« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
July 30, 2006
A Glimmer Of Optimism...
...came this morning from the Bush administration (via West Coast Conservative at Free Republic):
Despite the events in Qana, the US is decided in its rejection of an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah. Minutes after speaking on the telephone with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice (who currently in Israel), US Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, declared that the United States is not interested in repeating former mistakes."We need a sustainable ceasefire. We need to ensure that Hizbullah will not remain in a position that allows it to threaten Israeli security and we need to return sovereignty to the Lebanese government. We cannot allow Hizbullah to sit on the border and launch thousands of rockets at millions of Israelis," said Burns in an interview on ABC's show 'This Week'.
Burns emphasized that, in the event of an immediate ceasefire, "Hizbullah will keep firing on Israelis and Israel will stay in Lebanon." He added that efforts to create a multinational force will continue, stating that several nations expressed willingness to participate in such a force, but refraining from naming them explicitly. Earlier, ynet reported that these states were France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Turkey, and India, who had been approached by the US.
Emphases mine. The other day I saw thread titles by two prominent conservative bloggers--one asked, "Is Hezbollah Winning?" and the other asked "Is Hezbollah Caving?" While my own frustration level has run so high recently that I almost want the US to withdraw from the UN, demothball the USS New Jersey and send her over to pump 14" shells into the Bekaa valley, I realize that I must take heart in the fact the United States in particular, and the world (and even Arab) community in general, has reacted differently this time.
But when I awoke this morning to hear of the horrible loss of life in Qana, I figured the jig was up. I felt sure that the world would look past the criminal responsibility of Hizbollah in firing 150 rockets from the midst of unarmed civilians, and the Israelis would once again be condemned for attempting to defend themselves. Hizbollah is using the citizens of Lebanon as human shields.
So it was very gratifying to read Nicholas Burns' comments. There have been several cease fires in Lebanon in the last thirty years or so, and they have all ended in utter failure. I think it's good that the administration seems to be keeping an eye on recent history.
July 29, 2006
Reality
Seventeen years ago my wife and I traveled to London for our honeymoon, and I still remember the weird, gut-wrenching feeling I got when a tour bus guide nonchalantly pointed out some modern buildings amidst the old ones. "Courtesy of the German air force," he said.
Of course, for an American the idea of having to dodge bombs or shells falling upon one's house is beyond comprehension; I'd read about the Blitz since I was a kid, but actually seeing the sites where the bombs fell was almost overwhelming.
I had the some of the same feelings when I watched this amazing video. (hat tip to Lone Star Times)
All I can say is: God bless and good luck to the IDF.
Posted at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)July 28, 2006
How Much Tea Will $600 Million Buy?
Something really caught my eye in an article by former British Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith (via The Corner). Writing on the utter ineffectiveness of international diplomacy in bringing real peace to the Israel-Arab confilict, he makes this passing observation:
After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in accordance with UN resolutions the world community promised to disband Hezbollah and protect the northern territories of Israel from shelling. It didn’t. The promise never evolved into action. $100m has been sunk into the UN’s interim force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in every year of the last six but Hezbollah has only grown stronger. The only newsworthy story generated by UNIFIL was a recent financial scam.
Emphasis mine. $100 million dollars every year for the last six years? For what? How many of you even knew there was a UN presence in southern Lebanon? I sure didn't.
I wonder where that money is now? I suppose there was a lot of tea to buy.
Posted at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)July 27, 2006
Ed School Obscenity
Mark Coffey at Decision '08 highlights an article in the suberb City Journal that relates the poisonous influence of so-called critical pedagogy--that is, the application of the usual Marxist/Grammscian/relatavist template to K-12 education. Mark:
Whatever it is that Is wrong with America’s public schools…and clearly something is (most of the trouble comes from the three letters NEA), I bet, if asked to name the top ten problems, you wouldn’t come up with ‘capitalist hegemony’. Yet that’s exactly the diagnosis offered by Bill Ayers, former domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground and now…Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Bill Ayers, distinguished professor? I'm tempted to use extreme profanity but I'll resist for now. That this person holds a position of influence in the education academy is a true obscenity.
It's worth bearing in mind that, just as the Democratic party was in control of the south throughout the worst period of Jim Crow, so too have the Dems had a stranglehold on public education for the last one hundred years or so.
Posted at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)July 26, 2006
Milbloggers And The MSM
In today's Wall Street Journal, Mike Spector has a fair-minded report on military bloggers, and he highlights the driving force that spurs their popularity: the systemic and institutionalized bias of the mainstream media. After favorable mentions of Matthew Burden, who started Blackfive, and Michael Yon, Spector covers some of the milbloggers who have run afoul of the brass. Spector also gets some MSM opinion:
The frustration of milbloggers is understandable, says Alex S. Jones, a former New York Times reporter who heads the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. But he adds, "If the overall picture is one of continued violence and a significant lack of stability in many parts of Iraq, the individual shards of good news could be more of a distortion than a reflection of the truth."
Emphasis mine. How perfectly is this guy proving the milbloggers assertion of MSM bias? "If the overall picture is one of continued violence[....then the] good news could be more of a distortion..."
Well sure it could, but that's a big "if", Mr. Jones. And dispensing with that "if" is what most of the milbloggers are working so hard to correct.
July 25, 2006
The Democrats' Mindset On Foreign Policy
Chuck Schumer hits the red zone on the hypocrisy meter:
In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) criticized [Iraq Prime Minister] al-Maliki's comments calling for a ceasefire and expressing concern over Israeli "aggression" in Lebanon."Before he speaks before Congress and the American people, we ask him which side is he on in the war on terror," Schumer is quoted as saying.
Schumer asks a pertinent question; he just needs to stand in front of a mirror when he asks it.
In any event, al-Maliki is out to lunch regarding Hizbollah but so what? He's the democratically chosen leader of Iraq and he's entitled to his opinion. Would the Democrats lobby to ban Jacques Chirac from addressing Congress? This is just another reflexive anti-Bush response from the idea-deficient Dems.
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline perfectly sums up the Dems' foreign policy mindset:
Let's look at where liberal Democrats stand on national security. They oppose military action against hostile nations like North Korea when they are in the process of developing nuclear weapons; they oppose systems that might defend us from nuclear weapons after these hostile nation develop them; they oppose any serious effort to secure our border from terrorist infiltration and would condition even a relatively unserious effort on the granting amnesty for millions of illegals; they oppose obtaining information from terrorists through interrogation techniques that stop short of inflicting physical pain; and they even have reservations about surveillance techniques that enable us to listen-in on terrorists.If one didn't appreciate the knee-jerk nature of their opposition to defense and national security measures, one could easily conclude that liberal Democrats have a unified strategy for not defending the country.
Perfectly said.
July 22, 2006
Those Innocent Civilians (Who Just Happen To Hide A Few Katyushas Out Back...)
When it comes to modern conflicts waged by "insurgents", it's become obvious that not all civilians are created equal. Alan Dershowitz explains (hat tip Ed Morrissey):
There is a vast difference — both moral and legal — between a 2-year-old who is killed by an enemy rocket and a 30-year-old civilian who has allowed his house to be used to store Katyusha rockets. Both are technically civilians, but the former is far more innocent than the latter. There is also a difference between a civilian who merely favors or even votes for a terrorist group and one who provides financial or other material support for terrorism.Finally, there is a difference between civilians who are held hostage against their will by terrorists who use them as involuntary human shields, and civilians who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way in order to protect terrorists from enemy fire.
It breaks my heart to consider the violent death of any child, but what seems even more reprehensible to me is the tolerance (if not coddling) of an ideology that will do nothing if not perpetuate the certainty of the killing of even more innocent children.
And I think the tacit acceptance and outright support of Hizbollah by the citizens of southern Lebanon really diminishes their claim of innocence.
July 20, 2006
Hell Freezes Over
First, Bill Maher praised President Bush. In a piece from Newsbusters (via Instapundit), Maher says:
“I have to say, watching George Bush talk about Israel the last week has reminded me of a feeling that I hadn't felt in so long I forgot what it felt like: the feeling of pride when your president says what you want your president to say, especially in a matter that chokes you up a bit. I surrender my credentials as Bush exposer - from the very beginning - to no man, but on Israel, I love it that a U.S. president doesn't pretend Arab-Israeli conflict is an even-steven proposition.”
Good for him. My respect always goes up a notch for anyone who demonstrates the ability to either criticize his own side, or give praise to his opponent when it's due.
As an example of the latter, witness Cal Thomas' glowing review of the new Oliver Stone movie World Trade Center:
I have a long list of favorite patriotic movies, including "Victory at Sea," "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Sands of Iwo Jima," but Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" is right up there with the best of them. It is one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.
Good for him, as well. A lot of people have forgotten the emotional impact provided by 9/11 and returned to a victory-for-my-party-at-all-costs mindset. It's good to see that Stone evidently hasn't.
Posted at 11:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)July 19, 2006
I Wish We Had Some Of That...
Paul Mirengoff cites a report that Israeli resolve to finish off Hizbollah, even given its dovish and militarily inexperienced government, is well-nigh monolithic. Paul quotes from Saul Singer's must-read article:
Not a single mayor, or even a man-on-the-street can be found, even in the bomb shelters of our bombarded cities, who wants this war to stop a moment before the IDF has finished the job, and the threat from the north is permanently erased.
Paul concludes, quite correctly:
When a powerful nation stands together in this fashion behind a specific mission, the likelihood that the mission will succeed is high.
As I mentioned to my wife a while ago, we can thank God once again for the fact that George Bush was elected (his coming train-wreck on immigration notwithstanding). It has been so very gratifying to observe the Bush administration's restraint from attempting to diplomatically rein in the Israelis--can you imagine the desperate vacillating scramble to assemble a myriad of talking conferences that a Kerry administration would initiate?
Not that the Israelis would give a rat's ass what a President Kerry would think.
July 16, 2006
By Their Words, Ye Shall Know Them (Or Something Like That...)
Perfectly stated, by Cox & Forkum:
July 15, 2006
Israel's Response Disproportionate? You Better Believe It.
Greg Richards at The American Thinker writes:
By having Hamas and Hizbollah attack Israel, the Islamic extremists, presumably under the leadership of Iran, have succeeded in calling into the field at the same time the two most effective military forces in the world – those of the US and Israel.
Greg goes on to reference Adolf Hitler's infamous strategic blunder: declaring war, unnecessarily, on the United States after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder if Hitler ever realized what a fatal blunder that was.
The "disproportionate" response of Israel is, as Greg also notes, to be commended. There are Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Iranians who would welcome peace, but the only chance that they will actually experience peace is the obliteration of the irrational regimes of Hamas, Hizbollah and the Iranian mullahcracy.
Total obliteration of those organizations will be necessary--to an extent that is unarguable for all--before any rational peace discussions can take place.
July 13, 2006
Adams: Get Niggardly With That Name Calling
Mike Adams spins one of his best columns ever, in which he highlights the absurd maliciousness of racial name-calling. In addressing the complaint of an emailer named Ray, Adams writes:
When a school teacher used the word “niggardly” in a Wilmington, North Carolina, classroom a few years ago, she was accused of racism by people who didn’t even know the meaning of the word “niggardly”—or the meaning of the word “racism,” for that matter. Even a UNCW political science professor said she was being racially insensitive for using a word that sounded like an epithet.Consider the logical implications of this for a moment. Must I refrain from talking about beer so I do not offend a queer? Must I refrain from talking about a stag so I do not offend a fag? Must I keep silent about my trigger because it might offend a—Ray, I hope you’re getting my point by now.
Well, Mike...I wouldn't count on Ray getting the point. When one's personal identity is wrapped up in the concept of victimhood, and exacerbated by a lack of critical thinking skills, the odds aren't great that he'll be open to persuasion.
I heard Lou Dobbs today on Laura Ingraham's radio show, and he was lamenting the same thing: the charge of "racist" is slapped upon anyone who dares to point out that illegal immigration is a wee bit different than legal immigration.
Not very "progressive", is it?
Posted at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)July 09, 2006
Back Home
I'm back from a week up in Colorado. I hope to get back to blogging more regularly soon.
Posted at 06:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)