's woes; the economy's flaws run much too deep. Twenty-five years after Iran's revolution pledged to deliver a more just society, the Islamic Republic has spawned an economy that benefits only an elite group of clerics and their cronies and stifles private enterprise.

And therein is Iran’s Achilles heel. Indeed, the relatively mild sanctions that we have already placed upon Iran are showing fault lines in the theocracy. What Iran seeks to do now is forestall any further actions. In the past two weeks, we have seen Iran profess a renewed interest in talks and a ratcheting down of the bellicosity:

[On February 11] Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, briefly met with European diplomats for the first time since talks collapsed in September and said Iran was willing to return to formal discussions.
. . . .
Larijani also said Iran was a force for regional stability in the Middle East and had no designs on any of its neighbors, including Iraq and Israel. "We pose no threat, and if we are conducting nuclear research and development, we are no threat to Israel," he said.

And two days ago, as described by Powerline, there was a "breathless" report on CNN about

. . . a "top government official" of Iran--identity, unfortunately, unknown--and reports that Iranian officials, at least those who don't dare divulge their identities, are hungry for good relations with the U.S.:

"Natural allies," this official said.

It was a surprising choice of words considering the barbs Washington and Tehran have been trading of late.

"We are not after conflict. We are not after crisis. We are not after war," said this official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But we don't know whether the same is true in the U.S. or not. If the same is true on the U.S. side, the first step must be to end this vicious cycle that can lead to
dangerous action -- war."

This anonymous, but presumably very powerful, Iranian assured Ms. Amanpour that the desire for peace with the U.S. goes to the very top of the Iranian hierarchy: He confided that what he was telling me was not shared by all in the Iranian government, but it was endorsed so high up in the religious leadership that he felt confident spelling out the rationale.

"This view is not off the streets. It's not the reformist view and it's not even the view of the whole government," he replied.

But he insisted he was describing the thinking at the highest levels of the religious leadership -- the center of decision-making power in Iran.

I asked whether he meant Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.

"Yes," he said..


Does anyone believe this? (Mr. Murtha, please put your hand down)

These actions are so obviously disingenuous as to be laughable. The clear purpose of these acts is to exploit the two major weaknesses of the West. One, a largely amoral and pacifistic Europe, usually led by France’s Chirac, whose professions of motivation by high principles is quite literally always naught but smoke to hide a profit motive that might be mined while America foots the bill with money and blood. Two, a Democratic party now in power that is equally amoral and almost as spineless, and whose profession of motivation by high principles is predicated on attaining partisan political advantage.

Europe has had years of talks with Iran, which we have fully supported, including our offer of a package of economic incentives that was rejected only because Iran’s true objective is a nuclear arsenal. Further talks with Iran, absent significant punitive actions, would be not only useless, but counterproductive. What Iran seeks at this point is to buy time – time to complete their weapons program; time to patch the numerous leaks in the dam of their floundering economy; time to wait until George Bush leaves office; and, ultimately, time to gain a position of advantage over the West.

Yet, it would seem that Iran’s last minute gambit is already paying dividends. Russia and China are, in essence, allies of Iran in this matter – and have no doubt it is with the intention of weakening the United States strategically while gaining a financial advantage. They are stabbing us in the chest, not the back. The target on our back is reserved for the Europeans who are already grabbing for the knife:

A senior European diplomat said it is not a foregone conclusion that "we will go down the sanctions lane," adding: "There are quite a number of European Union countries who believe we should go easy because there seems to be an opening on the Iranian side."
So what to do? One, Bush needs to publicly and forcefully put the military option back on the table if for naught else then to impress upon all parties – mostly immediately our "allies" – that it is now time to impose harsh sanctions before the military option is the only one left. Now is not the time for any mixed signals. Iran and the Democrats must be disabused of any belief that we will quietly acquiesce to Iran's attainment of nuclear weapons. Two, we need to adopt an aggressive policy of destabilizing Iran’s theocracy with the intent of achieving regime change. Clearly Iran can make much trouble for us in Iraq, but we need to quickly get to the point that we can go one better, both in Iran and Iraq. Glen Reynolds is spot on in his calls for targeted covert action against Iranian high value targets, and it needs to happen both in Iraq and Iran. Lastly, Amir Taheri, a brilliant Iranian author, has written very thorough article on the how and why of regime change in Iran. Rather then repeat him, I urge you to read this in full.

Read More...

Thursday, February 22, 2007

EGYPTIAN BLOGGER JAILED FOR FOUR YEARS

As Instapundit has summed it up with his usual brevity, "this sucks." It is a true crushing of free speech sorely needed in Egypt. If the Bush doctrine of promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East has any meaning, this act should drastically effect the amount of foreign aid we are giving Egypt for at least as long as Abdel Karim Suleiman sits in an Egyptian prison. If you feel the same way I do, please express your opinions to the White House, to yours Senators, and to your Representative.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Sen: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representative: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Update: For a good background to this story, see Michelle Malkin's post here.

Read More...

CAIR: THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS, IS A RADICAL ORGANIZATION

CAIR is a highly prominent organization that is an outgrowth of the coupling of Saudi oil money with their Salafi / Wahhabi form of Islam. Benard Lewis, the preeminent academic expert in America on the Middle East, has likened the nature and threat of Salafi / Wahhabi Islam to the world as a coupling of the "KKK" with "all of the oil wealth in Texas." The Middle East Quarterly has a thorough expose of CAIR here. It is well worth a read, as these snippets indicate:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), headquartered in Washington, is perhaps the best-known and most controversial Muslim organization in North America. CAIR presents itself as an advocate for Muslims' civil rights and the spokesman for American Muslims
. . . .

Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.
. . . .

CAIR has a number of links to the terror organization Hamas, starting with the founder of its Texas chapter, Ghassan Elashi . . .
. . . .
A class-action lawsuit brought by the estate of John P. O'Neill, Sr. charges CAIR and its Canadian
branch of being, since their inception, "part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism" with a unique role in the terrorist network

both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

It would be hard to improve on this characterization; under the guise of participating in counterterrorism, CAIR does its best to impede these efforts.
. . . .
CAIR has consistently shown itself to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism, protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists.
. . . .
CAIR has a key role in the "Wahhabi lobby"—the network of organizations, usually supported by donations from Saudi Arabia, whose aim is to propagate the especially extreme version of Islam
practiced in Saudi Arabia.
. . . .
CAIR's personnel are normally tight-lipped about the organization's agenda but sometimes let their ambitions slip out. CAIR's long-serving chairman, Omar Ahmad, reportedly told a crowd
of California Muslims in July 1998, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."


And there is much more. If you are not intimately familiar with the threat of this organization and the threat of Salafi / Wahhabi Islam, I strongly recommend that you read this article

Hattip: Maverick News Media

Read More...

RED KEN. A good post at Fausta's Blog on Ken Livingstone, the beyond far left Mayor of London. It seems that the conservatives across the pond, led by 18Doughty Street, are finally taking concentrated aim at him.

Read More...

GEORGE WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY. Powerline has a good article honoring our first President.

Read More...

THERE ARE MODERATE MUSLIM LEADERS OUT THERE, as discussed in this story, and also here. When they step up like this, they deserve our full support. And you will note that I use the word "leaders" in the caption. I have known and been friends with far too many muslims, both shia and sunni, to believe for a second that the problem rests with the "ummah." The problem at its root is the clerical establishment who, to borrow the words from Amir Taheri, want to use their religion as "a political ideology and an instrument of power" over all others.

Read More...

GERMANY WAKES UP TO IT OWN PROBLEMS WITH FUNDEMENTALIST ISLAM. There is an excellent and lengthy article in Der Speigel charting the growth of a seperate society of fundemental islamists in Germany's midst.

Surveys in the country have charted a significant a significant increase in fundamentalist attitudes, particularly among younger Muslims. The experiences of Ekin Deligöz, a member of the German parliament representing the Green Party, underscore the potential dangers. Having called on Muslim women to remove their headscarves, Deligöz faced death threats and now receives police protection.

Disturbing as this trend may be, it cannot be pinned exclusively on Muslim groups. Under the guise of religious tolerance, German society stood blithely by as some parts of its Muslim communities began turning into parallel societies. For years, the country's courts have been excusing Muslim girls from coed swimming lessons and class outings - citing the most absurd reasons for their rulings.


Read the whole article.

Read More...

INSURGENTS USE HUMAN SHIELDS and children to hide behind when attacking U.S. troops.

Boys on bikes cycle backwards and forwards on a footbridge over a small canal lined with houses and groves of date palms. Women in headscarves look anxiously in groups from windows. Men walk with shopping bags. A gunman, clutching an AK-47, bobs his head around the corner of an alleyway close to a school. Once. Twice. On the third occasion a child, a boy seven or eight years old, is thrust out in front of him. The gunman holds him firmly by the arm and steps out for instant into full view of the Bradley's gunner to get a proper look, then yanks the boy back and disappears.

"That is really dirty," says Specialist Chris Jankow, in the back of the Bradley, with a mixture of contempt, anger and frustration. "They know exactly what our rules of engagement are. They know we can't fire back."

A few minutes and a few hundred metres later the performance is repeated. A woman and three small children emerge uncertainly from behind a building, little more than a shack. They stare at the approaching armour. After a few seconds they retreat from view; then the process is repeated. The third time they emerge, a fighter is crouching behind them with a rocket-propelled grenade aimed at Jankow's Bradley. The group disappears.

There is a long pause, a moment of excruciating moral conflict for the soldiers and for the gunner in particular. Not to shoot would be to imperil their own lives or those of their colleagues, both American and Iraqi. To shoot would be to risk killing civilians who have been shoved in front of their guns to shield insurgent fighters.



Please read this excellent report from the Guardian. The utter callousness and depravity of our enemy will break your heart. Compare that with the morality of our soldiers.

Read More...

RARE COMMON SENSE ISLAMAPHOBIA IN BRITAIN.

Controversial plans to build a "supermosque" on the doorstep of the London Olympics will be blocked by the Government.

The group behind the plans [to build the supermosque] is Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary sect whose charitable trust, Anjuman-e-Islahul Muslimeen, has owned the 18-acre site since 1996. Tablighi Jamaat was called "an ante-chamber for fundamentalism" by French security services. Two of the July 7 London suicide bombers are believed to have attended one of its mosques.


Read the whole story.

Read More...

SUCCESSES FROM THE FIRST WEEK OF THE SURGE.

“There has been a significant reduction in sectarian incidents and in ex-judicial killings in Baghdad,” Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, told reporters via satellite connection from a news conference in Iraq.
Read the whole story. Why isin't this even making it onto the MSM?

Read More...

WILL BUSH STAY ABOVE THE FRAY yet again in the face of another outrage? Bush has tried to maintain "presidential decorum," if you will, throughout his term in office, refusing to vigorously and directly address the outrageous allegations and assertions made against him by far left democrats.

The latest comes from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the woman currently plotting with John Murtha to declare defeat and end U.S. involvement in Iraq. In response to her machinations, Vice President Cheney opined that their plan would "validate al Qaeda" strategy to "break the will of the American people."

Speaker Pelosi has taken extreme umbrage at this remark, calling the President's office and demanding that he "repudiate" Cheney's remarks, claiming it is an attack on her patriotism and "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support." The President was not available at the time and has yet to respond.

I think that Bush's greatest failing has been his inability to communicate effectively. That inability, coupled with his "presidential decorum," has allowed the left to gain momentum over time with their often outragous assertions. Reagen could pull off "presidential decorum" in such a situation; Bush cannot. And it has been the steady drumbeat of such things as "Bush lied" without an effective counter communication from Bush directly addressing Pelosi, Reid, Shumer and their kin that has greatly contributed to Bush's current position. Now is at least one opportunity to respond.

Were I President Bush, my public response would be:

"To Speaker Pelosi, who has expressed her anger because of remarks by Vice President Cheney that her plan to end the surge by placing restrictions on deployment of our troops to Iraq, that such would validate Al Qaeda's plan, I say to you that Vice President Cheney is, of course, not questioning your patriotism, but rather stating a cold fact. I will not question your patriotism, Madame Speaker. I do, however, very much question your judgment, and I do believe that you are seeking to win in our national politics more then you are seeking to successfully win -- or "manage," as you put it -- our undertaking in Iraq. What will happen if we leave Iraq now is not something which is, to use your words, "beneath the dignity of the debate," rather it is the very center of the debate, madame.

I have proposed and begun to implement a military plan which is designed to bring the situation in Iraq under control over time. It needs a chance to work. If you truly believe that we can leave Iraq now and not be in a worse situation, then act with political courage and submit a bill to defund the war. If not, then I call on you and all people of this nation, including this Congress, to support our military -- not just with empty words and platitudes -- but by truly supporting their mission in this surge while they fight for our country. Either of those acts would be patriotic, Madame Speaker.
One can only dream.

UPDATE: Its Cheney doing the talking:
"She accused me of questioning her patriotism," Cheney said. "I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment."

Read More...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

AARP SEEKS REFORM OF SOCIAL SECURITY. See here. Why now?

I for one have lost all respect for the AARP. Their extensive campaign against Bush's proposals to tackle the problem of Social Security, coupled with incredibly cynical arguments from Democrats (led by Harry Reid, who had years before sought to allow Congressman to opt out of the Social Security system), doomed Bush's plan to failure. If you will recall, the Democrats and AARP accomplished this without proposing any alternatives. Now, with a Democratic Congress, the AARP seeks to reengage on the Social Security issue. People, the AARP are not your friends.

Since this is a new blog and I have not addressed this subject before, I am going to take the opportunity now. As a threshold matter, if a private individual ran Social Security, he would be put in jail for running a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is a classic of white collar crime. It is where a person takes your money for investment but, instead, spends it, relying on future deposits to cover then current payouts. That is in essence what happens with Social Security. Our Social Security taxes first fund current payouts, then the remainder goes into the general fund to be spent by the government that year. Thus, Social Security, like a ponzi scheme, is doomed to fail.

Bush proposed to both fully fund Social Security and to allow a portion of those funds to be invested in the stock market or a bond fund. Such a plan is precisely what we need.

One, it would give everyone a stake in the economic growth of this nation -- i.e., the profitability of U.S. business. We do not have that now. We have poorly designed and often gross over regulation of businesses (i.e., Sarbanes-Oxley), we have attacks on profitable businesses (i.e., Walmart), we have a litigation system that at times resembles a lottery (punitive damage awards that can literally drive companies out of business), we have unions with far too much power to prevent changes in business models so as to insure profitability (i.e., American automobile manufacturers), we have Hillary Clinton threatening to nationalize at least a portion of our oil and gas industry as well as health care, and our taxation systems on corporations and capital gains are and will cause capital flight. If we all had a stake in the wealth of our nation, I have no doubt there would be much less "class warfare" and much more emphasis on increasing profitability and reasonableness in all of the areas listed above.

Two, the historic returns of the stock market are far greater then a calculated rate of return on total investments into Social Security. In attacking a private account plan for Social Security, Harry Reid put up a web site that showed a person investing in a stock plan with a lower payout than what they would have received through a straight Social Security account. If memory serves, I believe he calculated a much weaker economy in the future and a rate of return for stocks at 3%. Based on historic rates of return (over 10% annually since 1938 by my spreadsheet), that is just purely ridiculous and displays the ultimate in cynicism.

Now, gather around brothers and sisters . . . here is a little secret -- if our stockmarket is not performing above 3% over a ten year period, then our economy is in the tubes. Our ability to pay out Social Security at a higher rate of return will necessarily be impaired because our tax base will be insufficient. In other words, the government will have to print money or sell far more government bonds to China in order to fund the payout. The first is inflationary -- thus decreasing the value of the Social Security payout -- while the second is a massive increase in our national debt which will eventually come due.

The cost of funding the Bush program is high -- but we can bite the bullet now our later. Certainly for our progeny, the Bush program was and still is our best option. I for one would willingly submit to a temporarily higher tax burden in order to fund such a plan. What say you?.

Read More...

RUSSIA AND THE NYT. Publius Pundit takes extreme issue with Tom Friedman's assertions that the U.S. is responsible for Russia's tack into a mafia-style dictatorship.

Read More...

TAHERI ON THE SYRIA-IRAN ALLIANCE.

What we now witness is the clash of two visions for the Middle East, one represented by the 6+2 bloc, the other by the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syria. The 6+2 bloc hopes to stabilise the region in cooperation with the US and its principal Western allies. The Tehran-Damascus axis, on the other hand, hopes to exclude the US in the context of a broader strategy aimed at turning the Middle East into a base for challenging the American-dominated global system.
. . . .
The kind of Middle East that Khomeinists want is one in which religion is transformed into a political ideology and an instrument of power for the ruling clergy.


Read the whole article.

Read More...

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and the lighter side of the law. Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit writes a humorous decision to end the "t-shirt" war between the "giftees," the "tards," and the Chicago Board of Education.

Hattip: Enotes

Read More...

HOW DOES THE UN DEFINE TERRORISM? It seems fairly straight forward. The U.S. government defines it at 18 USC 2331 as

activities that involve violent acts . . . dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the [US], . . . and that appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping . . . .


The U.S. came up with this definition in the wake of 9-11.

As to the UN, incredibly, they still have not defined terrorism. As Eye on the UN explains:

On Thursday February 15, 2007 the UN concluded its eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to negotiate a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It ended by agreeing to meet again - 8 months from now.
Rather than fulfilling the promise of September 2005's "Reform" Summit of world
leaders to define terrorism and finalize this treaty, stalemate was the result of two weeks of negotiations and the free spending of your taxpayer dollars. Why the impasse? Cutting through the verbiage, there are many states at the UN that think it's acceptable to kill civilians - especially Jewish and American ones - and there are many other states that refuse to stand up to the thugs.


Read the whole story.

Read More...

TEHRAN'S TIME IS UP. "Iran faces a deadline today to suspend its enrichment of uranium or, according to the terms of a U.N. Security Council resolution unanimously adopted last December, face further sanctions." AEI weighs in on the issue of engaging Iran in talks.

Read More...

A FAR LEFT INQUISITION to insure ideological purity. If there is any doubt that the far left wing of the Democratic Party is bent on -- and succeeding -- in taking over the Democratic Party, then please read this from the Washington Post about their attacks on "centrist" democrats and how it is altering their politics.

Update: These comments from Powerline:

On the front page of today's Washington Post, we learn that "liberal bloggers" have made a "target" of centrist (sort of) Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California. This is the kind of story that some conservative bloggers used to argue shows the destructive influence of the liberal blogosphere on the Democratic party. But that was before some conservative bloggers started doing the same thing to Republican
members of Congress.

But at least conservative bloggers don't get quoted making bombastic pronouncements like this one from the power-crazed (but to-date impotent) "Subcomandante" Markos of the Daily Kos -- "Absolutely, we could take her out."

Read More...

POLITICIZING AWARDS. A thoughtful post from Cinnamon.

Hattip: Fausta's Blog

Read More...

FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE SURGE IN BAGHDAD.

Although soldiers and policemen are filling the streets, the terrorists are too coward to face the troops and choose to massacre unarmed civilians instead. What are they trying to prove with these cowardly acts? They can’t defeat the troops, so they attack civilians to discredit the security plan. But I don’t think such attacks can change the course of events on the long term; the Baghdad plan is a strategic effort that will go on for months, and time doesn’t seem to be on the terrorists’ side right now.

Today there was fighting in the neighborhoods around us and there were several attacks in other parts of Baghdad. It looks like some militants consider that sitting back and waiting is not an option and so they are trying to break the siege. The fighting was fierce and gunship helicopters circled at low altitude over the fighting zone and adjacent areas.
Read the entire post from Iraq the Model.

Read More...

DEMOCRATS IN DENIAL.

In spite of the 2006 midterm elections which saw Democrats obtain a small majority in Congress, life has actually been going very badly for the left . As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their ideology; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to suppress all dissenting opinions. (See the style of one of their heroes for an example of this)


Read the whole story from Dr. Sanity.

Read More...

BBC TWISTING ITS COVERAGE of American claims of Iranian-backed terrorism in Iran.

Read More...

THOMAS SOWELL on politics vs economics.

Read More...

RUSSIA RISING. "[T]he time for treating Russia like a trustworthy ally in fighting global terror, or having common interests with the United States in Latin America, Africa or Europe has long passed." See also this Anne Applebaum article.

Update: And see this from the Maverick News Network.

Read More...

CHAOS IN THE GULF. "As I have been pointing out for almost a year, everybody is getting ready for war in the Gulf".

Read More...

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

POLLS OF INTEREST. Truth be known, I do not believe in polls -- I think that they can often be subject to gross manipulation. And I absolutely do not believe polls should either be an MSM headline news story nor the basis for shifting political decisions. Having said all of that -- I sheepishly don the clothes of a hypocrite, because now I am going to raise two polls reported today.

Poll 1 - It seems Pelosi and Murtha are way out in front of the American public on the Iraq War:

Yet another new poll shows that America wants to win in Iraq, disproving the Democratic party view in Congress and on the campaign trail that America wants to leave Iraq quickly. By 53% to 43%, respondents say it's still possible to establish a stable democracy in Iraq and reduce the threat of terrorism at home. By 57% to 41%, voters want to finish the job in Iraq. By 53% to 46%, voters think the Dems are going too far, too fast in pressing the President for troop withdrawal.


Poll 2 - This one reported from the UK following a large scale sampling of public opinion in various muslim countries. It purports to show the ever increasing dislike of Americans among muslim populations. However, it shows that, while 63% of Iranians had an unfavourable view of America in 2001, that number today has dropped down to 52%.

Read More...

HUGE NEWS FROM THE SURGE. This is being reported by a news agency from Kuwait:

Muqtada Sadr office bombarded

BAGHDAD, Feb 20 (KUNA) -- A joint force of the Iraqi
Army and US troops Tuesday bombarded the office of Shiite leader Muqtada Al Sadr in Al-Shula area, west of Baghdad, a security source told KUNA.The source said some 14 military vehicles are now surrounding the office and Iraqi and US soldiers could be seen confiscating material and documents.Muqtada Al-Sadr himself is out of the country over fears for his safety.

If this is true, it would appear that Prime Minister Maliki has in fact declared open season on one of the prime causes of violence in Iraq. It would be critically good news for the surge.

Hattip: Jules Crittenden

Read More...

MUSLIM MAN BURNED FAMILY TO DEATH for being too Western.

Read More...

UK TO DECLARE VICTORY in Basara, Iraq, and go home. This will add to the clarion call of the anti-war movement for us to likewise declare . . . . hmmmm, no, just go home. This does not bode well and I am unsure of the impetus -- probably because Labour looks to be trounced by the Tories in the next election with the party split as they are.

Update: No surprises here -- Democrats Seize Upon British Plan to Withdrawal

Read More...

THE MUSLIM COUNCIL OF BRITAIN asks, in a document some 72 pages in length, for the state to institute extensive guidelines for special treatment of Islamic children in the state school system. Some of the guidelines include:

  • Allowance for girls beginning at the primary school level to wear the hijab
  • seperation of the sexes in any sort of physical activity that would allow touching or that involves swimming.
  • special changing areas for muslim children to change clothes in private
  • if you have a school field trip to a farm, muslims must not be allowed to touch a pig
  • Parents can withdrawal their children from music classes
  • Muslim children should not be asked to draw pictures of humans

And that is but a very few examples from this ponderous document. Read the whole thing. It is amazing. Rather then integrate into society, the Muslim Council of Britain is seeking to enlist state schools in furthering seperation between Muslims and the anglo-saxon population, and in essence, enlisting the state in the promotion of the salafi / wahabbi brand of Islam.

If you do not know it, the Muslim Council of Britain is, like our own CAIR, a salafi /wahabbi organization that is suspect for ties to terrorist organizations, their constant drumbeat that anything critical of Islam or any security measures aimed at islamic terrorism are "Islamaphobic" (can occidentals have an 'irrational' fear of Islam at this point -- and, yes, "Islamaphobia" is addressed at page 15 of the guidelines), and claims for special treatment of their faith (for example, UK Hate Speech laws that criminlize criticism of Islam).

Compare what the Muslim Council of Britain is demanding with this from a Muslim MP, Lord Ahmed:

The veil is now a mark of separation, segregation and defiance against mainstream British culture. . . [T]here's nothing in the Koran to say that the wearing of a niqab is desirable, let alone compulsory. It's purely cultural. . . . They are a physical barrier to integration. Just as Westerners cannot walk around the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh without a headcovering and long clothes and expect to engage with local people, so Muslims in Britain must become more sensitive to their surroundings.


Also, if you missed it, you might want to watch Undercover Mosque, an expose of the type of salafi / wahabbi thought being taught behind closed doors in Britain's "moderate" mosques. Britain has a major problem. From all I have read and from the people I have spoken with in the UK, it seems apparent that the Labour government's dogma of "multiculturalism" is out of sync with the rapidly dwindling tolerance of the British public for this march to dhimmitude.

Lastly, there are in fact Muslims in this world are moderate, but I have yet to see any evidence of a moderate who is in a leadership or clerical position in the Salafi / Wahabbi sects of Islam originating out of Saudi Arabia. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Read More...

WACO ISLAMIC STYLE. This looks ominous. Read the whole post. The main building certainly has fortress charachteristics.

Read More...

THE REAL WAR IN ISLAM is between those who would bring Islam into the modern era and those who seek to maintain the purity of Islam as it existed in 700 A.D. -- or at least their perception of this purity. Islam unfortunately has never undergone a renaissance or reformation, and indeed, the internal mechanisms for such modification - ijtihad - were frozen over one thousand years ago. Thus today we have acts such as this:

Pakistani minister and woman’s activist has been shot dead by an Islamic extremist for refusing to wear the veil. Zilla Huma Usman, the minister for social welfare in Punjab province and an ally of President Pervez Musharraf, was killed as she was about to deliver a speech to dozens of party activists, by a “fanatic”, who believed that she was dressed inappropriately and that women should not be involved in politics, officials said. . . .

. . . The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in a recent report said that violence against women had increased alarmingly, with some of the incidents incited by Mullahs opposed to women’s emancipation.

The truth is that, while radical Islamists appear to be a minority, they are a completely ruthless minority acting in a sphere with no ethical or moral restraints. And if history teaches us anything, it is that a ruthless minority can easily overtake and impose their will on a majority population. Lenin and Mao are prime examples. Thus, while we must protect ourselves from the menace that is radical Islam, the ultimate solution to the problem is for Muslims to address and solve these issues internally. Unfortunately, that will mean much more innocent blood will be spilt, like that of Zilla Huma Usman.

Read More...

JOHN EDWARDS SELF DESTRUCTING. At a recent Hollywood reception, Mr. Edwards opined:

Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace . . . [is] the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
Perhaps Mr. Edwards could join Congressmen Silvestre Reyes and John Murtha and invest in a current events class on Iran, Ahmedinijad, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc. Edwards might have had a shot against Hillary, but with gaffes like this one and last weeks fiasco with the intemperate bloggers he hired and then fired, and coupled with the rise of Obamamania, Edwards will not long last as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination for President.

Hattip: Drudge .

Read More...

A BIG WIN IN COURT. In the case of Boumediene v. Bush. As one commentator explained

A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit has upheld the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [MCA], which strips federal courts of jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainee cases. Rejecting the detainees’ argument that the MCA does not apply to their cases, Judge Randolph writes that the statutory language could not be clearer, as it is the equivalent of Congress members slamming their fists on the table shouting "When we say ‘all,’ we mean all – without exception!"

The actual decision is here.

Note that Senator Chris Dodd, in conjunction with the ACLU, has introduced the ""Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007," that would rescind the MCA. The Act is not well named. It would not "restore" the Constitution, rather it would for the first time give constitutitonal protections to terrorists and enemy combatants. It is shear insanity.

Read More...

ASSASSINATION. Instapundit looks at the desirability of the government using targeted assassination and responds to criticism by Paul Campos.


[T]he Bush Administration might have been better off trying to use covert action to kill Iranian nuclear scientists and radical mullahs, instead of having to look at the massive air strikes now reportedly being planned, which would surely kill more people. He hurts his credibility up front by saying that Iran is not at war with us -- when, in fact, it has been since 1979, with the deaths of many Americans, soldiers and otherwise, on its hands.

Read the whole post.

In making his case that numerous leaders of both parties have looked at assassination as a legitimate state tool (Biden, Feinstein, Robb), Instapundit misses John F. Kennedy, who authorized the successful assassination of the President of South Vietnam, Ngo Diem, and authorized numerous attempts at the assassination of Castro.

The problem with utopian ideals of Paul Campos is that, while laudible, there has to be a line in the sand where such ideals meet reality. If the true attainment of utopian ideals were possible, there would no murder, there would have been no 9-11, no Taliban imposing their dark ages world view, the theocracy in Iran would be benign, and there would be no need to defend ourselves. But the reality is that such utopian ideals, while laudible, if adhered to with blind obedience, can be very destructive.

Really, from a moralistic standpoint, this is an age old question, similar in many respects to the decision to use the atomic weapon to end WW II. By using the bomb, we killed some 220,000 Japanese, mostly civilians, but it saved the lives of an estimated 500,000 U.S. soldiers who would have died in an assault on the mainland, as well as Japanese civilian casualties estimated to have numbered in the millions during and after such a military campaign. In sum, given a bellicose enemy actively involved in hostilities against Americans, is the murder of one or more people justified to prevent far greater death and destruction? I think that the answer is an easy one -- of course.

Update: Instapundit responds in a news article.

Read More...

SAUDI CHIEF MUFTI VS ST. VALENTINE. It appears the Saint is winning.

Read More...

KNOW YOUR ENEMY. Shrinkwrapped psychoanalyzes al Zawahiri. Good read.

Read More...

MOONBATS vs. THE TIN FOIL HATTERS over the 9-11 conspiracy theories. A funny read on one level, disheartening on another. I consider the UK our closest natural ally -- yet it, like much of Europe, is infested with a hatred of America bred on ridiculous propoganda and envy.

Read More...

BBC REPORTS U.S. HAS PLANS TO ATTACK IRAN. The BBC has reported -- quite breathlessly -- that the U.S. has developed plans for an attack on Iran. Wow, no kidding.

As a threshold matter, I seriously doubt whether the BBC reporters and editors responsible for this story have any clue that the United States military maintains war plans, updated regularly, for hosilities against many countries in this world. For example, after Peal Harbor was bombed, the Pentagon dusted off Rainbow 5 -- a basic plan for a dual front war against Germany and Japan that was written well before December 7, 1941. That is what Pentagon planners do - they plan.

Two, any warplans that we have are classified a minimum of secret. Usually it is the NYT that gets around to publishing our classified secrets. But, given that the BBC and the NYT are ideological twins, I guess that I should not be surprised. One of the great failings of the Bush presidency is that no one has been or will be punished for any of these leaks.

Three . . . and this one is wonderful. Why should we not bomb Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program?

Britain's previous ambassador to Tehran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC it would backfire badly by probably encouraging the Iranian government to develop a nuclear weapon in the long term.

They had to work in an anti-war sentiment somewhere, no matter how sophmoric. Can somemone explain that logic? If we stop them from making a nuclear weapon now, then it will insure that they try to make one later? Leave aside for the moment this little bit of news reported just days ago:
Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

The BBC is just so over the top. God help the British until they privatize the news division of the BBC and make it compete in the marketplace.

Read More...

LOL. What will the ecologically conscious epicureans do now?

Read More...

U.S. POLITICS FROM ACROSS THE POND. A Brit opines why Giuliani should be the next Republican nominee over McCain. I am a bit torn on this one. I much preferred McCain over Bush in the 2000 election. And as much as I still respect McCain, I think that Giuliani is more electable now.

Read More...

MUSHARRAF'S POLITICAL FUTURE. Pakistani politics may well be driving Musharraf away from the radicals and into a deal with the secular liberal party over the next year. That would be a plus.

Read More...


LABRADOR RETRIEVER TO THE RESCUE.


As an owner of 3 labs and an avid fan of the breed, I was happy to see this dog credited in part with saving three lives.

Read More...

A ROUNDUP OF SUCCESS IN THE SURGE. From the Dept. of Defense, an overview of the actions and successes over the past four days.

Read More...

Monday, February 19, 2007

AL QAEDA RECRUITING IN MOROCCO. And they have had some success there. As one expert explained.

"The big state for al-Qaeda is Iraq," said Mohamed Darif, a political science professor and terrorism expert at Hassan II-Mohammedia University in Morocco. "Al-Qaeda has the same strategy as the United States: It wants to win in Iraq so it can transform the whole region. They are fixated on Iraq."

Would someone please explain this fact to the radical left as they consider the supplemental spending bill.



Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

AND MORE FROM THE CATHOLIC WORLD . . . There is this (no, wait, that's Orthodox), this (so in what is your degree?), and on a much more serious note, the Pope's message for Lent.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

RE-REFORMATION. Anglicans to reunite with the Papacy?

Update: What will they do for Guy Fawkes Day?

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

WAR ON THE SURGE. And no, not the Democrats this time. This time it was the insurgents who staged a rare frontal assault on a U.S. base north of Baghdad. The insurgents attempted to breach the entrance to the base with a suicide bomber and followed up with an attack by gunmen. Two U.S. soldiers were killed and 17 injured. The base was apparently of company size -- a little more then 100 men. We do not know how many of the insurgents were killed or captured. As ominous as the attacks is the NYT take on it.

As American troops move into small combat outposts throughout Baghdad for the first time since the early months after the invasion in 2003, today’s attack underscored the inherent risks in the Bush administration’s new security strategy.
The insurgents in Iraq, of whatever stripe, have a fairly sophisticated grasp of our news media, politics, and history. It seems clear that what they desire more then anything at this time is a TET style offensive. TET was the 1968 offensive undertaken by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese regulars that doomed American involvment in Vietnam. It was a fight that we clearly won militarily, but it was played up as a huge win by the North Vietnamese in American press, leading shortly thereafter to our withdrawal from South Vietnam.

While not on TET's scale, I have no doubt that the assault that occurred today on a U.S. base was aimed directly at MSM. One of the truths of our military is that we have, in fact, because of our training, professionalism and equipment, a force far superior to anything that can be fielded by anyone else in the world today. In Iraq, we have never lost an engagement occurring at the platoon level or higher. Strip us of that mystique just once and I have no doubt that the calls for withdrawal from Democrats and a few White Flag Republicans, hand in glove with wall to wall coverage by MSM, would reach deafening levels.

Look for more attacks like these in the coming months -- and ask yourself, just how much of a disservice are Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, and their ideological companions in the MSM doing to our soldiers in the field?

Read More...

RADICAL LEFTISTS GONE WILD on far too many U.S. campuses.

Read More...

DR. SANITY LOOKS AT BDS. That is Bush Derangement Syndrome as it manifests in the MSM and far left, all as part of her salute to Bush on President's Day.

Read More...

JUAN COLE BUSTED. Juan Cole is the go-to guy for the left of center MSM when they want a "self-acknowledged" expert on the mid-east. Sandbox takes a critical look at Cole's recent pronouncements on the whereabouts of Sadr as well as Cole's translation abilities.

Hattip: Middle East Journal

Read More...

REGENERATIVE GROWTH. If this is ever successful, it will be the next great leap forward in medicine -- and it is showing some promising signs.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

GOOD AND GREEN NEWS COMING FROM US AUTOMAKERS.

Detroit is going on a green offensive with electric plug-in models that can run emissions-free for up to 40 miles -- at about a quarter the cost of gas -- on batteries that draw their juice directly from the grid.

Read the whole story.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

MURTHA'S PLAN TO INSURE DEFEAT IN IRAQ. Robert Novak's column today on the rise of Congressman Murtha and the likelihood of success of the plan to cripple the war effort that he and Speaker Pelosi are proposing.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

BORDER OUT OF CONTROL. Don't you wish our Congress would spend as much time and effort on cleaning up an out of control border situation as they do on attempting to insure defeat in Iraq? This article paints a scary picture of murder and mayhem along the southern border.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

AL QAEDA SAFE HAVEN IN PAKISTAN. This from the NY Times:


Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.


Allowing your enemy an untouchable safe haven is not a sound strategy. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, will at some point have to act, either by taking action himself or by giving the green light to US forces to attack both the Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds in the fronteir provinces which are only nominally under Pakastani control. But he has shown an ever increasing reticence to act over the past two years. Why that is so probably has as a lot to do with the internal dynamics of his hold on power in Pakistan as well a concern about the committment of the United States in seeing the war on terror through to a conclusion. -- a conclusion that will take more then one generation, it would seem.

Update: From the Telegraph (UK)

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

THE BEE HIVE HAS BEEN SHAKEN. As the US and Iraqi soldiers continue their "surge," a string of car bombs have begun to occur. I believe this is to be expected, as the insurgents do all in their power to prevent the surge from being portrayed as successful in Western media.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...


DUE PROCESS IRANIAN STYLE. The AP reports that a man associated with the blast last week that killed 11 members of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran and who confessed that the act was an American plot has now been executed. So much for a trial of one's peers and the chance to appeal. And this is the country who the MSM is defending?

Add to Technorati Favorites

Read More...

 

View My Stats