Tomorrow is my birthday (yep, I'm an April Fool), so blogging will resume on Wednesday.
I've been writing quite a bit lately about the war and its anti-American component; scroll down below to take a look.
For additional reading, check out Bill Whittle's latest essay, "History." And Jonah Goldberg's, "What’s Wrong with the Arab World?" And this interesting Boston Globe essay, "The Poker of War." And any and all Mark Steyn.
ADDED BONUS: An oldie but goodie, courtesy of The Best Page in the Universe.
'Matt McRae's unassisted goal 1:09 into a second sudden-death overtime gave Cornell a 2-1 victory over Boston College in the championship game of the NCAA East Regional on Sunday.'This victory puts Cornell into the 'Frozen Four' (the hockey equivalent of the Final Four) for the first time since 1980. And it improves their overall record this season to an astounding 30-4-1.
Cornell University, my alma mater, athletic powerhouse!
Read Steven Den Beste's latest post, which outlines the shameful bias and hypocrisy that the international community and media (in this case, Scamnesty International) are showing against the United States-
'There's only one real war crime: "Being an American."'
Why are so many people held in thrall by organizations like the United Nations even when they are exposed as nothing more than bureaucratic bathhouses? Why are these people so spellbound, behaving as though U.N. approval is the equivalent of Peter Lynch's recommendation to buy stock?
Well here's my two cents- such people are risk-averse and cowardly; afraid to make decisions for themselves (and have faith in those choices), willing only to take action endorsed or supported by many others. They are unable to lead- just witness all the alternative plans being put forth by the spiteful anti-war crowd, and the President Bush haters, regarding how to protect American security and fight worldwide terrorism. Haven't seen one, you say? That's because there aren't any.
Am I to believe that before the United Nations was created, there was no military conflict of any kind, as there was no international governing body to permit it? Apparently fools like this want me to think so.
Any citizen who would forfeit his or her own nation's sovereign right to act, in deference to a transnational bureaucracy which only seeks to reinforce and expand its influence, is starting down a slippery slope where eventually few individual or unilateral actions will be tolerated. Hopefully I'll be dead and gone before that ever happens in America.
Other nations envy and hate the United States because we have finally accepted that appeasement and indecision are what lead to the September 11 attacks, and we are taking action against the evil SOBs which have the rest of the world by the balls.
While I'm usually put off by his overly self-satisfied demeanor, Josh Marshall knows how to write, and do his research.
His latest Washington Monthly article discusses (I should say criticizes) the idea put forth by neoconservative hawks within the Bush Administration to aggressively topple/ alter the governments of the Arab world in our war on terrorism. He believes that there are too many factors which need to align perfectly in America's favor for this plan to succeed. I counter that his worst-case scenarios seem less guaranteed to occur than he claims.
I must admit that while I support the ideas discussed (that the war with Iraq is part of a much larger, radical plan to democratize the entire Middle East, and that this plan is America's best chance to protect itself from terrorist threats in the long-term), Marshall puts forth some strong arguments against them, including one I'll single out-
'If the Bush administration has thought through these various negative scenarios-- and we must presume, or at least pray, that it has-- it certainly has not shared them with the American people. More to the point, the president has not even leveled with the public that such a clean-sweep approach to the Middle East is, in fact, their plan.'Bush's silence on this, well, politically incorrect topic irritates me as well. And we will without question require the assistance of many other nations to pull this off. But enuine respect and honest diplomacy (if it ever existed) between nations are currently out of style.
Here's hoping that all the world leaders (ahem, Mr. Chirac) put their pr--ks back in their pants and resume working together toward the common enemy of Islamism...
"In times as dangerous as these, the world cannot expect America to let its hands be tied. If the world had any sense, it would not want them to be."Clive Crook, writing in The Atlantic Monthly about the failings of the United Nations, the false legitimacy of international law, and the necessity of preemptive action to fight terrorism worldwide.
Those noble, liberal-bias exposing fellows over at the Media Research Center have now spun off a web site devoted solely to The New York Times, once considered a 'newspaper' by this blogger.
It's called Times Watch, and it's now part of my daily reading. Check it out.
If you really think there is no liberal media bias, you're just hiding from the facts. CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, NPR, BBC... these groups actively spin the news to the left, and worse, arrogantly claim that they are completely objective. That's my main beef. Say all you want about the conservative movement having Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street Journal and FOX News on its side, but they don't hide their colors so smugly.
If you consider total overall exposure (in number of readers, or viewers) and influence, there's no contest as to which side of the political spectrum has more ability to affect (and manipulate) the public. Read MRC's web site each day, or Andrew Sullivan's, and watch example after example pile up.
"Appease Me"
(Set to the tune of The Beatles' "Please Please Me")
Al Qaeda plans to nuke our cities,
Be sure to note this in committee,
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Appeasing, whoa yeah
That’s what we plan to do
We can’t support such things as conflict,
Not when Saddam still needs his boots licked,
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Appeasing, whoa yeah
The U.N. has its rules
We don’t want to start complaining
But we’re always caused great pain
When Bush wins (when Bush wins),
The U.S. wants to save the world
While we sit here and chatter and stew, whoa yeah
Why are our helmets blue?
Our lack of relevance is frightening,
We lack the will to do the right thing.
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Give in (give in),
Give up (give up),
Appeasing, whoa yeah
That’s what we plan to do,
Saddam has feelings too,
Let’s blame it on the Jewwwwwwwwwwwwwwws…
I donated a pint of blood just a few hours ago. Hopefully it will be put to good use.
The Red Cross didn't have any cookies for me, just some cold pizza.
It always sobers me up to be around medical equipment, a clear reminder of my mortality. On the other hand, my responses to a quite-thorough questionnaire left me in better spirits-- I could be in much worse shape than I currently am.
Michael Gove writes in the UK Times-
'Having failed to convince the likes of France and Russia that this conflict was just, we seem to be trying to persuade the anti-war crowd that it can be won without giving offence. In the process the requirements of victory are being subordinated to the judgment of Paris and the sensibilities of Charles Kennedy. Considerations about “not breaking the china” have meant deploying less than exemplary force. The New York Times reports that the Pentagon has removed hundreds of airstrikes from its military’s attack plan to limit the disruption to Baghdad.'This politically correct method of fighting with one hand tied behind our back is foolish, and dangerous. Total victory now. Baghdad's infrastructure can be rebuilt later.
And the anti-war and anti-U.S. slugs will never give us credit for waging this war humanely anyhow. Meanwhile, Iraqi soldiers commit war crimes on a daily basis. Wonder if the BBC will pick that up. That would require them to admit they are wrong about us, about anything-- it'll never happen.
One more note: When will the world finally rid itself of trials for war criminals? What an absolute sham. Giving mongrels the dignity of a semilegal proceeding. If there is enough proof to prove that a person or group of people committed crimes worthy of such a trial, why shouldn't they be taken aside and pumped full of armor-piercing bullets? I've heard the counter-arguments to this, but fail to understand exactly how it would 'lower us to their level.'
'The discovery of 3,000 chemical suits in an Iraq hospital that was used as an enemy military base raised concern that Saddam Hussein's regime was prepared to use chemical weapons, U.S. Central Command said Wednesday.'But I thought Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction? Hans Blix and Kori Annan told me so! Why would Iraqi soldiers need chemical suits to fight American troops who don't have any WMD in their arsenal?
Anti-American heads are seriously going to roll if our soldiers are exposed to chemical weapons. And rightly so, if all that Old Europe and U.N. obstruction during the past six months leads to a higher number of American casualties during this war.
I believe torture should not be ruled out as a method for extracting information from someone who doesn't want to divulge it. Especially in the case of terrorists. Why should anything be ruled out, when protecting lives is at stake? People argue that torture is humanity at its worst, that it lowers us down 'to their level,' that it will lead to a slippery slope where the prosecution of less-serious crimes employs torture methods to crack cases or resolve conflicts.
But consider: by removing that option from the table altogether, I think you create a slippery slope of a different sort- a terrorist or criminal knows that there are things you simply won't do, lines you (as an interrogator) simply won't cross. As long as you announce your morality upfront, your intentions to only fight cleanly and not ruthlessly to obtain your objective, you implicitly embolden the captive.
Spencer Ackerman writes in the New Republic on the humaneness of American torture tactics-
'The types of torture that keep human rights activists awake at night--removing fingernails, "toasting" genitals, and other hallmarks of the torture chambers of Morocco, Egypt, and Syria--are simply never used by American investigators. Instead, says Ranstorp, intelligence officials tend to rely on the sort of physical "stress and duress" techniques he dubs "soft torture."'
Wall-to-wall surveillance is already here, argue Dan Farmer and Charles C. Mann in the latest issue of Technology Review. Are we ready for this new world we’re slowly and steadily creating?
'Widespread electronic scrutiny is usually denounced as a creation of political tyranny or corporate greed. But the rise of omnipresent surveillance will be driven as much by ordinary citizens’ understandable—even laudatory—desires for security, control, and comfort as by the imperatives of business and government. “Nanny cams,” global-positioning locators, police and home security networks, traffic jam monitors, medical-device radio-frequency tags, small-business webcams: the list of monitoring devices employed by and for average Americans is already long, and it will only become longer. Extensive surveillance, in short, is coming into being because people like and want it.'
Michael Moore won the Academy Award for Best Documentary last night. Not content to leave well enough alone, he launched into a fruitless, attention-whoring, anti-war rant against President Bush. Surprisingly, there was a good deal of booing, before the Academy cut Moore off. I've written before about how I detest Moore, and his propensity for outright lying and deception when it suits his argument. His latest movie (I refuse to call it a documentary) is just another example of this tendency.
Cox and Forkum say it best-
For more on Moore and his distorted thinking on what passes for fact, visit Moorewatch.
RELATED: Andy Ihnatko fact-checks "Bowling for Columbine." It's not pretty.
ALSO RELATED: Alex Knapp writes that paying attention to egomaniacs like Moore only encourages them.
Busy today, and lots on my mind, given the latest news from the war. So this may be it for today. (Not likely, but just the same...)
Andrew Sullivan has several excellent posts from the past week, chronicling the head-smacking anti-American bias of the BBC. Read them all. This is dangerous, irresponsible behavior on their part, and should not be ignored.
I know that this site brings in a very small number of visitors, and that has continually raised doubts to me as to its usefulness and effectiveness. But I intend to persevere, even as my tiny corner of the blogosphere continues to shrink, and Sullivan captures the essence of why (bold is mine)-
'...the war isn't just between the West and Saddam. There's also a political and ideological war within the West. The anti-war crowd have lost the argument about going to war; so they are determined to win the case during and after it. They want this war to be regarded as a disaster. And it's up to the rest of us to fight back, expose them, and keep people focused on reality, not pro-Saddam and anti-Western spin.'
I was very put off when shortly after September 11 politicians and citizens alike began proclaiming that we needed to do this activity, or that activity, or else “the terrorists would win.”
I happen to disagree with the notion that reverting to life as it was before 9-11 will do any good whatsoever. It’s quite dangerous, actually. So I’ve come up with a few thoughts on what truly constitutes the terrorists ‘winning,’ i.e., what will lead to the detonation of a nuclear device or the release of biological or chemical weapons in a Western city.
If you believe that Iraq has no ties to terrorism whatsoever, and is not related to the greater war on terror, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you believe that all war is wrong, “just because,” even in cases of self-defense, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you believe that President Bush is wrong to wage war on Iraq, but that it would be okay if, say, President Clinton had done so, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you believe that radical Islam and shari’a are acceptable cultural norms and should be respected by the West, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you believe that the United Nations is an impartial, effective international body, capable of stopping terrorists and power-hungry dictatorships from killing millions of defenseless people, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you habitually ignore facts and logic used to argue against the positions and beliefs which you hold, then the terrorists will eventually win.
If you believe that the United States is truly the worst that this world has to offer, well, you need to seek medical help. I recommend a psychiatrist, as they can prescribe powerful medications.
UPDATE: I'm watching CNN now. 'Shock and Awe' has begun. The liberation of Iraq is really happening. God Bless America.
ONE MORE UPDATE: Read what Jonah Goldberg has to say about 'vomiting protestors' of the left coast as well as promising developments in Iraq. This anti-war movement really is loaded with sanctimonious fools, and choosing this particular war to stake its reputation on was an awful decision.
'...now we citizens are out of it. We care what's happening, but it isn't important that we know until it's all over. Once the war ends, it will again be a political issue and it will be important for us to learn what happened and to participate in the next decision. But now that we've decided to fight, we must trust our leaders and our soldiers to do that part for us. And for them to reveal too much to us while it's going on could endanger the lives of our soldiers and even imperil the success of the mission. So they're going to conceal information. They're going to lie to us. And they should do these things, if by so doing they can make the war end sooner with lower loss of life. Many great victories have been won with lies.'
There are reports of mass surrenders of Iraqi soldiers. (Bet you they'll be treated better than Daniel Pearl was.) American and British troops are currently on the march to Baghdad. The U.S. military hasn't needed to unveil 'Shock and Awe' just yet. This is very good news.
Iraq has apparently fired SCUD missiles at the U.S., missiles which their leadership told us they didn't possess. The U.N. weapons inspection process, and the U.N. itself, have proven themselves completely worthless. Even now, Hans Blix is calling for more inspections. Many thanks for exposing yourselves, you process-licking, freedom-hating toads. My contempt for you people and your resistance to the world of facts swirling around you is bottomless.
RELATED: Charles Krauthammer asks President Bush to not include the United Nations in rebuilding post-war Iraq. I disagree. We should keep Kofi Annan and the U.N. contingent around solely for cleaning out Saddam's torture chambers.
ADDITIONAL READING: Richard Perle, "Thank God for the death of the UN"
David Warren is a Canadian journalist, from what I gather. I linked to one of his essays in my previous post, and have been reading through his archives this afternoon... he's a damn impressive writer.
Here's another spot-on commentary, involving the farce that is the U.N. weapons inspections process-
'...war is war, and anything can happen. And a large part of the world is hoping for the worst, out of sheer anti-American "Schadenfreude" (pleasure in their pain; malice).Absolutely correct. Why let facts get in the way of irrational cries for attention? Their growing hysteria has everything to do with how mature and determined the United States has been in dealing with this situation.For in the last several weeks we have seen an extraordinary, and mindless outpouring of anti-American sentiment, in anticipation of this U.S. action to destroy a monster. It is important to emphasize the mindlessness: for no one, among those who have lashed out against the free world's captain -- no government, no party, no faction, no critic -- has proposed a plausible alternative to what the Bush administration says it must do.'
With the next phase of the war on terrorism upon us, Ralph Peters pulls no punches in his latest essay-
'The new American policy toward which the times have driven us is as radically different as our critics fear. It breaks with a failed and blood-soaked past. We have finally accepted that it is no longer enough to wait for enemies to attack first. We have accepted our unique responsibility to intervene abroad in the cause of global security and human rights.Read the entire thing. If his assessments are accurate, this war may end up being the greatest investment the United States has ever made.And we have dispensed with a corrupt sham sustained by our critics: the notion that a dictator, no matter how cruel and illegitimate, is untouchable behind his "sovereign" borders.'
This would also be a good time for the anti-war movement (that includes the protestors, human shields, appeasers and obstructionists in the U.N. and Europe, you know you who are) to lick its wounds and consider that it has officially lost the argument. You failed to provide a reasonable and moral alternative to liberating Iraq by force and removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power because there isn't one.
It's time to stop reflexively bashing the United States. It will get you nowhere. You're just standing in the way right now, wasting time, energy and space (Is this all we can expect from the left coast goofballs anymore?).
Move on. Look around you. There's a nation in the Middle East that needs rebuilding. (Several, actually.) There's a war on terrorism that needs our vigilance. If you stopped carrying on about 'Bush this' and 'America that' and found something genuinely productive to do with yourselves, you might come to find your influence growing again.
Stop making it so easy for the rest of us to loathe and dismiss you.
RELATED: David Warren writes-
'Saddam's real strategy can not be to prevail over the invading forces, only to enmire them in a human catastrophe.... It is a long shot, but his only shot; and we should remember when we see them that the peace demonstrators, in their acute and often willful naivete, remain Saddam's only effective frontline troops, his single waning hope to keep Iraq enslaved.'
China, 2003-
'Military action against Iraq is violating the norms of international behavior," Kong said at a regular news briefing. "We express regret and disappointment."China, 2001-He said China continues to maintain that "the Iraq question can be solved peacefully."'
'[China] utilized a refurbished "Strike Hard" anti-crime campaign to circumvent legal safeguards for criminal suspects and alleged separatists, terrorists, and so-called religious extremists. In its campaign to eradicate Falungong, Chinese officials imprisoned thousands of practitioners and used torture and psychological pressure to force recantations.'That's China, historically well-versed in peaceful problem-solving.
"British and American warplanes have attacked artillery units in southern Iraq, the Pentagon has said."
At long last, it's time for the infants and the weasels to get out of the way, and let the adults take care of business.
UPDATE: Oops, one of the dirtbag gremlins crawled out from the dark-
'East Bay Rep. Pete Stark said President Bush would be responsible for "an act of terror" by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.'
Visit this web site, scroll down a bit, and watch the video for "The Super Bowl is Gay."
You can read more about its talented yet warped creator, Andy Milonakis, here.
Being reflexively anti-anything paints you into a pretty small corner. If you absolutely hate the Dallas Cowboys, or Chinese food, fine with me. But regarding large-scale issues like war and peace, and situations where people (potentially millions) other than yourself are directly affected, who does it benefit to be as dogmatic and intractable as the Bush and America haters are? They may comprise a small portion of the anti-war movement in general, but they sure do speak the loudest. If you're that angry, go play "Grand Theft Auto," or take up boxing.
Former Marine Adam Mersereau writes today in NRO on the anti-war movement and its relativist underpinnings-
'The anti-war movement's misguided conclusions make sense only if we first examine the underlying force that drives and unites their diverse movement: a total and utter disdain for moral certainty. Many people who are antiwar are antiwar not merely because war is violent and inhumane, but because war is the ultimate statement of moral certainty — it is the ultimate in "judgmentalness." The pending war against Iraq is particularly distasteful to them because President Bush presents it as one against "evil" forces. Nothing is more offensive to today's "sophisticated" mind than this kind of moral certainty.'
RELATED: Listen to this oft-posted audio clip, of an Iraqi-American confronting an anti-war protestor on a radio show.
World events are about to get much more serious, and the tone of this blog will likely follow. I'll be trying my best to mix it up with humor and sarcasm, when appropriate.
So before then, a couple of non-war reads...
The Onion has some sound job-hunting suggestions-
'If you attended Harvard, Yale, or another prestigious Ivy League institution, don't bother noting this on your résumé. Or even creating a résumé at all. Just have one of the other a--holes from your school get you a job.'And, don't miss this interesting Newsweek interview with advertising critic Bob Garfield-
'Q: Still, you seem conflicted about sex in advertising. You say you enjoy looking at beautiful women, and sex is often effective in advertising. When does it work?RELATED: "Iraq War May Kill Feminism as We Know It" (Alright, I tried, but to avoid politics is to avoid taking a breath.)
You’re right, I am conflicted. I am conflicted as a man in this society in the year 2003 because I have an intellectual understanding and moral values in direct opposition to my genitalia. There are some things that infuriate me on a moral level but arouse me on another one. By the early ’90s, things had gotten so bad that beer advertisers decided as a group to ditch the pinup stuff and to not antagonize people who at least theoretically represented half of their audience and just do what’s right. But then between Madonna and Victoria’s Secret and Maxim magazine and Elvira the vampire, suddenly this kind of [postfeminist] retro-objectification became acceptable again.'
Juan Gato points out the difference between facts and truth-
'Facts:I happen to agree, and have changed the masthead/ slogan of this web site accordingly. Thanks Juan!
Things that get in the way of Truth.Truth:
Something that must be believed regardless of facts. Example: 5,000 civilians were killed in Afghanistan. Did not actually happen, but the U.S. wanted to kill that many and more so that means it is truth.'
We're all on to you, fact-resisters.
Law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh has co-authored with David Newman an excellent essay on the "slippery slope" argument-
'Slippery slopes are a real risk, and wise decision makers should worry about them. But arguments such as "Oppose this law, because it starts us down the slippery slope" have earned a deservedly bad reputation, because they're too abstract to be helpful.'This article is anything but abstract. Check it out.
President Bush, to the Iraqi people-- "The tyrant will soon be gone; the day of your liberation is near."
The Wall Street Journal, on America's allies in liberating Iraq-- "These countries understand that America is the only protector the world now has against monsters like Saddam. The U.N. cannot defend them in a crisis, and the French will gladly sell the ammunition to the tyrant who shoots them."
Mark Steyn, in a profile of Donald Rumsfeld-- "Right now, on Old Europe, South Korea and much else, Rummy's getting it right. A few days after September 11th, he observed, "If you're going to cock it, you throw it." For the last year, we have had the world's longest cock. Let's throw."
David Brooks, writing in The Weekly Standard on President Bush-- "Why was Bush so good at persuading Americans and so bad at persuading everybody else? There are now books on the subject, but the shortest answer is that someone blew up the World Trade Center. Americans are in a mood to hear Bush's arguments. People in most other countries are still living in the 1990s."
Michael Totten, on the war-- "You may think this war is a mistake. You may be opposed to it for reasons I don't share. That's fine. There are honorable reasons to dissent. But no one can tell me America is fascist and imperialist. It is a lie, and it is not honorable."
Ralph Peters, on the folly of the anti-war protestors-- "I credit the anti-war movement within the United States with sincere emotion. But it is utterly lacking in intellectual integrity. An earnest, if vague, sense that war is bad may inspire undergraduates, but it does not prevent massacres, depose tyrants or deter terrorists.
...How would the protesters feel if they had to live under Saddam's regime for even a few months? Without a decaf or doppio in sight?"
RELATED: Rachel Lucas, back from a blogging hiatus, fisks arrogant windbag Michael Moore. It scares me how much influence he has in Europe and in the nether regions of the American left, given his fondness for lies and misinformation.
All across the media today, I've been continually reading how Bush's arrogance, ineptitude, unilateralism, etc. has alienated much of the world against disarming and liberating Iraq. Several of those articles and op-eds also wonder why he couldn't be more diplomatic and charming like British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Then the world would fall in behind us, for this moral and noble cause.
Now I agree that Blair is probably the classiest statesman alive right now. But, it should be noted that Blair's efforts over the past several months have had absolutely no effect on the French-German-Russian intransigence either.
It's all fun and games for the hardcore left, and for old Europe, to blame the United States for the world's problems. Only they all too often leave out the part where we provide the solutions.
UPDATE: Some people just don't get it. Senator Tom Daschle shows again that he is a deplorable, embarrassing hypocrite. And I've sent an email to his office telling him so, in a slightly more polished way.
Feel free to do the same by clicking here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More on Daschle, from The Weekly Standard in February 2003.
ONE MORE UPDATE: More hypocrisy from a Democratic Party leader. This time it's Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for exposing yourself!
Weapons inspectors are being asked to leave Iraq. President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight. I pray constantly, for a quick and decisive victory, and for the return of all our soldiers, the brave and valiant defenders of freedom and of the greatest nation this world has ever produced.
I understand that President Bush and the Administration have made missteps over the past year, such as ignoring our still-flagging economy and underestimating the threat that North Korea poses.
But September 11, and our nation's reaction to it, is what will define Bush's legacy, and where his main focus should lie. In this respect he has done an admirable job, forcing the world out of its American-protected slumber and asking somnambulant U.S. citizens to realize that genuine evil does exist and wants to destroy America and everything it represents.
Steven Den Beste has written at length about the fact that the Arab world needs to be reformed, and its more poisonous aspects and dogma must be removed and replaced, with democracy (preferable) and a tolerance for Western ideas and culture (mandatory). Liberating Iraq is the first step in this plan, which of course cannot be explicitly stated, hence the Wah-Wah Victimhood and lifelong bureaucrats and appeasers start throwing up in their mouths.
I hope that those entities which have chosen to align themselves directly or indirectly with mass murderers and dictators will soon pay dearly for such choices. I call on the American people and its leaders to determine a tactful yet forceful response to such amoral treachery and self-centered activity both here and abroad.
Godspeed to our troops. Death to Saddam Hussein. Freedom for Iraq. And brains for the anti-Americans, the ultimate free riders, who will fortunately never have to know how brutally miserable the entire world would be without the United States.
ADDITIONAL READING: Thomas Friedman (NY Times), "Repairing the World"
John Leo (U.S. News and World Report), "A Time for Certainty"
Richard Brookhiser (The Atlantic), "What Makes Bush Tick"
UPDATE: Instapundit on the U.N.-
'I wouldn't have gone to the Security Council at all. And you can bet that neither the United States, nor any other power, is likely to do so ever again.'
'Security forces at Vandenberg Air Force Base are allowed to use "deadly force" in some cases if any anti-war demonstrators infiltrate the military complex, officials said.I hope these people are caught and beaten to within an inch of their lives, should they choose such a disgusting and dangerous outlet for drawing attention to their ineffectual lives.Some anti-war activists have announced plans to trespass in hopes of disturbing Vandenberg's mission and to vandalize sensitive equipment they believe helps the war effort.'
Well, maybe not. It might be better to pursue legal action, make an example of this nonsense. This isn't healthy dissent, or protest, or 'patriotism' (as the more self-anointed of anti-war protestors seem to think). It's treason.
Not much time for posting today, or until Monday. But until then, some quick thoughts--
Just when the hell did combat of any kind require United Nations legitimacy? (Boy, if that's not an oxymoron...) France didn't seek it when it began its military excursions on the Ivory Coast, you might care to note.
Many smaller-profile nations-- Ireland, Canada, etc.-- are behaving in a very passive-aggressive manner, hiding behind the U.N.'s 'authority' in order to not have to choose sides between the United States and Iraq, then alternatively blasting the United States for its arrogance and 'unilateralism.' Just listen to this lunacy-
'"A lot of us feel bad about doing Saddam's bidding but that appears no worse than carrying out a war for the Americans," said a diplomat from one of the undecided nations.'Look: If they are obstructing the U.S. solely due to President Bush acting like a tactless cowboy, how about showing a bit of actual foresight and realizing that he won't be President beyond the next 2-6 years, but their actions against America will be remembered for much, much longer? It bears repeating: The United States is the world's best chance for peace and prosperity.
On that subject, an MSNBC column addresses "What France Really Wants." (Hint: It's not peace, or harmony.) And Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard that France has recently been acting in bad faith, and legitimately questions whether they should be considered an ally.
A sign of how long 'ER' has been in the dumps--
Number of episodes featuring George Clooney: 108
Number of episodes featuring Clooney doppleganger Goran Visnjic: 83
(Clooney returned for a brief cameo during season 6, but he officially left the show in 1999.)
The Madness continues: #1 Arizona loses. #8 Marquette loses. #14 Stanford loses. And a shocking buzzer-beater.
Is is possible that Elizabeth Smart ran away from home?
This is what bureaucratic wrangling and seeking the always-elusive approval of the 'international community' gets us-- "U.S. Military Concerned Saddam Hussein May Launch First Attack"
According to my calculations, I have been alive for exactly 10,190 days. And I've probably eaten twice that many cheeseburgers...
Lastly, and I know I seem to say this every day, read Steven Den Beste. He's got two excellent posts today on the upcoming war and the potential results of France's execrable behavior toward the U.S.-
'The French will be exposed after the war as having attempted to keep Saddam in power, and of trying to perpetuate the horrors Saddam has been inflicting on his people. They'll be shown to be so dedicated to keeping Saddam in power that they were willing to destroy the U.N. just to give Saddam more time to torture and kill Iraqis'
Today Instapundit links to an article he's quoted in, for Human Resource Executive, regarding the rise of blogging while at work.
He advises company officials "to ignore the Web logs of employees as long as they don't waste company time, don't attempt to speak for the company and don't break the law." If only everyone was that open-minded about it!
But I have found that I can get in enough daily reading and writing to post effectively by using small chunks of time in the early morning and around lunchtime. Where I get lazy is in the analysis, which would be much better if I made more time for it during my commute, or in the evenings... Ah well. Room for improvement is a good thing.
The college basketball postseason is reaching fever pitch. The dead zone of the sports year has now passed. Conference tournaments are being played with automatic bids to the NCAA tournament on the line. Teams with losing records are getting hot at the right time and qualifying for the big dance. College basketball is known more for its last-second finishes and buzzer-beaters than any other major sport.
My absolute favorite sporting time of year is at hand—the first 4 days of the NCAA tournament, where games are played all day and night for nearly four straight days, covering the first 2 rounds of the tournament. That’s 48 of the 63 total games that will be played! I plan on glueing myself to the television next weekend…
I'm not sure anymore where I found this post, but take a look at The Head Heeb's interesting idea that the war on terror thus far is looking a lot like another far-less-successful domestic "war"-- the war on drugs.
'The methods by which the terror war is being fought are also reminiscent of the war on drugs. Complicity in torture and abduction are only two of the parallels. The drug war also involved subornation and corruption of foreign law enforcement authorities, support for repressive governments as a quid pro quo for counter-drug cooperation, low-level military entanglements in drug-producing countries and unprecedented expansion of search, seizure and surveillance powers within the United States.'I'm not at all pleased by the similarities. But I believe that the stakes are much higher regarding the war on terrorism, and the comparisons to the war on drugs do not in any way preclude the liberation of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein.
'Elizabeth Smart, the 15-year-old girl who vanished from her bedroom nine months ago, was found alive Wednesday during a traffic stop in suburban Salt Lake City, police said.'This is astounding. She was found wearing a wig, and just 15 miles from the location where she disappeared. What was going on for those nine months?
It now appears that the European Union may disrupt post-war Iraq reconstruction and rebuilding efforts. Unbelievable.
This entire conflict has never been about dealing with Iraq, or the brutal suffering of its citizens under Saddam Hussein. It's all about opposing the United States and its goals. At last that fact is now coming out into the open.
Related, both Ralph Peters ("Dead Americans") and the Wall Street Journal ("Bush In Lilliput," registration required) have op-eds today describing how French and U.N. opposition have significantly increased the risk to American soldiers once the war begins-
'There are now daily reports that the Iraqi dictator has booby-trapped oil wells, dispersed his mobile poison labs or placed agents among Iraqi civilians. Yesterday's AP dispatch had him opening "a training camp for Arab volunteers willing to carry out suicide bombings against U.S. forces." Every day of delay also gives him, or al Qaeda, more time to plant or mobilize agents to attack the U.S. homeland.'This is what we get for working through (and giving undue respect to) the United Nations, the chicken roost for mass murdering dictators and their appeasers.
I'm not enough in the know to understand why we continue to delay combat in Iraq. There is talk of Britain not being able to commit troops, and of President Bush considering further inspections. Sigh.
While the smuggest of bloggers are getting a kick out of this, those of us supporting the liberation of Iraq and the safe return of our soldiers are sick to our stomaches. I don't figure Saddam Hussein as a noble figure, and with each passing day, more activity is taking place ("Saddam Reportedly Opens Suicide Camps") which will lead to more American casualties when the fighting actually does begin.
North Korea continues to antagonize us with nuclear threats, and arrogantly break international agreements.
I don't have the breath right now to waste on France's opportunistic handling of this situation, or the U.N.'s (Do you realize the U.N. has been debating Iraqi disarmament for 6 months now?). The rage I feel toward those two entities defies description, being that they once claimed to represent the same interests as the United States, and it's just better off that I'm not in a position of genuine influence at this time.
Hyperselfish, completely amoral people and organizations are operating without deterrent throughout the world. The United States is the only nation with the power and the moral restraint to affect and change that behavior. In the process, we can make our country safer from future threats to our security. But we seem to be bungling that opportunity. The Democratic Party is a complete f--king joke, a cesspool of unhelpful ideas and partisan interference. The State Department can't decide if Saudi Arabian terrorists should be allowed into our country or not. Has one government employee lost his or her job in the wake of the 9/11 attacks?!?
I'm starting to question how effective President Bush can be in facing the massive problems in today's world. He does not play the ass-kissing politico games that Clinton and many other world leaders are so fond of. He wants to actually change things, make a concerted effort to remove the cancerous lesions on our planet's surface, move beyond meaningless token gestures-- but many people just won't have it. Simply because it might benefit the United States as well. The rise of reflexive anti-Americanism in this world is a pathetic mix of shame and envy, and I believe it benefits no one. The temporary satisfaction many people get from calling Bush a 'cowboy' or calling Americans 'bastards' won't ever disguise the fact that those name-callers are hopelessly impotent and incapable of thoughtful debate.
And even worse is what might happen if Bush doesn't win re-election in 2004, and someone like John Kerry or Gary Hart gains control of the reins while the war on terrorism is still in its infancy.
DON'T MISS: Read David Warren's outstanding essay on the Iraq situation, "Blair Goes Wobbly." (Link via Instapundit)
RELATED: Andrew Sullivan glumly writes that "I'm left with the conclusion that we will only get such a consensus in favor of pre-emption after the destruction of a major Western city, or a chemical or biological catastrophe."
I wonder if even that would force Europe and the anti-American fools to pull their heads out from their asses.
Lee Harris has an epic essay in today's Tech Central Station, "Our World-Historical Gamble."
In it he frames the U.S. war on terror as something completely unprecedented in world history, and therefore in need of new concepts and thinking to accurately make sense of it. (Ambitious fellow, no?)
Some of the points he addresses are:
- The ‘feudal fantasyland’ ideology that has overtaken basically all of the Arab World, and specifically radical Islam
- The end of classical, sovereign nation states as we know them
- The idea that terrorist groups and their state sponsors “are not playing by the same rules of realism that we are”
- The dangers of allowing just one rogue nuclear attack on a Western city
Harris has written other important essays related to this subject (Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology, and The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing).
A reader passed on to me a link to The Chosun Journal, whose goal is "Informing, provoking, mobilizing consciences for the sake of human rights in North Korea." Please take a look.
There are many articles and essays on the frightening, pathetic state of North Korea, brought on by lunatic dictator Kim Jong Il and his communist cronies. It'll be a great day for humanity when he is run through the sharp end of a pike.
To those of you who sneer as Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, content to believe that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were peaceful, benign places to live until Bush called them out as evil and caused them to act that way in some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, or that they deserve to be respected or treated as sovereign nations, I say:
Think. Look outside anti-Bush and anti-war dogma. Consider that the United States, in its position of hyperpower, really has the ability to make the world a safer place. All we need is the will.
UPDATE: Of course, some people haven't the time or inclination for thought.
From the latest Ralph Peters' essay-
'Europeans will always be willing to weep over the dead. The United States must take a stand for the living. In Iraq. And beyond.'
I'm kind of burnt out today. The United Nations is as good as dead. Jimmy Carter still has his head up his ass (you might enjoy reading the fisking of his op-ed more than the piece itself).
Think there's no liberal media bias? Read Andrew Sullivan today, and the Media Research Center every day.
I need a time-out.
Anyone have something to talk about? News item, personal foible, long-held fear? Or comment on the items above? Please drop in, and we can discuss it... today will be an open thread for you readers.
UPDATE: My readers have spoken. The open thread idea has been a smashing failure. Duly noted!
A vacuum of truth-resistance has sprung up and is spreading wildly throughout Europe and the anti-Bush crowd. Facts don't matter to these people. Nor do historical events and trends.
All that matters is obfuscating the truth, criticizing the United States, and trying to prevent 'cowboy' President Bush and the Republican Party from implementing his policies, through arguments ad nauseam and ad hominem.
Whether it's obstructionist Democrats who've got no plan of their own for dealing with Iraq (or any other U.S. security threats), or college-educated anti-war protestors who don't understand the difference between elections in the U.S. and Iraq, or clinical retards comparing Osama bin Laden to our founding fathers, or liberal Congressman who won't support a judicial nominee because he isn't part of the wah-wah victimhood, or elitist European bureaucratic nations who are openly helping a mass murderer,
You're all disgraceful.
How arrogant and self-serving and cowardly you are.
You've all been hopelessly spoiled by your taken-for-granted reliance on the benevolent American military, political and cultural presence worldwide, protecting your freedom to make utter fools of yourselves and bailing your asses out of self-created jams. You barely deserve a seat at the table of influence.
Your antics have dragged out this Iraq situation for many months too long, forcing our government to waste valuable time, energy and resources which should be devoted to other important issues (such as the health of the U.S. economy, and the escalating North Korea crisis, which to be honest the Bush Administration has handled quite poorly).
President Bush looked so tired and worn down last night, as would anyone who has to in effect explain basic concepts to petulant children over and over and over. He has shown a remarkable amount of poise and tact, given how foolish and ignorant his fellow American legislators and world leaders have treated him and the reality of the situation. There was so much more he could (and should) have said last night, calling out the illogic and immorality of letting Saddam Hussein remain in power, of denying the opportunity of freedom to one billion Muslims, of how liberating Iraq is one part of the larger war on terrorism.
But what more can he do? How many more times can you lay out facts to a person who simply ignores them if they don't fit into his or her dogmatic worldview?
RELATED: Mark Steyn writes today that "the anti-war arguments are now so unreal they’re impervious to any actual developments back in what we call the real world."
ALSO RELATED: Steven Den Beste posts on Iraq, North Korea, and the Palestinians. He's absolutely right when he comments that in Europe, "maintaining the process is more important than actually solving the problem."
No, I'm not talking about France and Germany this time...
I know it's early in the game, but this is the best the recording industry can do to create an effective music downloading and file-sharing service? What other industry hates its customers this much?
What a joke. I'll stick to my current system, thank you...
RELATED: Looks like the film industry needs to watch itself as well.
Malcolm Gladwell's latest New Yorker essay discusses how there is no such thing as a perfect intelligence-gathering system, and that the phenomenon of creeping determinism- 'the sense that grows on us, in retrospect, that what has happened was actually inevitable'- severely impairs our ability to solve problems.
'Israeli intelligence didn’t see the pattern of Arab intentions, in other words, because, until Egypt and Syria actually attacked, on the afternoon of October 6, 1973, their intentions didn’t form a pattern. They formed a Rorschach blot. What is clear in hindsight is rarely clear before the fact. It’s an obvious point, but one that nonetheless bears repeating, particularly when we’re in the midst of assigning blame for the surprise attack of September 11th.'Also read this Gladwell interview which accompanies the article.
Political cartoonists extraordinaire Allen Forkum and John Cox now have a blog, soon to be filled with their pitch-perfect editorials. Check it out.
An ever-increasing number of people in the world seem to be developing a vast disconnect between reality and their personal beliefs; it's as though stark denial will make contrary facts and actual events simply disappear.
(Example: Is there some kind of mass hallucination taking place over in Europe? Um, WAR IS COMING. It’s too late. Those of you proposing no war have lost this particular dispute, primarily because you failed to make a convincing argument for your side.
Has anyone noticed that there are over 250,000 U.S. troops gathered in and around Iraq, and that no amount of diplomatic bickering or posturing or stonewalling is going to prevent us now from disarming Saddam Hussein and a dictatorship which way too many people seem intent on propping up?)
Is it so no one will have to take hits to their inflated sense of self-importance, by acknowledging they don't know what they're talking about, or they've made a mistake?
The truth-resistant apologists for communism ("