Friday, April 29, 2005

On Being Disliked Victor Davis Hansen with another great one. You can tell as much about a person by the enemies he makes as by the friends. We should be proud of some of our enemies.

Think about it. When Europe orders all American troops out; when Japan claims our textbooks whitewash the Japanese forced internment or Hiroshima; when China cites unfair trade with the United States; when South Korea says get the hell off our DMZ; when India complains that we are dumping outsourced jobs on them; when Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians refuse cash aid; when Canada complains that we are not carrying our weight in collective North American defense; when the United Nations moves to Damascus; when the Arab Street seethes that we are pushing theocrats and autocrats down its throat; when Mexico builds a fence to keep us out; when Latin America proclaims a boycott of the culturally imperialistic Major Leagues; and when the world ignores American books, films, and popular culture, then perhaps we should be worried. But something tells me none of that is going to happen in this lifetime.


Wednesday, April 27, 2005

The Left loves Abu Ghraib because it's one of the only things they have to discredit the war effort. Who would have imagined a day when the Democratic Party becomes the champion of America's enemies and tries to keep this miserable story in the headlines in order to gain some perceived political advantage.

The salient and remarkable truth here is that America has punished its own for the Abu Ghraib abuses; and it has done so even before Saddam and his henchmen have faced justice for the horrors they propagated in that same prison. More than a few good soldiers have had their careers tarnished by the media and Democratic innuendo that they somehow condoned human rights abuses. They deserve an apology. After all the evidence to the contrary, continuing to allege systematic prisoner abuse--and a coverup--by the U.S. military is itself shameful.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

A thank you letter to Tony Blair from the new President of Iraq. But then what does he know about it? Who cares what the Iraqis think?

President Jalal Talabani said people should no longer question why no weapons of mass destruction were found.

He added: “Saddam himself was, in the view of those who opposed him, Iraq’s most dangerous WMD.”

The president described the liberation of Iraq as one of the UK’s “finest hours” and hailed the PM as a “champion against tyranny”.

He paints a promising picture of a new Iraq without bombs, bullets or bloodshed.

But he warned it would take time and patience to create a fully united nation after 50 years of fighting.

Mr Talabani, a Kurd, shoots down the anti-war lobby, who still question the morality and legality of the allied invasion against Saddam.

He said Iraqis “wonder in amazement what the debate abroad is about.”


Sunday, April 24, 2005

Republican joins Bolton hearing monkey biz Mark Steyn ties together the Mesa SWAT Team's monkey, the Bolton hearings farce and the new pope in a fantastic piece of writing.

The weak bromides touted by the Dems in lieu of a policy -- a legalistic approach to the war on terror, greater deference to the U.N. and America's ''friends'' -- were defeated at the polls. Since then, they've been further discredited: The failure of terrorist prosecutions in Europe underlines how disastrous John Kerry's serve-'em-with-subpoenas approach would be; the sewer of the Oil-for-Food scandal and the attempts by Kofi Annan to castrate the investigation into it demonstrate yet again that there is no problem in the world today that can't be made worse by letting the U.N. have a hand in solving it; and America's ''friends'' -- by which Kerry meant not allies like Britain and Australia but the likes of France and Canada -- turn out to be some of the countries most implicated in the corruption of U.N. ''humanitarianism.''

Republican voters understand this. Why don't Republican senators? The rap against John Bolton is that he gets annoyed with do-nothing bureaucrats. If that's enough to disqualify you from government service, then 70 percent of citizens who've visited the DMV in John Kerry's Massachusetts are ineligible. Sinking Bolton means handing a huge psychological victory to a federal bureaucracy that so spectacularly failed America on 9/11 and to a U.N. bureaucracy eager for any distraction from its own mess. The Democrats' interest in derailing Bush foreign policy is crude but understandable. But why would even the wimpiest Republican ''moderate'' want to help them out? Who needs capuchin monkeys in the Senate when GOP squishes are so eager to tap-dance for Democrat organ grinders?

Friday, April 22, 2005

Celebs Ignore Death, Poverty on MTV Enviro Series Sometimes these people are beyond satire.

The MTV series features actress Cameron Diaz and a rotating crew of "her close, personal friends [who] think globally and act globally." They tour developing nations, incuding Nepal, Bhutan, Tanzania, Honduras and visit remote villages in Chile.

Actress Drew Barrymore, who reportedly earns $15 million a film, told MTV viewers in one episode that after spending time in a primitive, electricity-free Chilean village, "I aspire to be like them more."

Barrymore, apparently enthralled by the lack of a modern sanitary facilities, gleefully bragged, "I took a poo in the woods hunched over like an animal. It was awesome."

The 32-year-old Diaz, who earns a reported $20-million a movie, boasted that the cow-dung slathered walls of a Nepalese village hut were "beautiful" and "inspiring," and she called the primitive practice of "pounding mud" with sticks to construct a building foundation "the coolest thing."


Thursday, April 21, 2005

The WSJ on the Bolton fiasco. If this is how Republican nominees are going to be treated by a Republican controlled committee then why the hell would anyone want to accept a position with this Administration? Especially since the Administration doesn't even seem willing to fight for them. Attempting to work with Democrats is a chumps game. They are the enemy and should be treated like one.

Look closely at Mr. Bolton's accusers, and you can see through the agendas. There is former State Department career official Carl Ford, who claims Mr. Bolton rudely disagreed with his policy positions. There is also Latin America-specialist Fulton Armstrong, whom Mr. Bolton allegedly tried to have fired. Never mind that Mr. Bolton was not the only senior State Department official to complain about Mr. Armstrong. Or that Mr. Armstrong's forgiving assessments of Cuba's Fidel Castro were influenced by the work of Ana Belen Montes, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst convicted in 2002 of spying for Cuba. This is the testimony of career analysts who disagree with Bush Administration policy and want to show that any official who disagrees with the bureaucracy will have his own career ruined in Senate confirmation.


Monday, April 18, 2005

Bolton's just too hip for scaredy-cat Dems Maybe the funniest Mark Steyn column ever, on the ridiculous John Bolton hearings.

I don't know about you, but nothing makes me want to hurl a chair through the window and punch someone's lights out like being told I need anger management lessons. So I was interested to hear about the kind of violent Boltonian eruptions that had led Boxer to her diagnosis. Well, here it comes. (If you've got young children present, you might want to take them out of the room.) From the shockingly brutal testimony of Thomas Fingar, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Intelligence Research:

Q: Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he calm?

Fingar: No, he was angry. He was standing up.

Q: Did he raise his voice to you? Did he point his finger in your face?

Fingar: I don't remember if he pointed. John speaks in such a low voice normally. Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn't characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad.

He was ''standing up'' with ''hands on hips''! Who's he think he is -- Carmen Miranda? Fortunately, before Bolton could let rip with a ''pursed lip'' or escalate to the lethal ''tsk-ing'' maneuver, Fingar was able to back cautiously out of the room and call the FBI anger management team, who surrounded the building and told the deranged diplomat to come out slowly with his hands above his hips.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Soldier wrote about killing buddies Boy, if this isn't a death penalty case I don't know what would be.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Iraq's new honchos have our spies to thank Mark Steyn again, here on the clueless CIA. The guy is priceless.

The CIA, as I wrote a couple of years back, now functions in the same relation to President Bush as Pakistan's ISI does to General Musharraf. In both cases, before the chief executive makes a routine request of his intelligence agency, he has to figure out whether they're going to use it as an opportunity to set him up, and if so how. For Musharraf, the problem is the significant faction in the ISI that would like to kill him. Fortunately for Bush, if anyone at the CIA launched a plot to kill him, they'd probably take out G. W. Bish, who runs a feed store in Idaho.

Euro-ruled Britain won't need a king Mark Steyn with a typically hilarious piece on the upcoming British elections. This line in particular deserved notice:

That's also the problem those three party leaders face. I've no reason to disbelieve the crop of polls showing Labour and Conservatives neck and neck, but, unlike American polling, where distinctions between "registered" and "likely" voters are carefully studied, none of us has any clear idea which unloved party will do the least effective job at further depressing the turnout of whatever unenthusiastic faction of its dwindling base is most unresistant to being cajoled to the polls.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Widow's Slaying Symbolizes Grief of War
Here's some classic media bias. The story is about how a woman who's husband was killed in Iraq was killed herself by her own psycho father. How that is symbolic of "the grief of war" is not explained. It's a sad enough story, no doubt. But her murder (her father is a Romanian with a history of domestic violence) has absolutely nothing to do with the war whatsoever.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

How many more must die before Kofi quits? A major slam here, in the Guardian no less, of Kofi Annan and the uselessness, if not actual evil, of the UN and its actions as a "peacekeeping" force in Africa and elsewhere.

What kind of leadership would tolerate this conduct 10 years ago? The answer is: precisely the same leadership that, 10 years later, permitted the oil-for-food scandal and the sex-for-food scandal. Why did it take everyone 10 years to figure this out?

The second searing irony for me is that the American neoconservative right has occupied the moral high ground in critique of Annan, outflanking the left, which sits on indefensible territory in his support. But if prevention of genocide and protection of the vulnerable are not core priorities on the left, then what is? If anyone's values have been betrayed, it is those of us on the left who believe most deeply in the organisation's ideals. I am mystified by the reluctance of the left both in the US and the UK (the Guardian 's coverage, for example) to criticise Annan's leadership. The bodies burn today in Darfur - and the women are raped - amid the sound of silence from Annan. How many genocides, the prevention of which is the UN's very raison d'être, will we endure before the left is moved to criticise Annan? Shouldn't we be hearing the left screaming bloody murder about the UN's failure to protect vulnerable Africans? Has it lost its compass so badly that it purports to excuse the rape of Congolese women by UN peacekeepers under Annan's watch? Is stealing money intended for widows and orphans in Iraq merely a forgivable bureaucratic snafu?


Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Top 10 Examples of Government Waste This is breathtaking. And the worst part is nothing will ever be done about it. Republicans, Democrats, it just doesn't matter.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Here's great news. Mexico the toilet is getting worse all the time. All the hopes people had for Fox have been dashed and with presidential elections coming up next year things are going to get ugly.

So what do you do if you are a Mexican voter, soon to be offered a choice of three candidates for election, one from the old discredited PRI that ruled and ruined Mexico for 70 years, one from the disappointing new third-way PAN that openly wants you to flee your homeland, abandon your family and send home dollars, or one from a third party in the wings, the ultra-left PRD party, which has a charismatic mayor of Mexico City running for election on a "stand up for the poor" platform of soup-kitchen spending and sticking it to the U.S.?

Meanwhile, there's nobody comparable to an American Republican. There are no wealth-creators, no Reagans; there are only these three socialist candidates as your presidential choices.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that you pick that third candidate if you are a Mexican.

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Canada willing to help Iran, despite Kazemi row The more news I read the more amazed I am. Why the hell would Canada, or any other western country, volunteer anti-terror information to IRAN? And this is a country that had just had one of its citizens TORTURED TO DEATH for photographing an anti-government rally in IRAN.

Friday, April 01, 2005

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper This is jaw dropping stuff. Sandy Berger, Clinton's former National Security Advisor, steals classified documents to keep them out of the hands of the 9/11 Commission during a presidential race, destroys them and gets off with a fine and three year suspension of his security clearance?! What do you need to steal to lose it for life? And of course the MSM plays the story like he got a speeding ticket.

The terms of Berger's agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.

The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.