The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Not Funny Cartoon by Greg Sheffield (click to enlarge)
Another take on the Weekend Battle in Najaf
But that isn't the half of it; signs are beginning to point to Iran as the culprit in the attack.
...and don't miss this Outrage either
Media Outrage of the Week: a new Low for the Washington Post
That former "institutions" like NBC and the Washington Post have sunk to a level of depravity where they would hire a lunatic-finge demagogue like this Greenpeach hack-job Arkin, ought to set of sirens of alarm and bright red warning lights for every thinking American that our "elite" media is going down in flames. Let us pray they do not take one or more American cities down with it.
UPDATE: Be sure and follow all of Michelle's links; there is some blood boiling about this all over the blogosphere. And rightfully so.
UPDATE: Another view of the abomination.
Media WAY out in Left Field on Libby Trial
UPDATE: Prosecution 'Star Witness' Judith Miller: "I don't recall." Any jury who would convict Libby based on the events so far have got to be blind and deaf. And definitely dumb.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum (click to enlarge)
Euros defend the Iranian Terror State
Must Read of the Day: VDH on the Surge
Steyn on: Edwards' Monstrosity and the Media's War against the Good Guys
Exactly: all 29,000 Sqare Feet of it! Shoot, I am just glad Edwards announced his candidacy in the backyard of that Katrina-ravaged low-income New Orleans home, where the common folk can feel some solidarity with this modern day Baron. I just hope he dusted off his shoes before he walked back into the "big house". Check out Steyn's laser-targeted wit about this wonderful case of cognitive dissonance at NRO's The Corner.
But the previous are just the hors d'ouvres; Steyn penned this gem for Western Standard, a Canadian magazine--he begins the piece:
In Tom Stoppard’s play Night And Day, the African dictator Mageeba explains his views on freedom of the press:
“Do you know what I mean by a relatively free press, Mr. Wagner?”
“Not exactly, sir, no,” says the Fleet Street hack.
“I mean,” says Mageeba, “a free press which is edited by one of my relatives.”
Here in the citadels of western civilization, we have a slightly different problem: our relatively free press is a press edited by relativists.
Item: Six imams returning from a big conference of imams were removed from a plane at Minneapolis Airport after other passengers grew concerned about loud cries of “Allah akbar!”, the imams reseating themselves in the same configuration as the 9/11 hijackers and demanding seat-belt extenders, even though none was of sufficient girth to need them. Aside from Fox, America’s national media showed little interest in the story. But nor, oddly, did the local media. After complaints, the managing editor of The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Anders Gyllenhaal, replied to at least one reader: “I don’t think the paper dropped this story, but I do think it had run its course… I think this is one of those stories that runs for a couple of days, then subsides.”
Well, the reason he thinks this is one of those stories that runs for a couple of days is because he chose to run it only for a couple of days. Had it been something more consequential – like, say, fictitious stories about guards at Gitmo desecrating the Koran – he would have run it into the ground.
Item: The Associated Press reported that six Iraqis were burned alive in a mosque. Their source for the story was Iraqi police captain Jamil Hussein. The US military denies the incident took place. So does Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior, which says that there is no-one in the Iraqi police called “Jamil Hussein”. Which is odd, given that the Associated Press has quoted him dozens of times. Since they know him so well, why don’t they just produce him at a press conference? Instead, apart from some swipes at bloggers, the AP’s execs have refused to address the controversy. Thousands of American newspapers have run stories relying on the testimony of a man who does not appear to exist. And what all those stories have in common is that they paint post-Saddam Iraq as a disaster.
And the snowball just gathers up steam from there; check out the whole article.
al-CBS airs propaganda video produced by Al Qaeda
New Research: Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon
Baker to dismayed Dems re: the Surge: "Give It a Chance"
This is why it was very gratifying to hear today Baker tell off those Senators who are wanting to send mixed signals by confirming the Generals while attempting to generate "no confidence" votes or talk about "benchmarks" (be sure and page down for the wonderful graphics and video...). Baker's words: 'Give It a Chance'.
Monday, January 29, 2007
This is how you spell: C-h-i-c-k-e-n-s-*-*-t
The Real Enemy is Right Here; and has been All Along
It goes on. The Washington Post's Warren Bass writes that I think Jerry Falwell was "on to something" when he blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on pagans, gays and the ACLU. Slate's Timothy Noah diagnoses me with "Mullah envy," while the Nation's Katha Pollitt calls me a "surrender monkey" and the headline to her article brands me "Ayatollah D'Souza." And in my recent appearance on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," I had to fend off the insistent host. "But you agree with the Islamic radicals, don't you?" Stephen Colbert asked again and again.
Why the onslaught? Just this: In my book, published this month, I argue that the American left bears a measure of responsibility for the volcano of anger from the Muslim world that produced the 9/11 attacks. President Jimmy Carter's withdrawal of support for the shah of Iran, for example, helped Ayatollah Khomeini's regime come to power in Iran, thus giving radical Islamists control of a major state; and President Bill Clinton's failure to respond to Islamic attacks confirmed bin Laden's perceptions of U.S. weakness and emboldened him to strike on 9/11. I also argue that the policies that U.S. "progressives" promote around the world -- including abortion rights, contraception for teenagers and gay rights -- are viewed as an assault on traditional values by many cultures, and have contributed to the blowback of Islamic rage.
The reaction I'm eliciting is not entirely new to me. As a college student in the early 1980s, I edited the politically incorrect Dartmouth Review and was frequently accosted by left-wing students and faculty. They called me names back then, too. And at the time I didn't care. I often informed them that taking on our iconoclastic paper was like wrestling a pig: Not only does it get everyone dirty but the pig likes it.
Bush Job Approval at 42%
LA Times Op-Ed: Was 9/11 Really THAT Bad?
The Media is Costing American Lives
War With Iran? More on the Qods Kidnapping and Murder of American Troops
Boehner Cuts and Runs
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Surrender, 21st Century Style
Cartoon by Chip Bok (click to enlarge)
BREAKING: It appears likely that IRAN was behind the abduction and killing of US Troops last week
Meanwhile in a timely post, Milblogger Uncle Jimbo points out on Blackfive some highly relevant but little-understoond historical facts: Iran has been fighting a war against us for 30 years now.
Finally, The American Thinker today has another chilling article on this war: The Iranian Nightmare Continues. It may give you nightmares--as well it should. How many more Americans must die at Iranian hands before we stand up for them and defend ourselves in kind? It's a good question, but acknowledging the problem is a good first step.
Conyers (at least) Makes a Stand; otherwise the Party of Jefferson has become the Party of Cowards
My irritation is that--if my guess is correct--you are not going to hear a peep about Conyers' honesty on the "elite media" Evening News: because they don't want you to know what the Democrats' real position is. The Democrats prefer to try and have it both ways with their wishy-washy "non-binding" resolution, but most are unwilling to put their "true principles" (I use that term loosely) out there for all to see--i.e. if they really are for pulling out of the War, having the courage to stand up before the American people and call for defunding.
So--as much as I dislike Conyers and as much as I believe to my very core that his belief in World Marxism/Socialism is one of the most destructive and dysfunctional ideas that has ever existed in the history of mankind--at least you can conceed that Conyers shows the courage of his convictions--which is more than you can say for most of his colleagues.
Meanwhile the sheer, unadultrated cowardice of the majority of Democrats who are trying to peddle these non-binding resolutions designed to bolster our enemy cannot be excused.
Therefore I am going to do a Public Service here and define in plain English what overt and subliminal messages these Dems are in danger of sending to various interested parties listed below--all because these unprincipled prima donnas have absolutely zero political courage to do the right thing (whatever they believe that to be):
- How our Armed Forces hear the message: "we give lip service to 'supporting the troops' and are quick to hop over to Iraq on the taxpayers' dime for photo ops with you in the safety of the Green Zone--but we don't really support your mission and we are looking for the first lame excuse to pull the plug. We also are by our actions (if not words) going to encourage our enemies to kill many more of you; this will serve to discredit the party in power...";
- How our Enemies hear the message: "keep fighting the good fight, and by all means keep slaughtering innocents and killing as many American troops as possible--doing so will expedite our withdrawal from our commitments to these brave people and will leave 1/3 of the world's oil supply and revenues as 'booty' to who ever wins out in the genocidal battle between Shiite Iran and its proxies Hezbollah, and between Sunni Al Qaeda and Hamas and their sponsors in the Sunni Arab states, once we bail out. The deaths of their soldiers will of course eventually wear down the American people, and will ultimately prevent an American victory that would otherwise be likely--thus allowing us to say 'See! Bush's plan failed!' This will ensure that we appeasement-minded Democrats have a much greater chance to win the next election and cut deals to sell you all the nuclear technology and GPS satellites you may want--because what's a little Genocide when we can all be "friends" again..."
- How the other Moderate States in the region hear the message: "you had better start hedging your bets with more extreme states and/or Russia or China--you may even want to cut a deal with the Iranians. We may have the best military in the world, but America does not have the will to meet its commitments and cannot be depended upon when the going gets 'unpleasant'. So you had better find a trading partner and security partner who can..."
- What this message says to the American people: "You are not tough enough to handle the truth nor to handle a long fight against a determined enemy, unlike your ancestors. In fact: you are mostly too stupid to be self sufficient or to make decisoins for yourselves. You buy hook-line and sinker our tiresome platitudes and the slanted press coverage--you are so lazy and complacent in your comfortable lives that you actually buy-in to the garbage we are feeding you. This is good! Because we know what's best for you, and you must trust us to take care of your every need. But we are going to need money--LOTS of it--and that is why we are going to pretend 9/11 never happened and that Iran isn't about to nuke Israel, so we can gut the military and have Canadian-style health care! We are also going to pretend that there will not be a Bosnia/Darfur/Cambodia-scale genocide in the Middle East once we bail out--we'll just look the other way and try blaming it on Bush if it shows up on the news. We will raise your taxes, because we want to get more people dependent on big government--for their own good of course--and we will actually put the lion's share of the burden for this nanny state onto the backs of the most productive members of our society. But don't worry: they will want to stay productive and entrepreneural anywey, even though they are no longer rewarded for doing so. So, please don't take it personally when this robust economy tanks... we're doing it for your own good. Which is also why we will appoint judges to the courts who will leglislate rather than interpret law, and this is why we will eventually abdicate American Foreign Policy to the Appeaseniks in Europe and the UN, and to the 'higher' goal of Worldwide Socialism... " (strike up 'The Internationale' or 'Das Vadanya' here as appropriate)
"Cowardice" is almost too good a word for these Democrat low-lifes; I personally believe it to be sedition, and under Wartime Presidents like FDR or Lincoln, many of these people would be rightfully rotting in prison right now. If only...
UPDATE: For the overt and subliminal messages above, I want to stress that in their conscious minds that most Democrats do not consciously want the enemy to kill more Americans or innocents; but most Democrats--including any sickos who do not mind if a little blood is shed if it will benefit them politically--will do almost anything to stay in power, and when they sat on their hands in the State of the Union when the President mentioned the word "Victory", it spoke volumes.
Dr. Pat Sanity, a psychologist--who has a great Podcast called "The Sanity Squad" by the way--sums it up thusly (empahses mine). Be sure and read her entire post, she diagnoses and defines the psychological syndrome of Self-Delusion and Emboldening the Enemy:
No, they don't want our troops to be killed, but their behavior facilitates and encourages it. Our peace demonstrators say they stand for peace and are against war; but their mindless, unthinking, feel-good-about-themselves-and-what-wonderful-human-being-they-are behavior only makes the real warmongers and barbarians happy in the knowledge that they have many battalions of useful idiots ready and willing to excuse, rationalize and appease for them.
The Will To Lose
... In the State of the Union, the president (as presidents are wont to do on Tuesday nights in January) spoke about energy, but he didn't seem to have any. Five years ago, when he was genuinely engaged by the subject, he wanted to drill in ANWR and go nuclear: He was energetic about energy. When both those excellent ideas went nowhere, President Bush retreated to some familiar bromides about vague targets and new regulations and increased efficiencies: His list was listless.
This seems to suit the Democrats. The only energy displayed by Nancy Pelosi was the spectacular leap to her feet within a nano-second of the president mentioning Darfur. Up went Madam Speaker and the entire Democratic caucus like enthusiastic loons on a gameshow. Darfur! We're all in favor of Darfur. People are being murdered! Hundreds of thousands! We oughtta do something! Like, er, jump up and down when it's mentioned in a speech. And, er, call for the international community to mobilize. Maybe one of those leathery old '60s rockers could organize an all-star concert or something. If Darfur were indeed a game show, the Sudanese would quickly discover it's one of those ones where you come on down to discover you've missed out on all the big prizes but you're not going away empty-handed: No, sir, here's your very own SAVE DARFUR! T-shirt autographed by Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney.
Darfur is an apt symbol of early 21st century liberalism: What matters is that you urge action rather than take any. On Iraq, meanwhile, the president declared: "Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory." And the Dems sat on their hands.
The American left has long deplored Bush's rhetorical reliance on such vulgar conceits as "good" and "evil." But it seems even "victory" is a problematic concept, and right now the momentum is all for defeat of one kind or another. America is talking itself into willing a defeat that has not (yet) occurred on the ground, and would be fatally damaging to this nation's credibility if it did. Last year Arthur M. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, gave a commencement address of almost parodic boomer narcissism, hailing his own generation for their anti-war idealism. Advocating defeat first time round, John Kerry estimated America might have to relocate a few thousand local allies. As it happens, millions died in Vietnam and Cambodia. And the least the self-absorbed poseurs like Sulzberger could do is occasionally remember that the world is about more than their moral vanity.
The open defeatists on the Democrat side and the nuanced defeatists among "moderate" Republicans seem to think that big countries can choose to lose small wars. After all, say the "realists," Iraq isn't any more important to Americans than Vietnam was. But a realpolitik cynic knows the tactical price of everything and the strategic value of nothing. This is something on an entirely different scale from the 1930s: Seventy years ago, Britain and Europe could not rouse themselves to focus on a looming war; today, we can't rouse ourselves even to focus on a war that's happening right now. Read 100 percent of the Democratic presidential candidates' platforms and a sizeable chunk of the Republicans': We're full of pseudo-energy for phantom crises and ersatz enemies, like "global warming.'' ...
"Thanks to political correctness, you don't see much about the greatest conflict of our time on the big screen..."
The Coming Holocaust: yes, it IS real...
Read this powerful essay, again. Read it all. And then take special care that the blood of millions of Israelis, Brits, or fellow American citizens are not on your hands too.
We can stop this madness--but it is going to take grown-ups, making tough but decisive choices. Are there any grown-ups left in this critically ill culture? We'll see... May God help those of us who give a damn.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Bush and Horatio
More Brilliance from 'Breath of the Beast'
Great stuff, this. It is great to see new talent like Yaacov on the center-right side of the blogosphere.
Coming Soon to a Network Near You
Why the Left Loves Mohammed
NATO Hits Taliban Lair in Afghanistan
Lunatic Fringe: Global Warming Causes Jihad
Oh Say, Can You...Shut Up!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Close Enough... (Art Imitates Life)
US has High Level Iranian Qods Revolutionary Guard in Custody
The Teachings of the Green Lane Mosque
Aviation Week: Iran about to Launch Spy Satellite
UPDATE: Meanwhile, China is predicting weapons in space. Go figure...
Internet Security Company Cracks Jihadist Encryption Program
Gates: Anti-Surge Resolution "Emboldens the Enemy"
Based on the link above, it appears that you can add John McCain and Mitch McConnell to the list of names (Warner, Coleman, Snowe...) that will not receive a penny of my money: even if that means not giving to the NRSC. If you agree then you should also sign the pledge if you have not already.
UPDATE: It is being reported that Norm Coleman is reconsidering. But keep the pressure on all of these Senators, including the ones on the Pledge Website.
Iran Steps Up the Pressure
The audacity of Reid and Biden to send messages to our enemies that we will not lift a finger--even if they move forward with their nuclear ambitions--is not only beyond the Constitutional authority of Congress, it is tantamount to treason. But it sends an unmistakable message to the Iranians.
My Cross-Referencing Project and "Fair Use"
Also, I have been made aware by concerned readers about the notion of "Fair Use", i.e. lengthy reproduction of copyrighted writings without permission which "pushes the envelope" will largely become a thing of the past. I have taken liberties in the past just to save my readers the trouble of having to click through to read content. And, while this is ergonomically useful, it does not allow those folks who actually write for a living to benefit from advertisements, etc. on their site. So I am hoping you will continue to visit--but also that you do not mind clicking through to the source from now on.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Germans obviously Not Impressed with US War Resolve
The Democratic "Plan"
Is the Worm Already starting to Turn in Iraq?
Now if only the elitist anti-American press will report all the facts and stop feeding us pure fiction.
Would Iran Use Nukes should it get them? Of Course.
Meanwhile John Bolton is far from happy about the State Department wing of the US government seemingly caring more about appeasing the corrupt cesspool that is the UN than it does about keeping Nukes out of Iranian hands.
Micheal Ledeen is right: Faster, please!
MI5 Warns of Bioterror Threat
So...you Really think you are SAFE?
Nah--we don't need to protect our borders...
How NOT to Succeed in Iraq
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Inmates Running the Asylum
Now More Than Ever
And apparently I am not the only one.
Go to his site. Listen to the audio, watch the video and read the speeches. Then ponder what you have seen and heard; just imagine this man debating Hillary Clinton and absolutely devouring her or Barack Obama in front of millions. Imagine this man running with someone like Lieberman or Guliani on the ticket. Imagine him debating any Democrat on the planet with an entire nation watching. It is a blissful thought...
Mr. Speaker: as they say on the commercials: "Just Do It."
Another possible Iraq Outcome
(Be sure and read the comments too).
N. Korea "Assisting" Iran with Underground Nuke Test
It is difficult to imagine Israel sitting by and letting this happen--even with a weakened Prime Minister Isreal has more cajones when it comes to protecting itself than do all of the Democrats in Congress combined (note that I now count Lieberman as an "Independent").
I do not think people have any idea how serious this is about to get. It may be that Americans are soon going to realize what a fatal mistake they made by electing appeasement-happy Dems to office.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Ahmadinejad: "Israel and US will soon Die"
NBC's David Gregory Caught in Lie in Plame Affair?
UPDATED State of the Union Reactions--Mostly positive!
Hugh Hewitt is pleasantly surprised also.
AJ Strata was jazzed.
Captain Ed live-blogged, as did Mary Katherine Ham; but she wasn't exactly thrilled with the treatment of the address by the Associated Press (who can blame her).
There was also an all-star cast live blogging over at NRO's The Corner. I especially identified with Peter Robinson's take:
Dubya Comes Off the RopesUPDATE: Mark Steyn, also at The Corner, discusses Democrat Stenny Hoyer's claim that the "real" war is in Afghanistan, not Iraq:
Nancy Pelosi’s sour face (see John Pod), her hopping up to applaud the reference to Darfur (see Mark Steyn)—all this was very annoying, I’ll grant. But what mattered tonight were the words and performance of George W. Bush. Both proved better—dramatically better—than we had any reason to expect.
Yes, he began with some therapeutic-sounding nonsense about “making life better” (see, once again, Mr. Steyn). But listen to this: “A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy.” Or to this: “[We need to expand the econony] not with more government, but with more enterprise.” These were the most straightforward, compelling statement of the fundamental importance of free markets that this president has uttered in many months. On balancing the budget “without raising taxes,” on reducing earmarks, on reforming entitlements, on the need for school vouchers, and in presenting his plan to restore tax neutrality to health spending—in nearly every word of his domestic agenda, the president proved serious, compelling, and—a word I’d almost given up associating with him—conservative.
The section on the war on terror? The best statement of his case since his speech to the nation on September 20, 2001. Whereas a year ago the president spoke about Iraq in words he might almost have used a full year earlier, tonight he was specific to this moment. He explained how we reached this point, what we face now—and what he intends to do about it. “Whatever you voted for,” he said to his audience, “you did not vote for failure.” Superb.
The speech was straightforward, solidly delivered, and cogent—a case made in full, an argument. It would have represented a fine piece of work at any time. But at this moment, when the nation is disheartened, when the president’s political opponents appear positively giddy with his standing in the polls, and when some two-thirds of Congress appears to be clamoring for retreat from Iraq—at this moment the speech represented a really splendid act of courage.
Andy is right about Steny Hoyer. You can argue that Iraq is not the most important part of the war but it’s ludicrous to insist that it’s no part of it at all. For one thing, any outcome that can be presented as a US defeat will be a huge boost for our enemies around the world, and be very revealing of our credibility. This Dem device of always being in favor of some war somewhere other than the one you’re in is laughable. And, after calling for more troops for years and then objecting when it actually happens, Democrat butching up on this tired trope should be seen for what it is: bad-faith poseur politics on the critical issue of our times.
Overhauling Global Military Strategy
But it is what is unsaid that is germane tonight: you cannot possibly "close the gap" in the Middle East if you leave a power vaccum in Iraq for Al Qaeda and Iran to fill.
Leahy the Leaker wants All the details on every Secret Program
UPDATED Turncoat Republicans Rancid Stench is Spreading
Dispicible is to weak a word to describe these backstabbers. Call the Senate switchboard and let them have it. The Senate Switchboard number is: 202-225-3121.
UPDATE: Hewitt is now suggesting we "take the pledge". I am taking it and I am writing now, per the instructions below:
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
Take the pledge, and tell the NRSC:
Ronald Reagan Republican Center
425 2nd Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Why there IS no "Getting Out"
And this is where the Middle East leaders need to sit up and take notice. The violence in Baghdad is heading to their capitols if we lose Iraq. Syria, Jordan, Egypt and all the moderate Muslim nations will face the same tactics as we are seeing in Iraq. If we walk away, the entire ME will light up because the insurgents will have learned that this kind of mindless bloodshed can make peaceful people run away. Those of us saying we cannot lose Iraq are not slinging slogans. There were those in WW II who claimed what Hitler did in Europe was none of America’s business. All through WW II there were the naysayers, the ostriches. The people who claimed we could just wish it all away. But they were as wrong then as the anti-war crowd is today. Simply because it is not war or peace, It is war or massive bloodshed and the slavery of hundreds of millions of people.
The problem is this country will always be the enemy of dictators and fascists. We will always out produce and out entice the socialistic government models because we strive on individual diversity and creativity that is enabled through freedom and ownership. These other societies believe purity of thought is more important than economic and technical and scientific advances. They want to sacrifice some progress in order to retain order. The more order required the less energy people put into their societies because they are punished for creativity, not rewarded. This dichotomy is not going away because Americans are not going to revert into some socialistic model of government enforced thought and behavior. Dems learned this, Reps learned this. So we will always be the enemy of the Islamo Fascists because we will always represent an undeniable enticement to their people. So they must destroy us to survive. This is not going to end because the Islamo Fascists cannot survive as long as we do, whether we are challenging them or not.
UPDATED Bush did NOT Back Down to the Dems Tonight
Big Saudi Money behind Carter Center
Monday, January 22, 2007
Because we CAIR
Hiding the Truth as Standard Operating Procedure
Bob Baer , a longtime CIA case officer in the Middle East, had a similar experience. He had lost close friends in the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut in the early eighties, and every time he tried to find out who had killed them, he ran into a stone wall. He was constantly told that we just did not know. But he persisted, just as Scott Johnson did, and he too arrived at the truth: the bombing of the Embassy had been an act of war by the Iranian regime, using Palestinian terrorists to carry out the actual suicide mission. He too found that “we” had known about it all along, but the truth had been suppressed for two decades.
Why? Because those who controlled the information didn’t want the top policy maker—Ronald Reagan—to know it, since they “knew” he would not let it pass, and they didn’t want trouble with Iran.
I, too, had a similar experience. I helped organize meetings in Rome in December, 2001, with Pentagon Iran experts and knowledgeable Iranians. They provided information about Iranian killers in Afghanistan, whose mission was to kill American soldiers. The information was accurate, and the would-be killers did not accomplish their mission (I hope they were killed, but I am not privy to that information). Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, with the agreement of Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, demanded that all such contacts be terminated. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave orders that no Pentagon employee speak to “Iranians” (which prompted one Iranian-American official to ask if conversations with parents were included in the order).
Why? Because they did not want trouble with Iran, and they “knew” that if President Bush had that information, he would not let it pass.
We have now had further examples of this sort of lie. We now know that top American officials have known all along that Iran has been waging war on us in Iraq, but this information has been suppressed.
Why? Because they, too did not want trouble with Iran. Military leaders did not want a two-front war (even though it should have been obvious, even before the onset of Operation Iraqi Freedom, that we were engaged in a regional war, whatever our wishes were), and the spooks and diplomats convinced themselves that we could cut a deal with the mullahs.
Lots of lying, as you see, but the biggest lie of all is the lie the liars told themselves: the monstrous lie that we can arrive at peace with our enemies without first defeating them.
I am told that we have discovered truly explosive information about the Iranian role in Iraq in the recent raids in Baghdad and Irbil, the raids that led to the arrest of high officers in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. I believe we are all entitled to that information. To be sure, some of it may be “actionable intelligence,” which must be kept secret—even from the New York Times—until we have acted on it. But the American people are entitled to know the big picture, which is the one some of us have been painting for many years: Iran is waging war on us, killing our soldiers, slaughtering Iraqis, enabling Hizbollah in Lebanon, empowering Hamas and Islamic Jihad in their war against Israel.
The American people cannot properly judge our performance in this war unless they know its true dimensions. The president must provide us with that basic truth.
Worst. President. Ever.
Iraqis Nab 3 More Iranians in Mosul
Hillary: Caught in a "fib" already?
The Associated (with Islamists) Press caught in a Lie
Here is Michelle's blog entry (check out the original AP story at the bottom...), and lastly, the Hot Air video that nailed the AP in their tracks.
Another glowing example of the power of the blogs to cut through the elite media propaganda.
Ellison Named to Judiciary ...
Was China's Sat-Killer a "Rogue" Operation?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Sabotage from Within
Day by Day Sunday Comics by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)
VDH and the Consequences of Leaving Iraq
Mark Steyn on the Barack Obama "Swoon"
Bad and Worse
American "Wins" Misreported--it is time to get Drastic about it
I did note these three headlines today from the Associated (with our enemies) Press did make a bit more of a splash:
- Bombs Kill 18 in Separate Iraq Attacks
- Iranians Reportedly Set for talks with US (story about how they want talks with the US...)
- 3 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq - roadside bomb, fighting Sunni insurgents
Notice a pattern?The fact that you seemingly have to go to the Jerusalem Post to read about our successes in this war is one illustration of the extent to which the American Elite Media seems to be heavily invested in an American defeat; they seemingly care less about America winning this war--their only and overriding concern is to "get Bush" and to get a Democrat into the Presidency --no matter that doing so would put the United States and the West behind the proverbial 8-ball in its war for survival. The media's printing of classified secrets, and its horribly skewed coverage is costing American lives abroad and public morale and support at home. When our own media is openly rooting for mass murderers against American kids, and showing propaganda snuff films that helps the Islamists recruit, it is time that We The People and our Executive Branch rethink how we are going about this media war.
FDR, for example, had no compunctions whatsoever about vetting newspapers and radio for enemy-friendly propaganda or for information that gave away any secrets--and he did censor newspaper and radio content numerous times throughout World War II. And this was in a time when our homeland (save Pearl Harbor) was relatively immune to direct enemy attack; today that has all changed, as we found out on 9/11--and a well placed suitcase nuke could take out an entire city. This is no longer implausible--indeed the question the way we are fighting this war today seems to be when, not if. At least FOUR of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came across the Mexican border illegally (not exactly a feat that requires rocket science these days...). If Osama were to lay out his millions for a Russian-era nuke, what is to say that could not easily come across our border illegally. Yet we seem to care more about the political aspects of border security than about the fact that an open border could invite catastrophe such as the US has never seen on its shores.
Today, we live with a nightmarish, Stalinist-like Political Correctness in this country that was not present in the 40's; yes that makes it harder for the President to take unilateral action without a big stink being raised. But when our sons' and daughters' lives are on the line--and when our lives may be on the line--I personally could care less about what "looks good" politically; we need to use EVERY weapon at our disposal. When the consequences of abandoning our commitment to the Iraqi people are so horrific to the stability of the entire world--e.g. ceding the entire Arabian penninsula to a Nuclear Iran just for starters--then we must stop fighting this war like a "beauty contest" and start doing whatever it takes to WIN.
It is well past time to take off the gloves--and that means against the seditious American news media as well as our enemies abroad. Prosecutions; heavy fines of offending publishers, media outlets and individuals; and jailing reporters who do not reveal the sources of leaked classified material--all would be critical weapons in protecting our state secrets and ensuring the public was informed about the positive things that were happening abroad. And over time, these unpopular-at-first steps would harden American resolve at home, thus making our defeat a virtual impossibility. If that is what it takes, then why not?
One of my biggest complaints about this Bush Justice Department has been its timidity when it comes to gettting to the bottom of the many damaging leaks that the New York Times, Washington Post, and other seditious media have published against the "wishes" of the US government. Well it is time to stop "wishing" and start "dishing"--dishing out indictments, that is... And if agencies under scrutiny for leaks (like the CIA) do not show up to scheduled interviews with the FBI leak investigators (as was reported last week), then slap a subpoena on the stonewallers--no matter who they are (see Jay Rockefeller post yesterday)--so fast their heads will spin, and then put them in front of a Grand Jury. And if they still don't cooperate, throw away the key until they do.
War is not pretty; it is a messy, sloppy, ugly business, laden with mistakes. That is its very nature. But that does not mean that the American people have to see every mistake and every mishap in bold headlines or on Katie Couric or Keith Olberman's newscasts with little or no counterbalance whatsoever. The Constitution gives the President extraordinary powers during wartime; Lincoln even suspended habeus corpus. This may be the most critical war for the future of the US that we have ever fought; we simply must use EVERY tool at our disposal to win this War, even if it means Hollywood and the Media would scream bloody murder and cry "wolf". So what? Are they not already doing this every day?
Taking off the gloves at home means using the President's Constitutional powers to stop the media bleeding at home against a press which have shown themselves in large part to be the enemies of our men and women in harms way. Faster, please.
Hezbollah Leader: Expect "Something Big" in coming days
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Rules of Disengagement: Courtesy of Joe Biden & Co.
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum (click to enlarge)
Terrorists Using Google Earth to Plan Attacks
Rockefeller: So WHAT if Iranians are Killing Americans?
I have no proof of this, Rockefeller just seems the most likely candidate of several. But by virtue of his postion on the Senate Intelligence Committee, he has access to highly sensitive secrets. He is highly partisan, vehemently leftist, if not Marxist, and since the very beginning he seemingly has done and will do anything to see that America's War fails miserably--for one reason and one reason only: because a Republican President took us there.
Interestingly, Rockefeller was pro-intervention when Clinton bombed the Aspirin factory and sent troops into Bosnia. If I am not mistaken, he has even argued during the Clinton Adminisration that Saddam had WMD's, was dangerous and must be dealt with, etc...
But times have changed. It is a Republican Adminisration now. And Bush has now raised the stakes even higher: if Bush succeeds with this "Surge" and Iraq stabilizes over the next 12 months, Republican stock will rise, and the Democrats stay in power might be short-lived; if on the other hand America fails miserably and is unable to pacify Baghdad; if we are forced to retreat in shame, the Dems have a much better chance of retaining Congress and possibly even the reclaiming the White House.
Never mind the sacrifices of thousands of men and women who believe in the mission; many of whom have given their lives in the cause of killing Al Qaeda and Shiite hardliners before they kill us here at home. Many enlisted after 9/11.
So when I saw what Rockefeller said in the New York Times--about basically not caring if Iranians are killing Americans--well I can't say that it surprised me; but my disgust was barely containable.
I pointed Thursday to a poll that said 49% of Democrats want the US to FAIL in Iraq. Forty-nine percent! For these so-called "citizens", this is not about doing what is best for their country, this is about gaining and holding raw political power, damn the consequences. And even these "party above country" Democrats--who represent a near plurality of the party--still for the most part do not go out of their way to BETRAY their country. But when it comes to Rockefeller, I am not so sure... And if my suspicions are right about him, then the is a traitor in every sense of the word--a man who in other eras or American wars would have been imprisoned and/or executed.
The slaughter in Iraq should we desert these kind, gentle, and intelligent people who are for the most part pawns in a game chess between Iran and Al Qaeda, with both sides determined to break the will of US public support at home for Iraqi self-determination---will make the Cambodian killing fields, where 2 million South Vietnamese and Cambodians were slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge after our desertion of the South Vietnamese (and a direct result of the Democrats' pulling the plug on the funding of our longtime allies in the South)--look like a church picnic.
Again, the blood of millions of innocent souls would be on the Democrats' hands. I really wonder: how do any of these "49%" who have even a shred of honor or morality sleep at night? They may not be American patriots, but surely many of them must know what will happen to all these innocent people should we just pull out.
Democrats are the first to wail and moan about genocide in places like Darfur and Rawanda, but when it comes to the hard slogging that it takes to prevent genocide, raising the minimum wage and eliminating the opposition from the public airways (via the Stalinist "fairness doctrine") seems much more palatable to them than does saving millions of lives, showing the repressive regimes around them that America is not to be trifled with, and--most importantly--sending the message to moderate Arab states that America does not desert its "friends".
This is who we have elected for our "fresh start"; God help us all.
Sadr: Maliki Wants to Destroy Islam
Previously on 24 ...
"You're Damn Right I Ordered the Code Red"
The LA Times Gets One Right: "How the Left Led us Into 9/11"
The Clinton and Carter administrations made the U.S. look like a weak, attractive target for terrorists
Friday, January 19, 2007
Do NOT Miss This Video
State Department/CIA fight Pentagon over detention of Iranian Terror Suspects
CAIR Targets "24"
The problem with this is: we are at war. In a democracy if you cannot sell a war at home, eventually the shrill voices of the leftist “peace movement”, chorused with the mob mentality of the Democratic party and the dinosaur elite media, will grind the whole thing to a screeching halt. The way things are going, it is likely going to take America losing one or more cities or tens of thousands more dead before the country wakes up.This is THE defining moment of our lifetimes and yet the Republican party seems to still be living in the Gerald Ford era. The days of Reagan and Gingrich seem like a distant and alien memory. And the Democrats, well… I think if Hollywood goes up in a mushroom cloud, health care and the minimum wage will somehow seem a bit less important.
I hope the Administration—and the party—is listening to voices like Hewitt. What is needed is to put people like Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson on the front lines of the war for hearts and minds at home. And the President needs to quit worrying about libraries and legacies and winning popularity contests with the Today Show (which it will never succeed in, no matter what it does)—and start worrying about getting out on the stump and selling why we need to WIN. If we cannot turn around public opinion about the need for us to take the fight to Al Qaeda and Iran abroad before they bring the slaughter to our shores, the nightmare will no longer be a dream—it will be reality. The New Dark Ages are nigh, if we do not wake up fast.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Return of Stalinism and the Thought Police (and it's only been two weeks!)
EVERYTHING You Ever Needed and Ever Will Need To Know about the Democrat Party
49% of Democrats Either Don't Want Bush's Iraq Plan To Succeed, Or Aren't Sure If They Want It To Succeed
A full 34% of our troop-supportin' patriotic loyal opposition flatly wishes failure upon the US military.
I suppose some people may not fully listen to the question, so within that 34% are some respondants who just figure the more "No's" they offer the more strongly they register their opposition, and some people who add the interpretation "I don't want the surge to succeed, because I don't want it to happen in the first place."
But I don't think you get to 49% based on misunderstanding the question alone, do you?
No, I don't. Like I said: EVERYTHING you need to know. The Prosecution rests.
NATO Troops Not Cutting the Mustard in Afghanistan
Back from Baghdad
Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon
Wasting no Time at engaging the Iranians
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
THE Most Dangerous IE(D)
Cartoon by Michael Ramirez (click to enlarge)
What Thomas Jefferson learned from that Qur'an
Are SpecOps Forces taking on AQ in the PI?
Valiant Islamists in Action--and other Ruminations UPDATED--slightly
Here is the deal, though: Until we go straight for the heart of the root cause of our problems--that would be Iran, Syria, Palestine, and any other states which fund terror directly--we will never solve the problem. You don't solve the problem by fighting proxy wars--ask the Russians or South Vietnamese; proxy wars are no-win situations. You don't fight the proxies, you go for the source: and when you finally get to the point where that fact dawns on you, you don't do that half-assed--you go for the jugular. The Cold War did not end in places like Panama and Grenada; the Cold War ended when Ronald Reagan confronted the Sovs directly--and they backed down.
I voted for President Bush, but I am sorely disappointed with the White House's efforts in communicating the consequences should we fail in this War--and why winning is so important to each American.
We are fighting Al-Qaeda over there--the very people who flew those jets into our buildings! The people who blew up our embassies and the Cole! We are fighting Iran--the same country that took our embassy hostage while Jimmy Carter wrung his pathetic hands, and the same country that killed over 400 Marines in Lebanon. And now they are about to go nuclear. There is no "grey area" here: we know Al Qaeda is making Iraq its "line in the sand." We know Iran will use those nukes before it gives up its terror sponsorship. They...don't...care.
Yet you hardly ever even hear the President mention the fact that we are at War with the people who have attacked us repeatedly. And his Administration's salesmanship of the consequences of deserting the Iraqis to Al Qaeda and Iran has been ineffective at best. Instead it has all been about the virtues of Democracy, blah blah blah. Yeah I read Sharansky, and it was an excellent and moving book--but most Americans don't care what form of Government Iraq has: they just want to "win, baby." And we are fighting the people who knocked those buildings down and who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of our troops. How about keeping that fact front and center in American consciousness. Do we really think if we just leave that AQ is just going to go home?? Is running away going to make Iran take us seriously about their nukes??? Bush has failed at making most Americans understand this is about kill them before they kill us. Why does he not call this what it is?
I know why we are fighting, but the average joe on the street requires a lot of hand-holding, and he gets distracted about absurdities like the minimum wage and health care--when we are fighting people so they won't murder thousands, if not millions of us. So, yeah, I am for the Surge, but part of being successful is to make the American people understand what is at stake; and it pains me to say it but President Bush has failed miserably in this respect. Maybe we do need a "communicator" like Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. Regardless, the Surge can only be successful if the President sells it well, and if he keeps his word about the following:
- Meaning it about striking at the heart of the Iranian and Syrian sponsors of the Iraqi insurgency. (And even giving the Saudi sponsors of the madrassas and ultimatum like the one we gave Pakistan back in 2001.)
- Taking the gloves off against the insurgencies--on BOTH sides--whether Maliki likes it or not. That is going to mean ugliness on the evening news, staged massacres, etc. And this means;
- Effectively fighting an effective information war at the same time. The Islamists, with the help of the Dinosaur Elite Media, have owned the information war. Agressive action must be taken to change that, including vetting of publications for enemy propaganda or prosecutions for the leaking of our own State secrets--to include reporters.
- Do Whatever It Takes to WIN. The American people do not mind seeing success, even if it costs lives--this was proven when we toppled Saddam in record time and Bush's approval ratings were through the roof; what the American people will not sit still for is stagnation while Americans get picked off one by one.
- To reiterate a previous point: al-Sadr's militia must be disarmed at all costs. This is not just about Sunnis, although we need to win the hearts and minds of the majority Shiias by stopping the Sunni insurgency firmly first. But then, once we have gained that trust, it is al-Sadr's turn. It has to be, or we might as well pull out now (or just move them into Iran where they can really do some good--OK I didn't really say that......did I?)
- Take immediate steps to get off of our dependence on Islamic oil. We are paying these guys to fund their nukes and to fund their murder of Americans and Europeans! Why? We have plenty of oil and gas in the Gulf and in Alaska for our own neeeds. Hell if Castro and Hugo Chavez and China can drill off of Florida, why can't we?? Is stopping the feeding of our own enemies not more important than some Caribou's "pristine" wasteland? Katrina wiped out 1/3 of our oil production. One-third! Yet we keep playing this stupid game with our own natural resources. It is time to shut down the environmentalists and do what must be done to stop giving our enemies millions. This is a National Security Issue. Yet the Administration has allowed the do-nothing Democrats to frame this as an issue about an icy wasteland, for God's sake. This is madness.
OK, Next item? (Whew, glad I got that off my chest...I am angry about these things--this is slipping away from us and it is going to cost us dearly unless some people in high positions wake up fast.) Here is to that day.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Zed's got a Point...
Day by Day by Chris Muir (click to enlarge)
VERY Disturbing British Film of UK "Undercover Mosque"
Upcoming Documentary: Hezbollah Inside America
CAIR's Terror Connections
The 9th Circuit Chokes on Another One
Monday, January 15, 2007
How Elite Media Uses Words to Deceive You
Sunday, January 14, 2007
A Woman Can Change Her Mind...but This???
It's time: the New 24 Season
You also might want to visit Blogs4Bauer, where even more frivolity is going on.
Getting tough with Iran UPDATED
UPDATE: Wretcherd discusses the ramifications of Iran's supplying sophisticated weapons to those killing American troops, now that they have been caught in the act.
The Way Forward
Chavez to "Govern by Decree"
"Intelligence Agencies" stymie FBI probe on Classified Leaks UPDATED
Aren't these interagency "walls" the primary reason we did not put 2+2 together in time to prevent 9/11? (A: Yes, it absolutely is the reason). So rhen riddle me this: why is this still a problem???
When leaks of classified information jeapordizes our ability to halt terrorist funding--possibly costing American lives or even worse--and when Intelligence Agencies determine that "turf" and partisan politics is more important than our National Security, then it is time for the President to undertake even more internal "house cleaning".
UPDATE: I have often mentioned on these pages the CIA's not so secret war against the Bush Administration. Scott Johnson of Power Line has more regarding this latest revelation, and how it fits in to the overall pattern of inter-agency war against the Commander in Chief. Be sure and follow the links, and then ask yourself: if this isn't High Treason, what is?