Town Commons

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Finally, Iran Put On The Spot For Weapons Smuggling

The U.S. government has, for the past year, inexplicably refused to link the highest echelons of Iran's theocracy to the arming, training and funding of proxies in Iraq, and the smuggling of weapons to the Taliban. That seems to have ended today, at least in as much as to the smuggling of weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Today, Secretary of Defense Gates laid responsibility for the smuggling at the feet of the mad mullahs. This from the Washington Times:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tied Iran's government to large shipments of weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan and said yesterday that such quantities were unlikely without Tehran's knowledge.

Mr. Gates' comments, following accusations by a State Department official, were the strongest yet by a Cabinet secretary about Iran's support of the terrorist group in Afghanistan.

Basing his conclusions on new intelligence, Mr. Gates said "given the quantities [of weapons] that we're seeing, it is difficult to believe that it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it's taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government."

He said that the latest information indicates a "fairly substantial flow of weapons" is crossing into Afghanistan.

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns told CNN yesterday that "there's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this."

"It's certainly coming from the government of Iran," he said. "It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters "it certainly is hard to believe that the Iranian government isn't involved in some way, shape or form in this." . . .

Read the entire story here. Kind of like alcoholism, the first step towards making Iran pay a price for their involvment is to acknowledge their role. Iran's daily acts of war have been going on for some time and have cost the lives of numerous U.S. soldiers as well as innocent Iraqis. There needs to be an appropriate military response.

A Salute To Tom Lantos

Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos wins the line of the day award. This is from his remarks at the dedication of a monument to victims of communism:

Lantos said "I am so glad that the era of Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder in Germany is now gone" He added that, when the United States asked Schroeder to support its decision to go to war in Iraq "he told us where to go. I referred to him as a political prostitute, now that he's taking big checks from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. But the sex workers in my district objected, so I will no longer use that phrase."

I salute Congressman Lantos both for protecting the higher social caliber of prostitutes and for his his assessment of both Chirac and Schroeder, two of the worst leaders produced by Europe since WWII. Lantos also had other remarks:

Lantos said Chirac "should go down to the Normandy beaches. He should see those endless rows of white marble crosses and stars of David representing young Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of France."

He said under the successors of Schroeder and Chirac, Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France, relations with the United States "will take a very positive turn"

Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary, and sent to a Nazi labor camp when he was 16. He is the only survivor of the Holocaust ever to have served in Congress.

Read the entire story here.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Surrendocrats At It Again; Who Will Respond?

General Petraeus has said that he needs several months to ascertain how well the surge is succeeding. But not those masters of military planning and strategy, Give 'Em Surrender Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. With precisely zero days of military experience between them, yet years of partisan political experience, they feel that they are qualified to pronounce judgment on the surge now. And yet again, they are taking the opportunity to preemptively announce the surge failed presented by a successful operation by terrorists in Iraq. When I wrote in my post several hours ago that four entities had the motivation to destroy the Samarra Mosque and reignite the move towards a civil war - and I included "Congressional Democrats" among the list - I was not joking or being cynical. In Iraq, there has been no violence yet as a result of the successful terrorist action. Thus, the only militant entity thus far to capitalize on the bombing are Congressional Democrats led by Reid and Pelosi:

Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.

It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.

Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."

On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks. . . .

Read the entire story here. It would seem that the fact Petraues warned that we would suffer higher US casualties as we became more agressive and moved into previously unchallenged areas is meaningless to the Surrendocrats except in as much as to how it can be twisted. There is no mention of the sectarian killings being halved, nor of the successes in Anbar Province. Reid and Pelosi are worthless partisan animals with not an ounce of patriotism nor any care for the consequences of their actions beyond the acquisition of raw political power. Will anyone in the MSM begin asking these Surrendocrats what they expect the cost to be of leaving Iraq to be fought over and divided by Iran, al Qaeda and Turkey at a minimum? Will any Conservative or moderate who has the courage of his principals respond to this partisan posturing. This is national suicide.

Fred, Ron & The Kingfish

There is some very good news for Fred Thompson coming out of the polls. According to the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll and a Rasmussen poll, Fred is now in a statistical dead heat for the lead in the Republican primaries with Rudy Giuliani. This is an amazing feat given that Fred has not yet entered the race.

Fred is enjoying immense popularity in large part because he is the closest thing to a Reagan conservative in - or soon to be in - the Republican field. And to add to his mystique, Fred also enjoys some obvious similarities to Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Fred is a successful actor with exceptional communication skills. Indeed, Fred quite often comes across with the same down home clarity and optimism that was the hallmark of Reagan. And like Reagan, Fred has been consistent in sounding the themes of social conservativism, small government and a strong national defense. These are the things that make the hearts of the conservative base go all a-twitter. And they are the same things that make Democrats pop awake at 3 a.m., covered in sweat and screaming.

Thus, it is no suprise that Democrats have already begun penning the poison. Left wing pundit Richard Cohen recently wrote such a missive, positing that Fred is no Reagan. Cohen's rather unusual arguments strongly suggest that the left is going to have a lot of trouble attacking Fred.

Cohen's first argument - an argument that could only arise out of the far left - is that Fred is psychologically far too normal to be President. According to Cohen, "the presidency that Thompson now seeks is not won by the normal, the average, the ordinary, but by people fueled by an explosive combination of overriding ambition and charming megalomania." While the crop of Democratics seeking the presidency all seem to satisfy Cohen's psychological prerequisite, Fred does not. But for some strange reason, I do not think that most people outside of the very hard left will see Fred Thompson's psychological equilibrium as a disqualifying factor.

In another argument, Cohen takes Fred Thompson to task because, during Fred's eight years as a Senator from Tennessee, Fred did not propose a bevy of new laws to which his name would be attached. This is yet another criticism that could only come from the far left. What was it that Reagen said about the left's proclivity for legislation? “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” It would seem Fred, in doing none of the above, went a ways towards establishing his credentials as a small government conservative.

If the far left keeps up attacks like these on Fred Thompson, and if as seems likely Fred maintains the "big mo" that now has him statistically tied for the lead in the polls with Giuliani, Fred may shortly find himself in a very enviable position indeed. In fact, he may find himself in that position once occupied by the "Kingfish," Huey Long, who opined shortly before an election, "the only way I can lose is if they find me in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." Let's hope Fred stays out of the bed - and starts running.

-- And if you missed it, here is Fred on The Tonight Show last night

(H/T Hillbilly Politics)

The Real Palestinian Tragedy

It is refreshing to hear the occasional Arab voice in the wilderness decrying the real tragedy of the Palestinian people - the gross manipulation of the Palestinians by other Middle East nations. One of the most egrigous aspects of that manipulation is the horrid conditions in which Palestians reside outside of Gaza, the West Bank or Israel. The squalor is quietly acknowledged as part of the effort by Middle Eastern governments to use the plight of these displaced Palestinians against Israel. This from Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed in London's Arabic newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat:

. . . Regarded by some as a temporary issue, the tragedy of the Palestinians is rarely presented to the Arab and international public opinion through the media or during political occasions. Even some Arabs and Palestinians intentionally turn a blind eye to the issue so as not to expose abuses. What is happening in Lebanon's Nahr al Bared camp today is just one such example where battles have raised an overwhelming number of questions: who are these people? How long have they lived in the camp and how? What are their rights? The answers can be found on the UNRWA's website. Tens of thousands of people crammed in undignified houses, where many of them were born and have lived for five decades.

Some Arab countries “hosting” refugees ban them from leaving [camps], from occupying a large number of positions and deny them any other legal rights. Some of them have to jump over walls and sneak out to complete their chores or to breathe and experience the outside world. One can imagine these randomly and poorly built houses during the winter chill and sweltering heat of the summer among the sewage and insufficient services. It is a shame. How can we talk about the liberation of Palestine, which we simply associate with stolen land, a desecrated mosque and a powerful enemy, while we do not allow Palestinians to settle down, earn a living or travel like all other human beings?

Our insistence to lock the Palestinians in camps and treat them like animals in the name of preserving the issue is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land and causing the displacement of people. The 60 year-old camps only signify our inhumanity and double standards. Israel can claim that it treats the Palestinians better than their Arab brothers do. It gives citizenship to the Palestinians of 1948 as well as the right to work and the right to lead a somewhat normal life, although they are treated as second-class citizens. . .

Read the entire article here. Palestine today is in a civil war between the gangsters of Fatah and the radical Islamists of Hamas. For the seemingly few Palestians not already corrupted beyond hope by either side and who only desire a functioning society, they are in a lose-lose situation. There is a complete breakdown in morality and respect for the law necessary for a functioning society. And that all arises out of Middle East countries who have, for a century, actively nurtured and paid for this rot in a cynical attempt to use the Palestinians against Jews and the state of Israel. One must hope that there is a special place in hell reserved for those Saudis who have paid stipends to suicide bombers or who have funded the propoganda machines that tell pre-school children about the joys of murdering Israelis. This all leads to the incredible irony that the Palestians who have the highest standard of living and the most freedom in the Middle East are those who live in Israel.

(H/T Steve Halter)

The Costs of Freedom

Freedom has costs. Those costs must be paid up front in blood and treasure if freedom is to be maintained. We have been fortunate to have a nation and leaders who both understood these fundamental truths and who had the wisdom, foresight and imagination to know when such costs had to be paid. We live in freedom today because of the blood and gold spent in dear cost by our forebearers.

That is a historical lesson that seems to be denied today by many of our citizens and leaders. Their failure of foresight and imagination to determine when such costs must be paid, or their craven denial of the necessity of such costs, can only have one of two consequences. Either it will end in a loss of freedom to others who desire to conquer, or it will end with a much higher cost in blood and treasure to be paid at a later date. Such is the message today of David Warren in an exception essay, "No Price Too HighFor Human Liberty."

. . . it would seem that [Bush] has failed to mobilize the American electorate behind the "Bush doctrine," as declared so eloquently in the months after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington; and failed even to mobilize the U.S. bureaucracy, which has consistently resisted direct presidential orders throughout both his terms, and in such cases as the CIA and State Department, often sabotaged them. His principal allies within the administration have been successfully demonized by America's media and entertainment industry, and most have been driven out of public life. So that one wonders if anything of the Bush doctrine -- that America will fight not only terrorists but the dictators who support them -- will survive his administration.

. . . Here are several statements made at the Prague conference, by leading pro-democracy dissidents from around the world, collected by Anne Bayefsky:

Natan Sharansky, of Israel: "Today there are dissidents in many different contexts but the underlying battle is the same -- freedom versus fear. We improve our influence by uniting as dissidents against totalitarian regimes."

Mudawi Ibrahim Adam, of Sudan: "U.N. handling of the Sudanese government has legitimized it regardless of the fact this government is killing its own people. Western states are sending the wrong message -- that democracy is primarily about elections, whereas it requires much more."

Garry Kasparov, of Russia: "Russia today is a police state masquerading as a democracy where elections are theatre. The problem is that the G8 treats Putin as an equal. ... Putin must be sent a message that he cannot act like an Alexander Lukashenko or Robert Mugabe and be treated like a democrat."

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, of Egypt: "We ask Western democracies to stop supporting dictatorships and the darkness of theocrats in the name of stability and continuity."

Bassam Eid, of Palestine: "The Arab world ... is not helped by the fact that the international community applies a double-standard to it -- refusing to insist that the society, including Palestinian society, must ready itself for democracy before handing millions to the security forces of autocracies."

George W. Bush, of USA: "Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied."

This last is the only statement I'll contest. In my view, and my experience, freedom can be resisted, delayed, and denied, and moreover, it can be in decline, as it is in the West, where the nanny state grows insidiously and constantly -- regardless of who is elected to government -- with the expanding power of the self-appointed elites who control our legal systems, and regulatory regimes.

It is nice to say rhetorically that freedom will prevail, but we must realize that such statements apply to heaven and not to earth. For down here, civic freedom is invariably obtained at the cost of human blood and treasure. It is not obtained by negotiating with dictators, except from a position of invincible force, and then only when one is fully prepared to use it. The very argument used against the wisdom of invading Iraq -- that it costs blood and treasure -- is itself the signal of surrender.

Aristotle once wrote that the magnificent man "does not count the cost." He understood also the virtue of prudence, the need for calculation and tact. But prudence itself is not finally calculated in blood or treasure. In the words with which my own country, Canada, was once mobilized against the Hitler menace: "No price too high!"

There is no price too high for human liberty, and those who dispute this are, and deserve to be, slaves.

Read the entire story here. This article articulately sums up how I feel about the far left of this nation. They revel in a suicidal narcissim, seeking only political power. The fact that they now control the Democratic Party, driving its Congressional leaders and would-be presidential nominees into lemming-like lock step is a national tragedy. We are fighting two wars at present - the War on Terror and an internal war against far left forces who would destroy our nation through their embrace of fanatasy and their desire to do good - as they would define it. Failure to win both wars can only lead, at best, to the precipitous and long-term decline of our nation, and at worst, the very loss of our freedom as described by Mr. Warren.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Who & Why - A Second Bombing At The Samarra Mosque

The downward spiral of sectarian violence in Iraq began in February 2006 with an al Qaeda in Iraq bombing of the Samarra Mosque, one of the holiest of Shiite shrines. It had long been the stated goal of al Qaeda to fan the flames of civil war, and with that bombing, they came close to succeeding. Repair work on the Mosque was planned, but never started.

In the aftermath of the February 2006 bombing, and as part of the Iraqi security plan, the mission to guard the Mosque was charged to an Iraqi Police Battalion. Nonetheless, this morning, two explosions at the base of the mosque brought down two of the minarets still standing from the original blast. Who did this and why did they do it are two questions with several possible answers. This from the Washington Post:

Early morning blasts Wednesday destroyed two minarets at the same Shiite shrine in Samarra where an attack last year demolished the mosque's gilded dome and plunged the country into a wave of deadly sectarian violence.

The 9 a.m. explosions at the revered Askariya shrine in Samarra, about 65 miles north of Baghdad, is the sort of event that could spark a spiral of retaliatory bloodshed. . . .

The Feb. 22, 2006 attack on the shrine -- often referred to as the Golden Mosque because of its brilliant golden dome -- was a seminal moment in the four-year Iraq war, sparking a vicious cycle of bloodshed that has never fully stopped. In the 16 months since, thousands of Iraqis -- and perhaps tens of thousands -- have been killed in Sunni-Shiite fighting.

. . . Fearing a backlash from the latest attack, the Iraqi government imposed an indefinite curfew across Baghdad starting 3 p.m. Wednesday. There were no immediate reports of retaliatory violence, and no reports that anyone was injured in the attack at the shrine.

"This is a terrorist attack that is aimed at inciting sectarian crisis, and it is the work of a foreign agenda whose aim is to stoke sectarian strife, instability and a collapse of the political process," said Hussein Al Musawi, spokesman for the Shiite Political Council, an umbrella group of Shiite political parties.

"There is an obvious failure on the part of the Iraqi security forces, and the multinationals, to guard these shrines and to deal the terrorists groups a blow, and to strike with an iron fist against the terrorists."

. . . In response to Wednesday's attack, the entire Iraqi security force responsible for guarding the mosque, the 3rd Battalion of the Salahaddin Province police, was detained for investigation, Iraqi law enforcement officials said. The collapse of the two minarets appeared to have been caused by explosive charges placed at their bases.

. . . After Wednesday's explosions, Iraqi security forces patrolled the city, firing in the air and announcing the curfew from loudspeakers mounted on jeeps. In Baghdad and elsewhere, Shiite mosques broadcast calls for demonstrations.

In a sign of the sectarian tensions quickly provoked by the incident, members of the Iraqi security forces, which are dominated by Shiites, yelled threats at Samarra residents, blaming them for the destruction of the mosque and threatening revenge. Some citizens, meanwhile, hurled remarks back, asking how anyone could destroy the minarets when the entire religious complex was being so carefully guarded by Iraqi security forces.

The mosque, one of the four most revered in Iraq, has been heavily guarded by Iraqi troops ever since the destruction of its gilded dome in the 2006 attack.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for peaceful demonstrations and reconciliation within Iraq's warring factions to mark the minarets' destruction. In a written statement, Sadr said Sunnis and Shiites should unite and declared that no Sunni Arab could have been responsible for the attack on the Shiite shrine.

He claimed that U.S. occupation forces bore responsibility for the blasts, though the precise nature of that alleged responsibility was not made clear.

"We declare a three-day mourning period . . . and shout Allahu Akbar (God is greater) from Sunni and Shiite mosques," Sadr said in the statement.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said that U.S. forces were assisting the Iraqi government in responding to the attack and had provided a team to help assess the damage. Although there were U.S. troops in the region, he said, "The security for the shrine itself is an Iraqi responsibility." . . .

Read the entire storyhere. There are two possible motivations for this bombing.

The first is to reignite sectarian violence and to undo the significant gains made by the surge. Although it is clear that al Qaeda in Iraq carried out the initial attack, it is far less clear who carried out this second attack. Al Qaeda in Iraq, Moqtada al Sadr, Iran and Congressional Democrats all have a vested interest in seeing the surge fail, and it would not be beyond at least the first three to have conducted this bombing. Given that the battalion guarding the mosque is made up of Shiites, it seems likely either Sadr's militia or an Iranian proxy carried out this attack.

The second possible motivation is a false flag operation by Sadr to use the bombing as a means of establishing his bona fides as a national political figure looking out for the interests of Sunni and Shia alike. Given his quick response to the bombing and his calls for peace, this is plausible. If so, it would mark Sadr as having far more intelligence and nuance then I believe he actually possesses. That, or this could have been planned on his behalf for that purpose by his Iranian handlers if, as seems likely, Sadr is a tool of the Khomeinists at this point.

In either event, it just does not seem likely that, in the absence of vociferous rhetoric played out across Iraqi air waves, that this second attack against the still unrepaired Samarra mosque will draw anywhere near the same ire of the nation as was caused by the first attack. It bears watching carefully who attempts to capitalize on this bombing, how they do it and to what end. That may go a long way to telling us who are the true culprits.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Dennis On Harry

Do enjoy Dennis Miller giving his opinion of Harry Reid:

I personally think that he lets Harry off far too lightly.

Harry Reid has been an incredibly destructive force in the War on Terror. His default position has to try and criticize and tear down whatever President Bush has proposed - assuming the polls suggest that doing so will increase the chance of Democrats gaining in political power with the next election. I think that a lot of the blood our soldiers will spill this summer can be directly laid at the hands of Reid, as well as Pelosi and Murtha. Harry Reid has clearly placed national security and America's place in the world secondary to political gain. He is an incredible hypocrite who is governed by polls and easilly manipulated by the far left fringe of the Democratic Party. In short, Harry Reid is an odious and unprinicpled individual who, in a sane world, would not be the Democrat's highest leader in the Senate. He would not be a Senator, and he is certainly not a leader. Indeed, his leadership skills being what they are, the only reason for anyone to follow Harry Reid is only out of sheer curiosity.

(H/T USA Partisan)

Al Jazeera - Radical Islam's Broadcast Mouthpiece

It would seem the problems of agenda journalism infest MSM the world over. In the Middle East the al Jazeera network regualarly gives friendly coverage to the point of acting as "official spokesman and activist for fundamentalist groups." That is the charge in a column in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Egyptian columnist Diana Muqallid. She makes her charges in light of al Jazeera's coverage of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and al Jazeera's most recent coverage of the conflict between Lebanon and Fath al Islam, the Syrian and al Qaeda linked group currently fighting the Lebanese army inside Lebanon's Nahr al Bared Palestinian Refugee camp:

. . . On the fourth day of the battles around the Nahr Al-Bared refugee camp in northern Lebanon, the Al-Jazeera network opened its evening news with a preface, in which the announcer said that the story that was about to be broadcast included exclusive photos from inside the Palestinian refugee camp showing the scope of the killing and the extent of the 'human suffering' of the camp residents.

The footage that followed showed Fath Al-Islam fighters in their positions, firing at targets that clearly belonged to the Lebanese army. The footage showed not one sight reflecting the suffering of the Palestinian residents; the focus was on the armed fighters, who repeated over and over... statements such as 'satanic tyrants' and 'infidels,' as they exchanged information on the positions of their fighting 'brothers.'

Yet again, Al-Jazeera has not hesitated to play the role it played in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine - that of official spokesman and activist for fundamentalist groups. It seems obvious that the Fath Al-Islam fighters were dealing with a 'friendly' camera, not with a journalistic camera. [This friendly
coverage of Fath Al-Islam] quickly created a connection between [Fath Al-Islam] - which accuses [others] of heresy and regularly carries out massacres and indiscriminate killing, and whose members blow themselves up - and the [Al-Jazeera] channel, which from its outset has ignited Islamic populism and whose influence is growing...

[Al-Jazeera] did not mention the fact that [this] group had slaughtered [Lebanese] soldiers in their sleep. [But] the most important point is that the [special] news flashes and news headlines about the ongoing shelling [of the refugee camp] by the [Lebanese] army never referred to the ongoing entrenchment of the Fath Al-Islam fighters among the residents, and to their shelling of aid and rescue convoys.

Concealing or ignoring the suffering of the Palestinian residents would be a black stain on any [political] body or media outlet, whether it be Lebanese or Arab. But extolling the Fath Al-Islam murderers, and making efforts to associate them with civilians, is first and foremost a crime against the Palestinian residents [of the camp], even more than it is a crime against Lebanon." . . .

Read the entire story here.

FBI Director Says Only Matter of Time Before Terrorists Acquire Nuclear Weapons; The MSM Buries The Warning

A sizeable portion of the one billion Muslims in this world believe the United States and the West are enemies to be destroyed by any means. We know that a handful of these suicidal zealots can cause immense destruction. Thus, the nightmare scenario is that any of these terrorist organizations may gain access to nuclear weapons. And apparently, this nightmare scenario is inevitable. In remarks made yesterday before the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, FBI Director Robert Mueller made the dire warning that it was "only a matter of time and economics before terrorists will be able to purchase nuclear weapons . . .":

. . . Mr. Mueller said federal authorities, working with their counterparts overseas, must secure loose nuclear material, share intelligence about those who wish to buy and sell such material, and stop those who do -- adding that by some estimates, there is enough highly enriched uranium in global stockpiles to construct thousands of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Mueller said the economics of supply and demand dictate that someone, somewhere will provide nuclear material to the highest bidder, and that material will end up in the hands of terrorists. He said the al Qaeda terrorist network has demonstrated a clear intent to acquire weapons of mass destruction, noting that Osama bin Laden sought to buy uranium in Sudan in 1993.

But, he said, al Qaeda is not the only concern, adding that the United States faces threats from other terrorist cells around the world and from homegrown terrorists not affiliated with al Qaeda but who have been inspired by its message of hatred and violence.

"Several rogue nations -- and even individuals -- seek to develop nuclear capabilities," he said. "Abdul Khan, for example, was not only the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb; he peddled that technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Khan was one of many to prove that it is indeed a seller's market in the so-called atomic bazaar."

Mr. Mueller said the next terrorist attack is not a question of if, but when. . .

Read the entire story here. Allowing rouge regimes to develop nuclear arsenal raises exponentially the liklihood that we will see a mushroom cloud over one or more of our cities. The time to try and reduce this threat is now, before Iran is able to acquire any nuclear weapons and sets off a nuclear arms race among equally or even more dangerous regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

In light of the threat that we face, I think there is no question that this should have been front page news accross the MSM. Yet, inexplicably, this dire warning is not even mentioned in the New York Times. The Washington Post, for its part, did a lead article on Director Mueller, but it had nothing to do with the existential threat of nuclear terrorism. Instead, their lead article criticized Mueller for using an FBI jet for 36 trips over a five year period. Apparently, none in the MSM care for the message that Director Mueller has to deliver on the inevitability of future terrorist attacks, nor the inevitability of nuclear terrorism. The reason is clear - if terrorism and national security take center stage in the 2008 elections, the Democrat stand a greatly diminished chance of electoral victory. Thus, newsworthy information that should inform every voter is buried and goes unreported. I wonder if the editors and reporters of the MSM will feel that they bear any responsibility for the blood that will be spilled because of it?

Monday, June 11, 2007

Lieberman & The Military Target Iran While Democrats Dither

The Democrats, led by Harry Reid, let us all know once again why they cannot be trusted with our national security or the conduct of a war. On Sunday, Joe Lieberman, called for military strikes against Iran in response to the acts of war being daily committed by Iran against the US:

. . . "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

. . . If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home," Lieberman said.

. . . "We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them," Lieberman said. "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing."

Read the entire story here. Joe Lieberman is spot on in his assessment (see here and here), But Harry Reid responded, once again embracing peace at all costs before the '08 election. He would give Iran a free pass to continue engaging in acts that kill our soldiers and destabilize Iraq, calling for diplomacy and a regional conference because "[t]he invasion of [Iran] is only going to destabilize that part of the world more." Perhaps Mr. Reid has forgotten that the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that he proposes for partisan political gain will be the single greatest destabilizing act in the Middle East imaginable.

UPDATE: Bill Rogio writes that the Army now has proof beyond any reasonable doubt of Iran's complicity in the Karbala raid that ended in the death of five U.S. soldiers. Satelite photos show the Iran built a mock up of the target area in a city where they have been training Iraqi militants.

Meanwhile, the left are beginning to realize that, one, their Presidential candidates are going to be attacked on a daily basis for their incredible weakness on issues relating to national security and terrorism, and two, that these candidates have very little in the way of substantive response to the charges. The WSJ has the story of the left's conundrum here.

And on a final note, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the U.S. military has drawn up its plans for a strike on Iran in response to their continuing quest for nuclear weapons:

Predicting that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon within three years and claiming to have a strike plan in place, senior American military officers have told The Jerusalem Post they support President George W. Bush's stance to do everything necessary to stop the Islamic Republic's race for nuclear power.

. . . A high-ranking American military officer told the Post that senior officers in the US armed forces had thrown their support behind Bush and believed that additional steps needed to be taken to stop Iran.

Predictions within the US military are that Bush will do what is needed to stop Teheran before he leaves office in 2009, including possibly launching a military strike against its nuclear facilities.

. . . According to a high-ranking American military officer, the US Navy and Air Force would play the primary roles in any military action taken against Iran. One idea under consideration is a naval blockade designed to cut off Iran's oil exports.

The officer said that if the US government or the UN Security Council decided on this course of action, the US Navy would most probably not block the Strait of Hormuz - a step that would definitely draw an Iranian military response - but would patrol farther out and turn away tankers on their way to load oil.

. . . The US officer said that perhaps even more dangerous to Israel and the Western world than Iranian nukes was the possibility that a terrorists cell associated with al-Qaida or global jihad would acquire a highly radioactive "dirty bomb" or a vial of deadly chemical or biological agents. The officer said al-Qaida was gaining a strong foothold in the Middle East and that Israel was being surrounded by global jihad elements in Lebanon, Jordan and Sinai.

"Iran is a state-sponsored type of terrorism that can be dealt with," he said, adding that it was far more difficult to strike at the source of an isolated terrorist cell. . . .

Read the entire article here. Let us hope this article is accurate. It is difficult to imagine anything more dangerous to the world then a nuclear armed Iran.

Is Capital Punishment a Deterrence?

Does the death penalty work as a deterrent to murder? It is dogma among liberals across the world that it does not. But they are wrong, according to several recent studies outside of the advocacy community:

. . . [A] series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years . . . claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

. . . "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous. . . .

. . . "This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.) . . .

Read the entire story here.

(H/T Jules Crittenden)

CAIR's Dwindling Support In America

There are polls, there is spin, and then there is objective fact. It is often impossible to winnow away the first two to get to the latter - but not today, at least as far as it is possilbe to identify support for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) among American Muslims. The fact is that American Muslims have been jumping ship from CAIR ever since 9-11, as membership in the organization has dwindled by 90% to less then 1,700 members today. Their dues generate only $58,750 for CAIR. The only thing keeping CAIR afloat at the moment - and flush with a $3,000,000 operating budget to pursue its radical Islamist agenda - are the donations of twelve "private individuals." There can be little doubt that, if we identify those donors, we will find a direct link to Ridyah. The Washington Times has the story:

. . . Asked about the decline, Parvez Ahmed, CAIR board chairman, pointed to the number of individual donors to the organization.

"We are proud that our grass-roots support in the American Muslim community has allowed CAIR to grow from having eight chapters and offices in 2001 to having 33 today," Mr. Ahmed said.

The self-described civil liberties organization for Muslims seeks to portray "a positive image of Islam" through public relations and the media, but has instead alienated some by defending questionable accusations of discrimination.

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of the American-Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for 7 million American Muslims, as the group has claimed.

"This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said.

Read the whole story here. This augers well for Muslims in America. CAIR's agenda is to promote Salafi Islam and to drive a wedge between Americans and American Muslims. The fact that American Muslims are largely rejecting this message is good news indeed. Now it is time for our government to stop working with CAIR and promoting their agenda from above.

The UK's Outrageous and Develish Insanity

This is so wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. This today is the lead article from U.K.'s Telegraph:

Thousands of sex offenders including paedophiles and rapists have escaped with cautions rather than being jailed over the past five years.

A nationwide survey of police forces conducted by the BBC found that 1,600 sex offences involving children and 230 cases of rape were dealt with by the use of cautions instead of formal charges, which could lead to a fine or a prison sentence.

Another 350 cautions were given for sex crimes involving victims under the age of 13, while cautions were also handed out for offences of bigamy, exploitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, sex with animals, incest and sexual grooming.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, told the BBC: "It is bad enough that so many offenders are getting away with effectively no punishment, it is outrageous that this is happening in very serious cases of sexual assault involving children.

But police forces and Government agencies insisted that the use of cautions did not mean that sex offenders were being “let off” rather than facing trial.

They insisted that the cautions would still be noted on a criminal record and that those cautioned would be placed on the sex offenders register.

Officials said police take into account the victims’ views, age and welfare before deciding whether to press charges or issue a caution, and pointed out that cautions are used if a rape victim refuses to give evidence against their attacker, or if a teenager has sex with his girlfriend who is only a few months below the age of consent.

Many of those issued with cautions for sex offences were said to be juveniles or people with learning difficulties.

Terrence Grange, Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) lead for sexual offences, said: “Every incident will be treated on its own merit, taking into account the circumstances of the incident and the people involved.”

A spokeswoman for the new Ministry of Justice added that “very few” of the cautions issued over the past five years were for rape offences against children.

She said: “The Government is committed to securing more convictions in rape cases and has commissioned the child sex offender review to ensure that children are better protected from paedophiles.

"There are very few circumstances indeed where a caution for rape or offences against children is the most appropriate sanction.

"Use of cautions is a matter for the police but in exceptional circumstances - for instance where the victim does not want to proceed with a prosecution - a caution will still result in the offender having to comply with the notification provisions of the sex offenders register for example.”

. . . Jim Gamble, the centre’s head who recently caused controversy by claiming not all paedophiles should be jailed, said: “Everybody doesn’t go to prison, but let’s make sure the right people do, because that’s the best way to protect our children.

"A caution in that regard is not getting off. It’s admitting you’re guilty. It’s being put on the sex offenders register and thereafter being monitored.”

Read the whole story here.

1. Sex crimes against anyone can cause lasting harm, but against minors they are incredibly insidious. They impact the child during development, and thus alter the child for life. It is hard to imagine a more serious crime, nor one that society has a more fundamental stake in preventing and punishing.

2. The basic unit of society - and the unit charged with guiding the devlopment of children - is the family. Thus, sex crimes against minors are an attack on the family. While the multiculturalists of Britain, through the ever increasing development of the nanny state and their attack on norms of morality, are decreasing parental rights and roles, the family is and always will be the foundation of a stable society. As such, the government has an overarching duty to prevent and punish sex crimes against children.

3. The better part of a millenium ago, the country of England took over the duty of providing fair justice throughout the land. Private justice - the exacting of revenge for a wrong - was itself outlawed around the time of King John. One aspect of fair justice is giving the injured party the knowledge that the person who hurt them will pay a fair price. If this fails - if the populace loses faith in the ability of government to fairly punish those who have harmed them - then one of two things will happen. There will either be a return to the system of private justice taken to get the "pound of flesh," or the victim will suffer the tremendous and possibly life altering frustration of being fundamentally violated yet without any seeming avenue of recourse. The recent suicide of the young rape victim, Sara Clark, bares this out all too clearly.

4. This treatment - and the defense of this treatment by government - of the incredibly serious crime of sexual attacks demonstrates how seriously flawed and dangerous is the left wing philosphy of multiculturalism. The left wing do not trust the average person, so the state attempts to control its law abiding citizens by refusing them any means to protect themselves, even by such non-lethal and innocuous means as pepper spray. Let's not even mention fire arms and the right to defend oneself from attack in the home. The state believes it knows best, so it controls the police all the way down to the local level, causing significant problems of efficiency and responsiveness. And then there is the multiculturalists disdain for personal responsibility. This results in far less punishment for offenders as rehabilitation is emphasized above all else. This is in place of just punishment, a measure of retribution for the victim and protection of society over all.

5. The philosphy behind the UK approach to policing crime and punishment of offenders is the reverse of the "broken windows" theory of policing and punishment that "Sir" Rudy Guiliani used to halve crime in New York over a ten year period. The statistics on crime and punishment in the UK put out by the Labour government are smoke and mirrors in the extreme.

6. How often is it said that we are "a nation of laws." It is true across the West, not only in the U.S. and the U.K. Respect for the rule of law is the societal compact at the very foundation of secular democracies. That brings us to the devilish part of this bit of outrageous insanity. In the movie "Devil's Advocate," Al Pacino as Satan tells his son, Keanu Reeves that he has come back to earth as a lawyer "because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. It's the ultimate backstage pass. It's the new priesthood, baby." He then tells his son that he plans to take over the Earth by destroying the societal compact - respect for the rule of law - "acquittal after acquittal after acquittal until the stench of it reaches so high and far into Heaven it chokes the whole fucking lot of them!" In other words, he will destroy society by stopping punishment of those who have committed crimes. The script writers were very perceptive. And thus we can say that this outrageous insanity by the UK's left wing government is devilish indeed.

Camelback Mountain - Its a Bomb

In a foxhole somewhere in Diyala Province

Ahmed: Get ready on the detonator. I can see a patrol of the Americans coming.

Mamoud: Duck Ahmed!!!! The godless American F-16’s are dropping bombs.

Ahmed: May Allah damn these Americans!!!

(There is the whistle of a bomb falling from the sky followed by a surprisingly soft muffled thud near the two intrepid salafists.)

Ahmed: Hah, a dud. That was close.

Mamoud: It kicked up a lot of dust but I can still see the Americans. I am ready.

Ahmed: Mamoud, what is that funny smell (sniff, sniff) It is like, hmmm, like the smell of a camel in rut. Mamoud . . . is that some new soap you are using?

Mamoud: What? No. And I do not smell it. Now watch for the Americans.

Ahmed: It smells very good, actually. Hmmm, you know Mamoud, I really like the color of that new ghutra you’re wearing. It really brings out the color of your eyes and the highlights in your beard.

Mamoud: What in Allah’s name are you talking about? Keep your hand on the detonator – the damned Americans are almost -

Ahmed: Mamoud, has anyone ever told you that you that you have a pretty mouth?

Mamoud: (picking up his rifle and pointing it at Ahmed) Are you insa - (sniff, sniff). Wait, I am smelling it now too. Hmph, you know, Ahmed, it really is rather nice. . . But I think it is more like the smell of a he-goat. A very big . . . strong . . . he-goat.

Ahmed: I don’t know but . . . your robes are a bit dusty and rumpled. (moving behind Mamoud and begins to straighten out Mamoud’s robes and rub his shoulders) Here, let me fix them for you.

Mamoud: Thank you Ahemed. Hmmm, the Americans are almost here but, ooooo, that feels so goo - . . . hey, is that your AK-47 hitting me in the back?

So might go the first successful field test of a “gay” bomb. No, this is not a joke dreamed up as part of a new Mel Brooks movie. It is straight from the Pentagon planners. It does not kill, it just stimulates the senses with strong aphrodisiacs that leave a radical Islamist forgetting all about the joys of jihad and martyrdom to seek something no 72 virgins will ever be able to offer:

A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.

The Pentagon told CBS 5 that the proposal was made by the Air Force in 1994.

. . . "In fact, the Pentagon has used it repeatedly and subsequently in an effort to promote non-lethal weapons, and in fact they submitted it to the highest scientific review body in the country for them to consider."

Military officials insisted Friday to CBS 5 that they are not currently working on any such idea and that the past plan was abandoned.

Read the entire article here. You just can't make this stuff up. But, what the hell, I will support it if it takes the jihadis concentration off blowing up Americans and onto . . .

(H/T Jules Crittenden)

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Taqiyya From The Times

Today's papers contain some amazing examples of clueless reporting by the MSM. The article that has to take the cake is the NYT article "The Guidebook for Taking a Life." This is an article that purports to identify jihadi "rules of war" by talking to selected salafists. It is nothing but complete disinformation, painting a false picture of radical Islamists - or as they would call it, taqiyya. The Times authors suggest that there is some moral and ethical code animating the radical Islamists. The problem with this bit of pro-Islamist insanity is that, in articulating the rules, the authors completely ignore the endless contradictory real world examples:

Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt. . .

Is this supposed to suggest that the Islamists feel any sort of remorse over collateral damage - or that collateral damage is even a viable concept among the Salafists? The majority of terrorist attacks are clearly designed to kill as many bystanders as possible. The suggestion that the animals that make up al Qaeda and other related terrorist organizations feel guilt over the death of "bystanders" does not comport with reality. Has anyone ever heard a single bit of Salafi propoganda bemoaning the death of innocent bystanders? The question for the Salafists in regards to "bystanders" is not guilt, its targeting.

Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress. . .

True the Salafists argue that the collateral death of children is okay because they will go to Allah without sin and immediately age to the point where they can enjoy their 72 virgins. But the reality goes far beyond that. It begs the far more important "rules" for these animals. What about the deliberate targeting of children for murder when they are, by definition, without sin? What about the use of children as cover to be deliberately sacrificed in attacks? What about the brain washing of children to themselves become suicide bombers? There are no moral or societal limits on these animals as regards children. To suggest otherwise is deny reality.

Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.

This is the single most offensive statement of this utterly disingenuous article. One, there are no innocents to the Islamic animals. Two, the Islamist animals target women, children, and "bystanders" for death. The term collateral damage is not a term used by Islamists. It is a term used by the U.S. military who routinely do all that they can not to kill civilians. To even suggest that there is any moral equivalence between the unintended killing of innocents by the U.S. military and the targeting of innocents by the Islamist animals is grossly distorted and absurd.

Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.

Sometimes? Bankers? This is shear sophistry and dissimulation. The Salafists have so interpreted their religion that their are no civilians. Bin Laden justified the Twin Towers attack on the logic that all Americans, including the civilians in the Twin Towers, were tax payers and thus supporters of America's military. Omar Bakri, the spiritual guide to some of the perpatrators of 7-7, reasoned that the Koran allows the killing of non-Muslim civilians in retaliation for the killing of Muslim civilians. He then blamed the West - including the United States - for killing Muslim civilians starting with the Crusades, circa 1294. The bottom line, there is no moral prohibition on the deliberate murder of any civilian. And indeed, it would seem that the Salafists far prefer the soft targets that civilians present.

Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there. . .

From what planet did this one drop? The 9-11 hijackers were not born in the lower 48. Iraq, Afghanistan, Spain, Lebanon, Israel, and I do not know how many other countries have experienced terrorism in the very recent past, if not on a daily basis, at the hands of the foreign born jihadis. Is this the NYT trying to tell us that we do not have to be concerned with any of the foreign born Islamists in this country? Who wrote this obvious falsity? CAIR?

Rule No. 5: You can lie or hide your religion if you do this for jihad.

This one is well known. It should receive a lot more publicity however. I am aware of no other religion that explicitly condones lying in order to commit acts of murder and mayhem. That certainly should be a centerpiece of dealing with any Muslims or Muslim organizations that one has any reason to suspect may be tied to radical Islam, such as CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Rule No. 6. You may need to ask your parents for their consent [to conduct jihad].

On one hand, how many times do we hear reports of captured jihadis where the parents are reported saying they cannot believe that their son or daughter could possibly be involved in terrorism. On the other hand, it would seem that many families in the Mid-East are proud when their child engages in terrorism or blows himself up along with a bunch of "bystanders." I personally think that we should hold such families equally responsible for the terrorism committed by their child. But that's just me.

Read the entire article here. Were I a cynic, I would call this the norm for NYT reporting on issues relating to terrorism. But I am a realist. So I will still call this piece of taqiyya the norm for the NYT. I do not understand how anyone pays for the suicidal fiction this paper is peddaling.

The Far Left's Inquisition To Insure Ideological Purity

Its been clear for at least the past year that the boast of the far left cliques - George Soros's MoveOn.org, Kos, Michael Moore, etc., - that they "own the Democratic party" is not mere talk. Their initial success was the creation of wildly popular websites, particularly the Daily Kos and Huffington Post. They followed that success with raising money for Howard Dean's presidential run. And then came the purging of Joe Lieberman from the ranks of the Democratic Party. Now, every elected Democrat listens to what the far left has to say, even to the extent that MoveOn.org and other major anti-war groups meet with the Congressional Democratic leadership on a daily basis. For a Democrat not to toe the new far left's line is to come under intense pressure and to court electoral defeat in the next primary - including defeat in the Presidential primary.

This far left coup has worked a very distinct change to the terms of debate in modern politics. There is an exceptional article in The New Republic, "The Left's New Machine" by Johnathan Chait in which he thoroughly documents and analyzes this change. As he concludes, the new far left has no concern for intellecutal honesty. They are solely concerned with defeating conservatism and destroying George Bush. For the new far left, the ends justify any means. One aspect of this dispensing with intellectual honesty is that new far left does not belive in free speech and does not accept any principled dissenting voices. So vociferous is their attack on any who do not parrot their meme that Joe Klein, a classical hard left opinion columnist for Time Magazine, has devoted his latest column to complaining about this internecine inquisition:

A strange thing happened to me the day the House of Representatives voted to pass the Iraq-war-funding bill. Congresswoman Jane Harman of California called as the debate was taking place. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this," she told me. "We need a new strategy, and I hope we can force one in September. But I flew into Baghdad [with 150 young soldiers recently]. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment... they need. I couldn't do that." I posted what Harman said on Swampland, the political blog at Time.com, along with my opinion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had changed their positions and voted against the funding for the worst possible reason: presidential politics.

And then Harman changed her position. After we spoke, she voted against the funding. The next day, I was blasted by a number of left-wing bloggers: Klein screwed up! I had quoted Harman in the past tense—common usage for politicians who know their words will appear after a vote takes place. That was sloppy and... suspicious! Proof that you just can't trust the mainstream media. On Eschaton, a blog that specializes in media bashing, I was given the coveted "Wanker of the Day" award. Eventually, Harman got wind of this and called, unbidden, to apologize for misleading me, saying I had quoted her correctly but she had changed her mind to reflect the sentiments of her constituents. I published her statement and still got hammered by bloggers and Swampland commenters for "stalking" Harman into an apology, for not checking her vote in the Congressional Record, for being a "water boy for the right wing" and many other riffs unfit to print.

This is not the first time this kind of free-range lunacy has been visited upon me. Indeed, it happens, oh, once a week to each of us who post on Swampland (Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney and Ana Marie Cox are the others). A reasonable reader might ask, Why are the left-wing bloggers attacking you? . . .

First, let me say that I really enjoy blogging. It's a brilliant format for keeping readers up to date on the things I care about—and for exchanging information with them. . . . I've found that some great reporting takes place in the blogosphere: Juan Cole's Iraq updates are invaluable, Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo did serious muckraking about the U.S. attorneys scandal, and Ezra Klein (no relation) is excellent on health care. I love linking to smart work by others, something you just can't do in a print column.

But the smart stuff is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable. Some of this is understandable: the left-liberals in the blogosphere are merely aping the odious, disdainful—and politically successful—tone that right-wing radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh pioneered. They are also justifiably furious at a Bush White House that has specialized in big lies and smear tactics.

And that is precisely the danger here. Fury begets fury. Poison from the right-wing talk shows seeped into the Republican Party's bloodstream and sent that party off the deep end. Limbaugh's show—where Dick Cheney frequently expatiates—has become the voice of the Republican establishment. The same could happen to the Democrats. The spitballs aimed at me don't matter much. The spitballs aimed at Harman, Clinton and Obama are another story. Despite their votes, each of those politicians believes the war must be funded. (Obama even said so in his statement explaining his vote.) Each knows, as Senator Jim Webb has said repeatedly, that we must be more careful getting out of Iraq than we were getting in. But they allowed themselves to be bullied into a more simplistic, more extreme position. Why? Partly because they fear the power of the bloggers to set the debate and raise money against them. They may be right—in the short (primary election) term; Harman faced a challenge from the left in 2006. In the long term, however, kowtowing to extremists is exactly the opposite of what this country is looking for after the lethal radicalism of the Bush Administration.

Read the entire story here. As you can tell from the above, Joe Klein is himself far left. I note as an aside that his attempt to claim that the new far left is only aping what has gone on with moderates and conservatives is particularly disingenuous. Regardless of what labels and adjectives Mr. Klein may apply to conservatives and libertarians, there is nothing among those groups that even remotely resembles what is going on today with the new far left. Conservatives and libertarians, even those who express stongly held views that Mr. Klein finds distasteful, have never jettisoned anlayisis or intellectual honesty, nor have they conducted an inquisition of the type going on today in the left wing.

That aside, what set's Mr. Kline, a classical liberal, apart from the new far left of Kos, MoveOn.org, et al, is that Klein believes in analysis and intellectual honesty - misguided though his inellect may be. And that is what makes him a traitor to the cause of the new far left.

Klein can contiue doing what he does at Time Magazine - at least as long as he can stomach the attacks from the new far left - with little concern for his future. The same is not true of any Democratic office holder. It does not matter whether a Democrat in his campaign for the '06 election promised to support the war effort or to legislate against a precipitous withdrawal. They better now vote against the war effort or they will face implacable opposition from the new far left. That, coupled with the jettisoning of inellectual honesty from the terms of debate, has worked a fundamental change to the paradigm of modern politics for liberals, moderates and conservatives alike.

(H/T Steve Halter)

The Radical Islamic Quest for Nuclear Weapons

The Guardian today is breaking a story that MI-6 has shut down a British corporation involved in the purchase of black market weapons grade uranium for transfer to Iran and the Sudan - with suspected al Qaeda involvement:

A British company has been closed down after being caught in an apparent attempt to sell black-market weapons-grade uranium to Iran and Sudan, The Observer can reveal.

Anti-terrorist officers and MI6 are now investigating a wider British-based plot allegedly to supply Iran with material for use in a nuclear weapons programme. One person has already been charged with attempting to proliferate 'weapons of mass destruction'.

During the 20-month investigation, . . . a group of Britons was tracked as they obtained weapons-grade uranium from the black market in Russia. Investigators believe it was intended for export to Sudan and on to Iran.

A number of Britons, who are understood to have links with Islamic terrorists abroad, remain under surveillance. Investigators believe they have uncovered the first proof that al-Qaeda supporters have been actively engaged in developing an atomic capability. The British company, whose identity is known to The Observer but cannot be disclosed for legal reasons, has been wound up.

. . . British agents believe Russian black-market uranium was destined for Sudan, described as a 'trans-shipment' point. The alleged plot, however, was disrupted in early 2006, before the nuclear material reached its final destination.

Roger Berry, chairman of Parliament's Quadripartite Committee, which monitors arms exports, said: 'With the collapse of the Soviet Union there was always the question over not just uranium but where other WMD components were going and how this could be controlled. Real credit must go to the enforcement authorities that they have disrupted this. The really worrying aspect is that if one company is involved, are there others out there?'

Politically, the allegations hold potentially huge ramifications for diplomatic relations between the West and Tehran. Already, tensions are running high between Iran, the US and the European Union over the true extent of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran refuses to suspend its nuclear programme in the face of mounting pressure, arguing its intent is entirely peaceful and solely aimed at producing power for civilian use.

Investigators are understood to have evidence that Iran was to receive the uranium to help develop a nuclear weapons capability. 'They may argue that the material is for civilian use but it does seem an extremely odd way to procure uranium,' said Berry.

Alleged evidence of Sudan's role will concern British security services. The East African state has long been suspected of offering a haven for Islamist terrorists and has been accused of harbouring figures including Osama bin Laden who, during the mid-Nineties, set up a number of al-Qaeda training camps in the country.

Details of the plot arrive against a backdrop of increasing co-operation between Sudan and Iran on defence issues, although the level of involvement, if any, of the governments in Khartoum and Tehran in the alleged nuclear plot is unclear.

However, circumstantial evidence suggesting that elements within both countries might be colluding on military matters has been mounting in recent months. A Sudanese delegation visited Iran's uranium conversion facility in February, while the East African country reportedly recently signed a mutual defence co-operation pact with Iran, allowing Tehran to deploy ballistic missiles in Sudan.

Read the entire story here.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Protesting Oil Dependence

The World Naked Bike Ride is an event that takes place in 60 cities world wide to protest oil dependence and its alleged impact on global warming. The BBC is covering the London leg of the bike ride:

About 700 cyclists in various states of undress have cycled through central London in another leg of the World Naked Bike Ride.

The naked cyclists - and others with strategically-placed body paint, sticky tape or bum bags - were highlighting the damage caused by car dependency.

They were also promoting the environmental benefits of cycling.

Earlier on Saturday, more than 200 naked cyclists rode through Brighton and Hove in East Sussex.

Read the whole story here. Given that a goodly portion of the money paid for every gallon of gas pumped into cars worldwide goes to support radical Islamists from Khamenei to the Salaifists, every person in the western world should whole heartedly support ending our dependence on oil. That makes this one of those few times when the agenda of the radical environmentalists, the interests of all Americans, and naked women on bikes intersect. Who could not possibly support such a nexus?

God Bless the naked bikers and God bless America, I say.

Dems & The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.

It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.

Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .

The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.

. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .

Read the entire story here.

As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.

There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.

But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.

Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

counter hit xanga