Well, some muslims said it wasn't good

The muslim whinocracy has been heard from. The Council on Justifiying Islamic Terror (oh, sorry, Council on American-Islamic relations, and yes, I do CARE), is heard from in this UPI story. Of course they had to get their licks in by making a grand, all-inclusive statement:

We condemn this heinous attack and all other attacks on innocent civilians by any individuals, groups or states

"[S]tates", of course, is necessary, since we mustn't ever forget, if we are a muslim advocacy group, that Islamic terror is somehow justified by state "terror". And which state do you think they're referring to, people?

Now another group, the American Muslim Council, had their flack, Faiz Rehman, put out this tripe:

Islam guarantees religious freedom for all, and in a Muslim country, it is the duty of the government to protect non-Muslim minorities.

That guarantee rings pretty hollow for a Christian who tries to worship openly in Saudi Arabia, or for a Jew just trying to enter the country.

Finally, the article includes "terror-apologist-in-the-street" quotations. Just consider this from a Yemeni:

Hussam Abdullah, a Yemeni living in Virginia, however, warned Christian missionaries working in the Muslim world to "be more careful."

"While they have every right to preach their faith, they must also realize that since the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, there has been a sudden increase in anti-American and anti-West feelings in the Islamic world," he said.

Yep, we certainly pissed them off in the we-love-Osama world when we, apparently out of the blue, upped and attacked poor pitiful Afghanistan.

Sadly, this is not really "news"

Once again Christians being true to their faith are the target of Islam. It isn't just Jews who are considered fair game by Islam. Three Baptist missionaries were murdered in cold blood by, get this, a "suspected Muslim extremist" (emphasis added). The story, in the Washington Post, is here.

Those killed were doing God's work in Yemen at a hospital. Since when is a cold-blooded killer only a "suspected" Muslim extremist? It is pretty extreme to kill in cold blood; especially those engaged in doing actual good works. What we should not hold our breath waiting for are the condemnations of this attack coming from other Muslims.

let's stop the charade

Once again Palestinians have shown that they will never, ever accept Israel. When seminary students are killed (story here), that is the end of the line. It is time for some truth-telling. Palestinians are not capable of valid self-government. They are capable only of hatred and dictatorship, just like every other Arab nation. The only hope individual Arabs have is to leave the hate-filled festering sore that is their portion (99+%, of course) of land between the western tip of North Africa and the Arabian peninsula, and settle in a civilized place. France and Germany would be good; would serve those sods right.

The only solution to peace in the Middle East as regards Israel is for all Arabs to be deported from the West Bank and Gaza, to Jordan and Egypt respectively. Let them have their beloved Arab brothers. Sounds harsh, but too bad. It is past time when we should ignore the anti-Semitic trash spewing from all parts of the Arab world that parades as anti-Zionism, or doesn't even make that feeble attempt to appear civilized.

Israel has a right to exist, and exist in peace. The people of Israel have carried the burden of being God's messenger for 3,000 years -- the so-called Christian world owes them, big-time, and must pay up. It should be clear that Israel will not be allowed to live in peace, regardless of "settlements" or lack thereof (in areas that are properly Israeli), "peace processes" or all the whining in the world by buttholes such as Coughless Annan and his gutless wonders in the Untied Nations. Not to mention appeasers such as the Europeans (sure, they solved their Jewish problem), our State Department, and members of Congress such as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-France).

I stand with Israel; the people of Israel live.

invalid implication

Robert Novak weighs in against Arik Sharon, apparently just because he is Sharon and Israeli. In today's column (from today's Chicago Sun-Times), Novak complains " the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. And worse, Novak approvingly cites Chuck Hagel (R-France) who makes this expert determination: "'The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim.'' Apparently Novak can't abide the fact that the neocon (read: Jewish and pro-Israel conservatives) community, by and large, believes that is precisely how to slice the onion of peace in the Middle East. The premise, correct in my opinion, is that the Arab world respects nothing so much as force. It is no coincidence that the incidence of terror attacks on Israelis declines drastically when the centers of the disease are occupied by the IDF. It would also not be a coincidence if further terror attacks on U.S. interests would decline if we carpet-bombed Damascus, Syria after the next Hezbollah attack on any Western or Israeli interests.

Novak's logic is as follows:

• Regime change in Iraq mostly helps Israel
• U.S. support for regime change is simply to help Israel
• military force is insufficient to "assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East".
• the Bush-Sharon "indissoluble bond" hurts U.S. interests in the Islamic world.

Well, guess we should let Israel dangle in the wind unless they give up 95% of the West Bank and Gaza, and agree to share Jerusalem...whoa...that's what was agreed to in 2000, wasn't it? The Palestinians rejected that peace deal and began their terror campaign. Getting back to Novak and his appeasing bud Hagel, here's a flash: the U.S. backs Sharon because it is the right thing to do. Our interests coincide with Israel's. Saddam's regime in Iraq must be eliminated, whether or not it is also in Israel's best interests. That it is (in Israel's best interests) merely affirms the nature of the ties that bind us together.

Finally, Novak is partially correct in raising concerns about our support in the Islamic world, especially in Turkey. It is better to have friends that will help you in a war than not. But Novak's way, which would appear to abandon a hardline against Saddam, is appeasement without calling it thus. We would like the support of Turkey and other Islamic states, but not at the expense of our true national interests.

The bottom line for those who favor freedom over tyranny, in the U.S., Iraq, Turkey, or any other nation, is to do the right thing; not the popular thing. The right thing is regime change and disarmament of Iraq. Period.

looks like a target to me

Today's New York Times carries on its front page a disturbing story about Hezbollah, the "party of God" and their annual "Jerusalem Day" parade/hatefest/march.

It would be easy to dismiss these young men as harmless fanatics; classic Arab dreamers who are demonstrating because that is all they are capable of doing. Especially when there is rhetoric such as these gems from one of their bloviators, one chicSheik Hassan Nasrallah:

We face a plan by the United States and the Zionists to control the region, to redraw the political map of the region!

and this:

We should realize the extent of the dangerous and satanic goals these people have

Would that we and Israel had "satanic goals". We are both, sigh, just Western democracies who would not do the obvious and smart thing: drop some 55-gallon drums of whupass on these mokes in the form of, oh, how about 55-gallon drums of napalm? 2,000 pound bombs, at the least.

Seriously, can you just imagine the international hue and cry if Israel, say, did a few strafing runs on this lovely street scene? Hezbollah may fairly be described as the most focused threat that Israel and the United States face today. Of course, the Times, in its now-normal moral equivalence mode, makes this excuse for these terrorists:

Indeed, Hezbollah's incessant oratory about destroying Israel reflects more psychological warfare than the reality along Lebanon's southern border. Only periodic, carefully scripted attacks have occurred since Israel withdrew its military from southern Lebanon in May 2000 after 22 years there.

So, apparently, "scripted attacks" are acceptable? Don't think so. And, of course, Hezbollah also makes the trains run on time (the classic appeaser's statement):

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has two faces: public and intensely private. On one hand it maintains important public institutions — 12 members of Parliament, television and radio stations, a construction agency, agriculture outreach program, medical services and numerous charities.

And sure now, doesn't that warm the cockles of your heart? The party of death and destruction in the name of God may, in fact, do all of these good things. But they are in service of evil. A lesson, not just in Lebanon with Hezbollah, but here in the United States with Islamic "charities" that routinely funnel monies to fund...drum roll please...terror.

our friends the saudis

As usual, the New York Sun rocks. It is hard to imagine the NY Times or the Washington Post having these particular truths on its pages, let alone quoting extensively from the Middle East Media Research Institute. MEMRI shines the light on what actually goes on the Arab world, by translating from the Arabic into English.

In this story in the Sun, the truth that must see the light of day is the teaching, in the 8th grade in Saudi schools, that "Jews and Christians Are Apes and Pigs."

Read the story; read the background material from MEMRI; understand what we are actually dealing with in the Arab world.

human shields

Well, Iraq is now sinking to the barbaric level of the Paleostinians -- using human shields against a militarily superior foe. From this story by Reuters:

An Iraqi official said Arab and European volunteers would arrive soon to act as human shields to guard vital and strategic installations from U.S. attacks.

This, apparently, was done before, during Clintonian pecks at Iraq in 1998.

Here's an unsolicited advisory to any "Arab and European volunteers" who may be duped into fronting for Saddam's thugocracy: Make sure your life insurance policies are fully paid, and check to see if suicide is an acceptable death.

Fools.

reluctant allies

Tom Friedman, in today's New York Times (story here) worries that "because we have such reluctant allies in this Gulf War II, we must not appear as overanxious warriors. We still need a smoking gun to justify a war, if we expect to have any allied support".

True enough. But his premise is flawed. Our goal isn't to have allies. Our goal is to get rid of a constant threat. Let us never lose sight of the endgame, which is Saddam out of power, dead or alive, and us with some control over the next Iraqi regime. Most importantly, assured destruction of Saddam's WMD programs. Second but still quite important, first rights of refusal on the development and purchase of Iraqi oil.

The blix shield

A key piece of the Iraqi WMD programs is unfettered access to the scientists and others who hold/held substantial positions. Hans Blix, the see no evil chief inspector, says things are going just swimmingly; his inspectors, for the most part, are looking at known sites and are getting good cooperation from Saddam's henchmen. Well and good, but what about talking to folks who know where the stuff is now? And without the omnipresent Iraqi handlers. Nothing suppresses free speech like the implied or actual threat of death and torture to you and your family. Blixen's approach is to ask the Iraqis, pretty please, tell us who are your scientists. Not too much credulity, is there? Does any rational, objective person believe that any would-be defectors known or suspected by the Iraqis will be on this list?

It is clear that unless we can spirit key Iraqis, and their families, out of the grasp of the Saddam regime, we will not find out what we need to know without war. Blix is clearly part of the problem; more concerned it appears with process than with results. And, here's a flash: the purpose of the inspections is not to perform inspections; it is to determine whether Saddam's regime is in material breach of longstanding UN resolutions. This has already been accomplished. The answer is, yes.

As for talking freely with Iraqi scientists, this extract from a news report in today's Washington Post is illustrative:

Blix has been reluctant to use the authority conferred on him by a Nov. 8 Security Council resolution and take Iraqi scientists and their families out of the country for questioning.

Blix has expressed skepticism about allowing his team to become a channel for defections. Iraqi officials have taken comfort from that.

That last sentence is all one needs to read about Blix and his valiant attempt to find no evil.

material breach, indeed

Secretary of State Colin Powell has just weighed in with this at a news conference (story here):

Iraq is in "material breach" of a U.N. disarmament resolution...Baghdad's arms declaration "totally fails" to meet a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an accurate, full and complete inventory of weapons

Looks like we get to go in as soon as we think we're ready.

who dares wins

"the point of no return...has been passed"

Henry the K(issinger) is thus quoted in the New York Sun. The opening line of the quotation is what many forget, or more likely, prefer to not dwell on:

"The war against Iraq is an integral part of the war on terrorism. How else can we convince the Saudi Arabias of the world that it is too dangerous to collude in challenging the United States?” Mr. Kissinger said in remarks to about 150 of New York’s top businessmen and philanthropists gathered yesterday at the “21” Club for a lunch sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. “The point of no return with respect to Iraq has been passed.”

At least one former Secretary of State sees things with clarity.

Who dares wins.

Unbalanced Patriarch

In recent times (say, since the unlamented days of Torquemada and that Spanish unpleasantness), it is not often that a prominent cleric blows his cover to become a blatant shill for evil. Well Michel Sabbah, who heads the Latin Rite church in the West Bank (i.e. Roman Catholic), now clearly places all blame for the present "occupation" on Israel.

In his Christmas message (story here), this apologist for evil sees the Israeli checkpoints as "places of humiliation, hatred and death". Well, they are there to prevent his fellow Paleostinians from killing unarmed men, women, children, and grandmothers. And the "occupation" that be decries is only in place to subdue the massive terrorist attacks that were initiated in 2000 by...drum roll please...Paleostinians in conjunction with their good friends hamas and islamic jihad...after the Paleo "leadership" rejected the best statehood offer they are ever likely to get.

So, let's review the bidding. Israel is at fault "first", because it has "occupied" the West Bank and that "occupation" includes military checkpoints. And this apparently happened out of thin air, because the Israelis are...by implication, anti-prayer. The poor, poor Paleostinians are an oppressed people because, and solely because, of Israel. What he said, according to Newsday, was that "Israelis need to examine the reasons why Palestinians were launching attacks against them." Given that statehood was offered and rejected in 2000, the reason must be as stated in the terror charter of the PLO: Israel has no right to exist.

Sometimes it really is that simple, people.

wonder if this made it into Arabic?

Head Rat Arafat is cozying up to the West again, distancing himself in the Western media from al qaeda. Whaddya mean, you are doing these terrorist things in support of Palestinians? Stop that, stop that right now (wink wink, nudge nudge...). The non-story story is here.

Since the story appears in the New York Times, it includes this bit that says more than was likely intended:

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Palestinian leaders have parried any attempts to link their fight against Israel with Al Qaeda's cause, out of worry about losing international support.

Yes, out of worry about losing international support. Not because al qaeda are evildoers. It brings to mind the pictures of Palestinians celebrating the 9-11 atrocities, just as they cheered Saddam Hussein on during the Gulf War.

Palestinians do not deserve a state; they deserve permanent exile, all of them, perhaps to the Empty Quarter in the Saudi Sand Box.

You've got to love Palestinian "moderates"

From the always-invaluable MEMRI comes this from PLO Executive Committee Secretary Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), regarded as second in leadership to Arafat. There is what appears a rather moderate (as in, not lauding bombers directly, speaking only of "martyrs") speech given to the heads of the "Popular Councils" of the Gaza Strip refugee camps. Mazen criticized the militarization of the current Intifada, but then gave away that he is not at all serious about a peace with Israel when he broached the subject of Palestinian "refugees".

The tone and tenor of most of the remarks are not one that condemns the use of terrorism against civilians. There is no sorrow expressed that babies, mothers, grandmothers, and other civilians have been killed in the name of the Palestinian cause. What is expressed is simply regret that the tactics have not worked; they have hardened the resolve of Israel and solidified the political position of Arik Sharon.

Mazen even boldly compares Sharon to Theodor Herzl, showing that Arabs don't know turkey pea squat about the Zionist movement. Perhaps an oversimplification, but Herzl stood for the intellectual Jew and disdained the gritty, hard physical labor Zionist movement of which Likud generally and Sharon specifically are the inheritors (see, for example, The Jewish State, by Yoram Hazony).

Mazen then lauds the Saudi "Arab initiative" which includes a "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees. There in fact, is this extract from his remarks:

Israel Must Accept the Right of Return


"I listened honestly to a number of MKs and Israeli ministers. They asked how many refugees want to return. When they say these things, [it means that] they agree in principle. I told them: 'Agree to the principle and I will give you the number.' At Camp David they asked for the number and we told them: 'If you acknowledge the principle we will give you the number now.'

Acknowledgement of the principle was the beginning. That is, [first comes the stage of] Israel's recognition of the right of every Palestinian refugee to return to his land. Then the refugee can choose whether or not to return. [Then] negotiations will begin on implementation and on possible options in each individual case."

Now, a large majority of those who left or were kicked out of Israel in 1948 (yes, do the math -- 53 years ago) have been deliberately kept in "refugee" status by Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. It is thus far from clear why Israel must accept any of these people back. Also, unto what generation does this "right of return" apply? Given the time that has passed, surely most of those who actually lived in pre-1948 Israel have gone on to meet their maker; those left are the children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren.

It seems this is just another attempt to accomplish with demographics what Arabs are too weak or cowardly to do with force -- eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. In any event, the Palestinian "Authority" has yet to change its official charter that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Period.

psalm 121

1 A Song of Ascents.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains: from whence shall my help come?
2 My help cometh from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.
3 He will not suffer thy foot to be moved; He that keepeth thee will not slumber.
4 Behold, He that keepeth Israel doth neither slumber nor sleep.
5 The LORD is thy keeper; the LORD is thy shade upon thy right hand.
6 The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night.
7 The LORD shall keep thee from all evil; He shall keep thy soul.
8 The LORD shall guard thy going out and thy coming in, from this time forth and for ever.


Source: 1917 JPS edition of Tanakh, © Mechon Mamre


These timeless words should be read by every Arab, every Palestinian, every "liberal" who believes that Israel has no right to exist, let alone be the carrier of the God-gene for humankind.

why are we sitting at the same table as syria?

The United Nations Security Council cast, apparently for the first time, a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks on a hotel and civilian airliner near Mombassa, Kenya, in November (New York Times story here). Whoopdeedo. The Security Council, clearly breaking new ground for them, does not think that attacking Israelis is a good thing.

But wait, there's more. Syria voted against this condemnation of terror, according to the story, "arguing that the resolution would lack balance."

The real question for the United States is why it is still a dues-paying member of any organization that would allow a scumbag nation such as Syria cast a vote. I never thought I'd be saying this, but here goes:

GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.

piracy, eh?

Goodness gracious, those pesky, fun-loving North Koreans are certainly touchy. They are claiming "piracy". Here's a picture showing the mighty Spanish navy (thought they were done in 1588...) lowering a single marine onto the vessel with no markings, and no national flag (hmm, sounds like a pirate ship to me).

Heavens, whatever shall we do about this charge by the People's Whatever Republic of Some Peninsula Attached to Communist China that Worships Joseph Stalin but doesn't have his power (I think I got the formal name for North Korea right).

scudliness

Michael Ledeen captures nicely our talk tough-act wimpy posture in a piece in today's National Review Online. If it were not true, it would be funny the way in which the Bush administration is dealing with terror-mongering states such as North Korean and Yemen, our "friend".

Please see my related post from yesterday.

"omissions big enough drive a tank through"

Thus speaks an unnamed American official as quoted in today's New York Times. Here we go, into the breach, as in material breach by Iraq in its dissembling, 12,000 page nonresponse. Some particulars:

• Iraq's failure to explain what happened to 550 shells filled with mustard gas, and another 150 bombs filled with biological agents
• Britain said several months ago that Iraq had been buying "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa that could only be used in an enrichment program.
• Iraq was seeking to buy high-technology materials that the United States and Britain have said were destined for a program to enrich uranium
• From a "United Nations diplomat familiar with Iraq's submission", "They are claiming they have no new weapons of mass destruction"

No, of course not. Just the old standbys, poison gas and a nuclear weapons development program.

According to the Times article, the Bush administration has three choices:1. ask specific questions about specific weapons programs (not going to happen); 2. continue with inspections; provide intel sources and methods to the inspectorate (ha! talk about a non-starter); 3. declare a material breach by Iraq (now we're getting somewhere).

This third choice, again according to the Times, necessarily requires "proving a negative" and "winning that argument in the Security Council". Well, here's where the Times goes off the track. Why, exactly, do we need to win the argument in the Security Council? Never mind; I know. It's because the Bush team talks a lot tougher than it acts; just the opposite of what should be happening.

Our Friends the Saudis...

Outstanding piece by Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. This also appeared in the December 2, 2002 National Review. The thesis explored is to be realistic with the nature of the oil weapon that the Saudis wield. As in, we don't need their oil as a matter of national survival. Further, there are sufficient alternatives we can tap, especially after we restore Iraq to the family of respectable nations. This sense of freedom from the oil weapon should allow us to deal with the Saudis in a way to end their tacit and generous financial support of terrorism.

One not-so-small point of disagreement with Mr. Bandow. He states that Washington need not treat the Saudis as enemies. I would humbly suggest that is exactly what is proposed; let us not shrink from calling the Saudis what they are: enemies of the West; slicky boys in desert robes, selling what God gave them as if they made it themselves.

Why does Yemen need these missiles?

In an update, it seems the Bush Administration talks much tougher than it acts. The U.S. gives "reluctant" assent to deliver the missiles to their destination, the terrorist-loving "nation" of Yemen. Oh, of course, Yemen has assured us that the missiles will not be given over to al qaeda or other terrorist groups. And, their word is, of course, their bond.

Spinmeister Fleischer spun us this:

we have looked at this matter thoroughly, and there is no provision under international law prohibiting Yemen from accepting delivery of missiles from North Korea

This is one of those times when there should have been provisions made under common sense and the common defense that would trump whatever "provision of international law" could not be made to apply here. This also shines a bright light on those who practice "international law" and the camp-followers in our State Department. When faced with a pirate regime (North Korea), sending missiles to another pirate regime (Yemen) in an unmarked vessel flying no flag, it would seem that the cargo would belong to whichever nation's warships capture it. Give the missiles to Spain, I say.

The Bush administration has its hands full, toadying up to terrorist states such as Yemen while claiming that they are somehow part of the solution, and not part of the problem. Here's the 64-thousand dollar question: Exactly why does Yemen need these missiles? Against who are they defending their "nation"?

A Syrian Government Official's Perspective

Thanks to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute for their continued shedding of light on the vile "culture" in the Arab Middle East. What follows is from a recent analysis provided by MEMRI (link). This Syrian moke's "perspective" is with regards the antisemitic Egyptian television series, "Knight Without a Horse". "Knight" is based, loosely, on the Arab's best literary Friend, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. While there are lone voices in the Arab wilderness willing to criticize, the usual commentary is along the lines of that attributed to the Syrian moke, which include this masterpiece of scholarship:

their president, Benjamin Franklin, in which he said: 'Gentlemen, a great danger threatens the United States. This danger is the Jews.

Gotta love'em; they're so stupid and hateful, you would not think they could organize a two-car funeral.

But they can when it comes to killing Jews; they are vipers and must be defanged.

gosh, d'ya think?

"U.S. Says Yemen May Have Violated Deal", states the AP headline. The facts on the ground (er, on the water) could not be more clear. Scud missiles, from North Korea, to Yemen, or at least the Arabian Gulf.

Two statements deserve notice. First, this lovely bit from North Korea:

North Korea was officially silent about the interception but said it had the right to develop weapons to defend itself.

Right, North Korea's defensive perimeter extends to the Middle East.

Second, this disingenuous statement, from White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked if the United States objects to such a missile transaction between Yemen and North Korea:

"I don't want to get into jumping into [sic] conclusions at this point," McClellan said. He added, "Yemen has been a friend and partner in the global war on terrorism."

Fair enough about "jumping into [sic] conclusions", but Yemen a "friend"???

More on Mr. Peanut

Well, JC (that's Jimmy Carter, our "model" ex-prez) now has his noble nobel. You know, the Peace prize awarded for keeping North Korea from going nuclear...

First thing, if you did not read it when it was first published on May 20, 2002, read Jay Nordlinger's CARTERPALOOZA!, just republished in National Review Online today.

Mr. Carter has traded on his Christian faith, Southern Baptist (ex-; I think I read he's left them because they were too Christian, or something...). But as a Christian, he has failed in his appreciation of the special role that Israel must play in our end times (as in, Book of Revelation). Carter, as President, was no friend of Israel. As an ex-President (and I blame Richard Nixon for this; hadn't been for the mess his people made, we would never have elected a liberal, southern governor or two), he has, as Mr. Nordlinger makes clear, cozied up to terrorists and their supporters -- Arafat in particular. Disgusting.

Now, in conjunction with getting the lack-o' peace price, Jimmy chimes in with his mantra, "war bad", "peace good", peace process under some multinational organization best. An example of his continuing muddled thinking is reflected by this quotation (story here):

The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.

Of course. We should understand and respect Saddam Hussein and other sponsors of terror. Poor babies; misunderstood. Must've been some childhood trauma.

A final quotation from Jimmy, about war:

Former President Jimmy Carter accepted the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize today with a declaration that although war might "sometimes be a necessary evil," it is always an evil, "never a good."

Well, it's been a long time since I took a course in logic, but it seems to me that an action which reduces evil is good. An action that has the opposite effect, is, well, evil. Hence, a war that prevents a greater conflagration later, thereby saving many lives, is what? I can't hear you, Jimmy, speak up...

My conscience is clear. I voted for Gerald Ford (1976) and Ronald Reagan (1980).

am yisrael chai

This is a very disturbing but also uplifting video (link). View it; never forget the Final Solution in an attempt to kill the Covenant People. It should be required viewing for all who somehow think there is moral equivalence in the Middle East.

We are all Jewish.

jimmy in wonderland

Ya gotta love Mr. Peanut, our peacemaking ex-prez, Jimmy Carter. He's reported now as being in Oslo, Norway, to accept his Order of Lenin (oops - editorial advisor says, actually, it is now called the "Nobel Peace Prize"). Mr. Carter is reported to say about the unpleasentness-that-might-come in Iraq, that "his support of President Bush is solid, provided he keeps working through the United Nations and weapons inspectors for a solution in Iraq".

So, basically, Carter trusts the UN more than he trusts his President. No surprise there, from the "peacemaker" who brought us that raging success in North Korea. Oh, and he's "disappointed" that his successors as President did not "capitalize" on the Israeli-Egyptian "peace", as if an almost total Arab refusal to have normal relations with Israel did not have a thing to do with it.

Let's see, we need to prove what???

Iraq, according to this news report in today's Washington Post, "offers no new evidence to support Iraq's contention that it destroyed biological and chemical weapons in the 1990s". And this is according to one of Saddam's mokes, one Amir Saadi, who also made what may be a terminal error in challenging the United States to disprove it.

Putting this as gently as possible, what was this boy smoking? Iraq is the violator; it is on Iraq to prove that it no longer poses a threat to humanity.

not to decide is to decide

The Washington Post continues to surprise, in its climb from the pit of the leftocracy. Today's lead editorial gets close to what should happen with respect to Iraq's alleged documentation of its WMD status. To paraphrase the key points:

• Iraq will declare it has no weapons of mass destruction

• The U.S. and the U.K. know this to be a "blatant lie", and should provide evidence to back this assertion

• Now here's where the Post comes a cropper: "The United States must immediately return to the Security Council, demonstrate the falsity of Iraq's declaration and insist that action be taken".

• They conclude, however, with this righteous truth: "Unless there is a clear and dramatic reversal by the dictator this weekend, and the weapons are disclosed, the time will have arrived for Mr. Bush to follow his words with actions".

Where the editorial goes wrong is in its sequencing of events and its implication that the United States must do a "mother may I" before our multinational keeper, the Security Council. What we, in concert with Britain and any other nation worthy of the name who would join us in this quest must do, are two things.

First, provide our evidence of Iraq's material breach to the Security Council. Second, simultaneously, announce, to Iraq, and the Security Council, that unless Iraq comes clean, opens its borders to our troops to accompany our inspectors, and forces Saddam and his retinue into exile, then we will let slip the dogs of war. And we give a precise date and time, preferably before the middle of January 2003, when hostilities will commence.

Who dares wins. Who asks for UN permission rots while awaiting a decision.

Sheikhs Herald the Coming Conquest of Rome

Ahh, just when I needed a dose of Islamic reality. A must read, courtesy the invaluable MEMRI, for those who believe that Islam means "peace." Some quotations, attributed to "leading Sunni Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi" and other sheikhs, from the MEMRI translation:

• "Islam will Return to Europe as a Conqueror"
• "We Will Control the Land of the Vatican"
• "Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims in Kosovo – and before then in Bosnia, and before then in many places in the world – will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam..."

Wingnuts of the world, unite.

would that all believed as he does

King Abdullah II of Jordan put his name to a wonderful op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. According to Abdullah, the values of Islam are "compassion, goodwill and respect for others". He further notes that "[o]ur religion calls us to live and work for justice and to promote tolerance". Would that were so; would that the rest of the Islamic world lived up to this creed. Sadly, anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows this is not the case. For a more objective and hence more sharply focused approach, please see the article linked in my post here.

Getting back to the good King (meant without the usual sarcasm or irony), Abdullah, a Hashemite, is considered a lineal descendant of the Prophet. As such, he and his family by rights should be ruling in the Arabian Peninsula, hijacked by the Saud family. More to the point, Abdullah, with his modern, pro-Western views, just might be the linchpin around which an enduring peace in the Middle East might be crafted.

How to start? Perhaps by Abdullah's taking a forceful, unequivocal stand against the racist press and media that is the norm in virtually every Arab nation. How about going to Jerusalem to broker a peace with Israel that includes Jordan taking full control over the West Bank as a Palestinian canton in a federal system within Jordan? How about vocally expressing and broadcasting his views, so well-expressed in English, in Arabic over any and every Arab-language newspaper, radio program, television broadcast?

I do not mean to be negative; merely a realist. The King, one man, albeit powerful, can only do so much. It would be refreshing for his views to be fully endorsed by other Arab rulers; but it is almost certain that even within Jordan a majority would not endorse what he has published in English this day.

qatar, a happening place

Watching some CNN while working out this morning, could not help but notice that the focus is on Qatar, pronounced by the cognoscente of the airwaves "cutter", although my preference is "gutter", being more descriptive. The lines from an old Simon and Garfunkle tune, "At the Zoo", came immediately to mind:

[© P. Simon] Someone told me It's all happening at the zoo I do believe it I do believe it's true

Anyway, what's happening is a war simulation obviously meant to demonstrate that we are steady and ready for forcible regime change in Iraq. What we have done is move Central Command command and control assets sufficient for the task to this sandbox.

The good news is that the locals have agreed to this; the bad news is that the locals appear to be just as ignorant and hateful as any of their neighbors. As in, they seem to hate "not the American people, but its government". Since, in theory and to a large extent in practice, this means they hate the American people, who are uniquely empowered under our Constitution as holding ultimate power. OK, ignorance may be bliss; we can excuse those who live in an autocracy for not knowing this fact. But man-in-a-shopping-mall interviews by CNN revealed that at least some dashing young men of the gutter believe that America is run by a Jewish conspiracy and that our leaders, including Geo. W. Bush, are Jews.

Would that it were so; for some reason, these enlightened, affluent products of Arab culture somehow think that the only reason we could conceivably support democratic, prophecy-fulfilling Israel is because we were controlled by the Jews. This is not just ignorance, it is vile racial hatred of Jews. If, somehow, the targets of this opprobrium were African-Americans, you'd go deaf hearing the screams of racism by CNN and other guardians of that which is politically correct. But Jews? Same-old same-old.

It appears to be true -- America has few if any friends; only necessary interests in that part of the world.

the Palestinians did not lack direction; it was getting on that downbound train...

The path to hell is often subtle; the slope gentle but uniformly down. Most evangelicals will understand what the "downbound train" is; it is the inexorable slide from goodness into evil. The Arab Palestinians did it without subtlety; they denied that another group of humans had the right to exist on their ancestral lands. Now, just now, 55 years later, they may be starting to realize that violence and denial will not work against the Covenant people of Israel, who are the senior Palestinians and have been going on 3,000 years, since Solomon built the First Temple in Jerusalem.

Of course, I'm making far too much of a mere breeze that may or may not presage true winds of change for the Arab Palestinians. But a small story in today's Washington Post is encouraging. This extract summarizes rather nicely the great blunder the Arabs made:

Nusseibeh, a university president with little popular support, said the [2000] uprising – which erupted when Israel's previous, dovish government was offering the Palestinians independence on most of the lands they seek – lacked direction from the start.

Nevertheless, as my title indicates, there was a direction, albeit unintended -- straight down the path to hell. One can only hope that there is enough goodness left in the Arab people, and the will, to reverse their direction.

and the difference between al qaeda and the PLO is...?

Whould've thunk it? Al qaeda, that fun bunch, wants to off Israel (story here). Just like the Palestinians, who have yet to formally recognize Israel's right to exist. Oh, head terrorist Arafat verbally and in English said so, but the PLO written charter has yet to be changed, and to this moment, "teachers" (one less; see previous post) continue to teach Islamic trash and show maps with no "Zionist entity" in the territory between the River Jordan and the Med.

The only important difference between al qaeda and the PLO is that the PLO has more resources and could, if the will is there, be totally eliminiated as a source of terror.

Hmmm, kinda makes a fella think...

"uprising for independence"

Reuters scores again, in its quest for extreme moral relativism. This time, in reporting on an Israeli incursion to excise (as in tumor; not tax) Palestinian terrorists, this terror-friendly news service goes full bore. Consider this from the story:

...root out militants responsible for attacks on troops in Gaza in a more than two-year-old Palestinian uprising for independence.

Makes the terrorists sound like a bunch of George Washingtons; patriots, merely fighting for their "independence".

Well, consider this, those who think in such a fuzzy manner: If Yessir-that's-my-suicide-martyr-Arafat had not started this new round of terror after refusing the granting of independence in 2000 (and likely a better deal than the Paleos will ever get now), then none of those terrorists (yes, including the "teacher" and the UN janitor; Coughing Annan could take his place, although probably not do as good a job...) would have had to die today.

moral relativism on the front page

Today's Washington Post, in a front-page story carries the headline "Inspectors Rebuked By U.S. And Iraq". Pity the poor UN inspectors, torn between two apparently equal poles of discontent: The noble Iraqis, under the brave leadership of Saddam; the aggressive Yanks, under the decisive leadership of Dubya.

This "news" article then goes on to note that "officials in each capital [are] questioning the mission's motives, impartiality and determination". Well then. There we have it; equal weight for the opinion of, in this corner, the leader of the free world (as in with free elections, civil liberties, religious tolerance). In that corner, the chief thug who holds no free elections, kills his citizens by the thousands with banned weapons of mass destruction, starts wars, attacks neighboring countries.

Oh, by the way - a vice president (whatever that title may mean in Iraq) named Ramadan chirps in, more true to form, with this gem (from this update : "Vice President Ramadan, in his remarks the previous evening to a visiting delegation of Egyptian professionals, said of the inspectors: 'Their work is to spy to serve the CIA and Mossad (Israel's intelligence service).'" Normally, you'd have to say that boy's headgear was wrapped too tight; sadly, Ramalamalamamamadingdong's voice is likely truer to form for the Iraqi wingnuts.

Oh, and this, also from the update - the first concrete evidence that, yes, Iraq still has some WMD. In this case, according to UN team leader Demetrius Perricos:

Among other things, Perricos reported that on a five-hour inspection of a desert installation on Wednesday, his experts secured a dozen Iraqi artillery shells – previously known to be there – that were loaded with a powerful chemical weapon, the agent for mustard gas.

So, come the 8th of December, when Iraq officially claims it has no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, would this "guilty with an explanation" be accepted by the UN and other Saddam apologists? They will, or at least attempt to jaw us to death arguing about it, rather than rid the world of the scourge of Saddam and his less-than-merry henchmen.

"He's a threat and he's a danger"

The President has it just right. It's a quote in today's front page story in the Washington Post. The headline, "U.N. Chief Challenges Bush's Iraq Assessment; Search Teams Gain Access, Annan Says" also, in a dozen words or less, summarizes what's wrong with placing our national security in the inept, West-hating hands of the United Nations. With Annan, it's all about process. Never mind that for over a decade Iraq has ignored or willfully violated previous United Nations' resolutions; never mind that Iraq carries out some sort of insane death wish by firing on U.S. and British combat aircraft; never mind that the mere existence of those obscene palaces, while Iraqi children allegedly starve to death due to sanctions should be sufficient casus belli.

So, the charade continues for now, until the President overrules the process-over-results crew at the UN and in his own State Department. Unless, of course, the President actually prefers to merely talk tough while allowing the cookie pushers to rule. I could be wrong (hard to believe, but it's happened...), but my reading of Dubya is that he's made of sterner stuff, and that after the December 8th deadline passes with a phony declaration from Saddam (hey, I don't got to show you any stinkin' weapons...and I don't have any anyhow...) the President will let slip the dogs of war.

Is there sufficient cause for this, regardless of what Iraq officially tells the toothless, eyeless, earless SM wankers under His Inspectorate Hansie Blixen? Well, consider that the "never met a terrorist regime we couldn't love" CIA, in October, (from the NY Times) "released an unclassified paper summarizing its information on Iraq's weapons program, laying out some specifics on Saddam's alleged weapons programs. It accused Saddam of possessing chemical and biological weapons -- and prohibited long-range missiles to deliver them. It also said Saddam has a program to enrich uranium for use in a nuclear weapon and may have acquired some components for that program".

Now that's in the Times, that is nothing if not committed to not going to war over mere trifles like weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a megalomaniacal monster like Saddam. Sufficient unto the day. Let's just drop the pretense and do it; wipe Saddam's evil regime off the map.

Who dares wins.

mother, may I?

Yes, you may, says Turkey, in this update from the Washington Post. The Turkish accession to support any U.S.-led coalition against Saddam is conditional on UN Security Council "authorization" of any war. Which may, or may not, happen, depending on the vagaries of how much pressure we are able to bring to bear on Saddam's best friends on the Council, France and Russia.

What makes this a less-than-"hooray for our side" occasion is the fact that we once again are selling the Kurds short. While we must, repeat, must, keep Turkey from sliding into becoming just another Islamist craphole of a state, we must not lose our souls in the process. You'd think that 50 years of being a close military ally in the fight against the Soviets, including literally fighting shoulder to shoulder in Korea, would count for something, and that the Turks would willingly shoulder almost any burden for the United States.

You'd think; you'd be wrong, but let's not write off our friends the Turks just yet. They may come around to the sight of virtue, unhindered by caring about a phony UN "mother may I". We're going to clean Iraq's clock of the toad-like face of Saddam., whether or not the UN says its a go, if we know that it is in our national security interest to do so.

conditional support

Today's New York Times has one of its trademark overly-long (politespeak: in-depth analysis) articles on the pending unpleasantness in Iraq. Although the authors are usually prone to the typical Gray Lady's editorializing and anti-Americanisms, this article actually seems informative and neutral, once one accepts the multilateralism-uber-alles Times mindset.

It will not matter substantively whether most of the nations bordering Iraq are with us or not. The use of airbases and naval facilities sufficient for the task can be secured by appropriate bribes (or threats to put them on the short list after we settle Saddam's hash) to these so-called nations. Aside from the immediacy of oil, the only two that matter for long-term strategic concerns are Iran and Turkey. Let's leave Iran alone; they're about to implode from the folly of 23 years of Islamofascism imposed on a people who have tasted a better life before 1979. Let's consider the most powerful of the lot, Turkey.

Turkey has been a long-term and faithful NATO partner, but has recently taken a worrisome turn by choosing the Justice and Development Party (AKP), headed by the Islamist Tayyip Erdogan (who is not eligible to hold public office owing to a sedition conviction). However, the good news is that Abdullah Gul, the party's choice for prime minister, appears committed to do what it takes to get into the European Union. See, for example, stories in the (Pakistani) website Dawn and Turkishpress.com. It is clear, at least from what is published, that PM Gul, AKP, and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer are all oriented towards Europe and not Riyadh. As a NATO ally, Turkey could certainly count on U.S. and probably British support if they were attacked by any residual Iraqi forces that didn't burn out their reverse gears scarpering away from U.S. and British forces.

Not that Turkey would actually need much assistance to deal with Iraq in any event. One note in the Times piece that rings true and sadly so is this: The Bush administration is trying to win Turkey's support by backing the country's application to join the European Union, offering financial aid and giving an assurance that Washington will not support the establishment of independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.

Once again, the Kurds get the short end of the stick. Don't you just love international wheeling and dealing?

"a humane, tolerant and progressive faith"

Thus apologizes Ralph Peters, a contributor to today's Washington Post Outlook section. While there is much to commend in this article by Mr. Peters, it is clear that he is infected with some of the same fuzzy thinking that our leaders demonstrate when they proclaim Islam to be "a religion of peace."

The article is definiately worth reading, but one must retain the caveat that this author's ideas are tarnished by his idealized view of Islam. Let's take each point in turn. As for Islam being humane, this certainly appears to be true if and only if sharia, or Islamic law (now used in a few Muslim nations in lieu of separate civil and criminal codes) is not established. The cruel and unusual punishments mandated, e.g. amputation of a hand for theft, stoning to death for adultery, are sufficient witness against Islam having a humane code of law for application in any year past 800 AD. And this is what happens to believers; infidels, as in Christians, Jews, Hindus, whomever is not Muslim, banishment or death are the usual punishments for what would be minor infractions in secular nations.

Tolerant? Well, only if you are considering Islam's approach to Muslims. It is true that all are welcome as equals in Mohammed's tent, so long as they sign up under the Islamic flag. The dark-ages state of Saudi Arabia, where it is not legal to practice any religion except Islam, and where it is not even legal for a Jew to set foot in the country, is sufficient witness to the tolerance of today's purest Islamic society. The "tolerance" exhibited by other, less repressive Islamic nations, is, at best, the kind of tolerance we in the United States once rendered to our black citizens -- a condescending, second-class citizenship at best. Can you spell "dhimmi" boys and girls?

Finally, "progressive". Say what? What have you been smoking, Mr. Peters? Individual Muslims may be progressive; Islamic states, not yet, unless by progressive we mean able to mount serious military challenges to the Holy Roman Empire 900 years ago. When students in purely Islamic schools are taught only the Koran by rote, and when science must first be established as consistent with the Koran, and where women are still in a basic struggle for personhood, it is clear that Islamic societies today are anything but progressive.