« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
August 29, 2006
Rudy 2008: The Goal Is Inauguration
John Hawkins makes a case against Rudy Giuliani as a presidential candidate. If, as John asserts, Giuliani really is soft on immigration and doesn't oppose partial birth abortion then I've got a big problem with Rudy, too--on those issues. So let's nominate Mitt Romney instead, and I fear that no matter how smart and good-looking Romney is, he will lose to Hillary. Remember, the utterly pathetic John Kerry lost to GWB by only three percentage points.
I don't know if John is correct in his view that the southern states will abandon Giuliani. The southern social conservatives might stay at home, but I bet there's a lot of former Scoop Jackson Democrats who will look at a race between two Yankees and choose the candidate who's demonstated he's serious about protecting our country. I think national security will dwarf abortion as an election issue.
Rudy may not be perfect, but when President Clinton is inaugurated, we'll still have abortion on demand and a porous border. And the jihadists will joyously emerge from their bunkers firing their Kalashnikovs in the air.
August 28, 2006
Two Weeks Future, And Forty Years Past
The media coverage of the recent Israeli military action against the Hizbollah jihadists illustrated once again just how far the concept of radical chic has infiltrated into the mainstream media stream. It seems to me that our observations on our lives--and therefore our appreciation of history--is built upon increments: days, weeks...maybe months at the most. Our lives are busy, the information stream unrelenting, and it's very difficult to track the long-term incremental changes in the atmosphere of the MSM.
Bookworm has provided us with a sense of perspective: she's highlighting the Life Magazine coverage of the 1967 Six Day War (hat tip to American Thinker):
The magazine opens by describing Nasser’s conduct, which presented such a threat that Israel had no option but to react. It’s interesting to read in part because it assumes a legitimacy to Israel’s 1967 preemptive strike. After describing how Pres. Abdel Gamel Nasser, speaking from Cairo, demanded Israel’s extermination, the Life editorial board goes on to say this:The world had grown accustomed to such shows [of destructive hatred towards Israel] through a decade of Arab-Israeli face-offs that seasonally blew as hot as a desert sirocco. Since 1948, when Israel defeated the Arabs and won the right to exist as a nation, anti-Zionist diatribes had been the Arab world’s only official recognition of Israel. Indeed, in the 19 years since the state was founded, the surrounding Arab states have never wavered from their claim that they were in a state of war with Israel.But now there was an alarming difference in Nasser’s buildup. He demanded that the U.N. withdraw the 3,400-man truce-keeping force that had camped in Egypt’s Sinai desert and in the Gaza Strip ever since Egypt’s defeat in the Suez campaign of 1956 as a buffer between Egyptians and Israelis. A worried United Nations Secretary-General U Thant agreed to the withdrawal, then winged to Cairo to caution Nasser.
He found him adamant. Plagued by economic difficulties at home and bogged down in the war in Yemen, Nasser had lately been criticized by Syrians for hiding behind the U.N. truce-keeping force. With brinksmanship as his weapon, Nasser had moved to bolster his shaky claim to leadership of the divided Arab world.
So, a few things haven’t changed — the UN has always been craven. Egypt demands that they withdraw and, voila, they withdraw. The other thing that hasn’t changed, although it’s no longer spoken of in polite MSM company, is the fact that the Arab nations have always used anti-Israeli rhetoric and conduct to deflect attention from their failures and as a vehicle to establish dominance over other Arab nations in the region. In other words, if there weren’t an Israel, the Arab nations would have had to invent one.
Now, here's some perspective--imagine the astonishment that would detonate through both the conservative and left wing camps if a mainstream media outlet offered such a bald-faced acknowledgement of the self-evident facts of the situation. The incremental creep over the past 40 years has blinded us to the massive shift in the basic outlook of the media. What has happened to the forces that set our national media agenda when the obvious is steadfastly ignored? Bookworm, again:
In contrast to the fevered, irrational hatred on the Arab side, the Life editors are impressed by the Israelis. Under the bold heading “Israel’s cool readiness,” and accompanied by photographs of smiling Israeli soldiers taking a cooling shower in the desert, listening to their commander, and attending to their tanks, Life has this to say:With the elan and precision of a practiced drill team, Israel’s largely civilian army — 71,000 regulars and 205,000 reservists — began its swift mobilization to face, if necessary, 14 Arab nations and their 110 million people. As Premier Levi Eshkol was to put it, “The Jewish people has had to fight unceasingly to keep itself alive…. We acted from an instinct to save the soul of a people.Again, can you imagine a modern publication pointing out the vast disparity in landmass and population between Israel and the Arabs, or even acknowledging in the opening paragraph of any article that Israel has a right to exist? The text about Israel’s readiness is followed by more photographs of reservists preparing their weapons and of a casually seated Moshe Dayan, drinking a soda, and conferring with his men. Under the last photograph, you get to read this:
The Israelis, Dayan said, threw themselves into their hard tasks with “something that is a combination of love, belief and country.”
Astonishing. There's a very fundamental question that must be asked: why has our mainstream media changed in its outlook from one that could celebrate vigorous self-defense of democracy to one that champions thuggish terrorism--indeed one that doctors and stages photographs to prop up its chosen side. What has happened in the last forty years?
As a commenter to Bookworm's post said:
Searching back into my own memory, I can recall news film of destroyed school buses that had been shot from the Golan Heights by Yassir Arafat’s PLO, hiding behind the skirts of the women and children of the Palestinian refugees. [...] Am I the only person on Earth who remembers all this? Why do so many people, especially in the MSM, have a memory span that seems to go back only about two weeks?
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 is two weeks from today. That's also longer than two weeks.
August 25, 2006
Israel's New Submarines
The Germans have always had a talent for building submarines, and Israel is making good use of it. Austin Bay notes a report that Israel has purchased two new submarines capable of delivering nuclear-armed missiles. From an ABC News report:
The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have diesel-electric propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst.
There's been lots of speculation about the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction as it applies to Israel and Iran, and whether the ruling mullahcracy's fanaticism precludes any positive influence from deterrence. MAD depends upon at least a vestige of rationality and it's entirely possible that there's none to be found in the mullah's camp.
MAD might still have some value in an indirect manner. Ahmadinejad might be bent on martyrdom, but millions of his fellow citizens might not be. To reference the old Sting song, let's hope that ordinary Iranians love their children enough to refuse to sacrifice them on the altar of jihadism.
It's also interesting to note that Germany is footing one third of the bill for those new subs--that's over $430 million.
Posted at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)August 24, 2006
Republicans vs. Conservatives
It's axiomatic that any random Republican is not necessarily a conservative. An article by Gary Scharrer in today's Houston Chronicle provides a crystal-clear example:
Unity on immigration reformsHispanic caucus and the state's top business group see common goals
AUSTIN — A business association and group of Hispanic lawmakers that rarely see eye to eye agreed Wednesday on immigration principles similar to the comprehensive approach favored by the U.S. Senate.
Their 15-point immigration platform goes far beyond the U.S. House plan that emphasizes border security.
The Texas Association of Business and the Texas House Mexican American Legislative Caucus contend that an orderly immigration system is needed that matches employer needs and the desires of immigrants for work.
Immigration reform has stalemated in the Congress, and the head of the TAB said Texas' Republican congressional members are wrong in their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform.
So..."employer needs" and "desires of [illegal] immigrants" are more important than the rule of law and national security?
Not on your life. Free enterprise capitalism is like electricity--a powerful force that has been responsible for the betterment of humanity's lot to an almost inconceivable degree. But like electricity, the market must be well-regulated (and that's "well" in the meaning of "sensible" or "competent") or else someone's going to get burned. Just think: we all agree that competition is good, right? But what business, once it's established, welcomes competition? Bill Gates doesn't want competition. The legendary American farmer doesn't want competition either. It's definitely bad for business, not to mention shareholders. The same drive for personal betterment that is the key to the overall power of the free market can also easily flip over into self-centeredness that seeks to grow the business at the expense of consumers as a whole.
I don't want the corn farmers' lobby running US energy policy, and I don't want Republican businessmen who want cheap labor exerting undue influence over our immigration and national security policies. There's nothing in the conservative principles I value that endorses that kind of selfishness.
August 21, 2006
Joe Rosenthal
Joe Rosenthal has died. Rest in peace, Joe.
August 19, 2006
1938 vs. 2006
Caroline Glick, writing in August 2006 in the Jerusalem Post (h/t to Dr. Sanity):
In the not so distant future, we will find ourselves at war with Iran. Today, the choice of whether we fight that war in our own time, and before Iran gets nuclear weapons is in our hands. If we hesitate, if we and the rest of the free world waste precious time with worthless diplomatic wrangling with the ayatollahs, war will come to us, but on the enemy's terms. And we will have only ourselves to blame.
Winston Churchill, in a radio address before the outbreak of World War II:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
Hindsight is 20/20 and crystal balls aren't worth a damn. In 1938 Churchill didn't know Hitler would be defeated any more than Caroline Glick knows that Israel won't be destroyed by Iran. All we have is reliance on our native reason and the study of history.
Wringing our hands and idly wishing for the best is as stupid and lethal now as it was 68 years ago.
Posted at 12:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)August 18, 2006
I'm Not Saying It's True...
Over at Free Republic I saw a report of a strange incident at a San Francisco fire station. A man wearing goggles and surgical gloves knocked on the door and attempted to hand a bag full of white powder to the firefighter who answered.
The firefighter did not handle the bag but he said he felt a burning sensation on his face.The firefighter was hosed down and decontaminated. He was also sent to a hospital to be checked out because he still felt a burning sensation.
Hazmat crews spent about four hours testing the area and the fire station for dangerous substances, including nerve agents.
There was no mention of the results of the tests. The comments section is full of speculation about who would do this and why, and a reader named Dangerdoc chimed in with a comment that caught my eye. He responded to a previous reader who wondered what kind of powder can cause skin burning through close proximity only, without actual contact. Dangerdoc:
Any chemical will create a burning sensation merely by close proximity,If you think it will.
I've had aboout 20 people show up at the ER because they heard their building was sprayed for bugs the night before. They complained of eye irritation, throat burning, burning skin, dizziness and shortness of breath. Upon investigation, it was discovered that another building had been sprayed and the rumor was unfounded. We had no patients from the building actually sprayed.
It seems like there is one story in the media every month about incidents very similar to this ("Students sickened on school bus." "Workers overcome by fumes in stairwell." Etc.).
I'm not saying that I know what happened here. I just thought it was...interesting.
August 17, 2006
Hear, Hear!
UPDATE: The busted link to CQ is now fixed.
Ed Morrissey notes that US officials are finally regaining their senses: test programs are underway at several airports in which the focus is placed on people instead of objects. This is the basis of El Al's very successful anti-terror policy; it allows for the concentration of scarce resources on the small percentage of passengers who actually harbor a malicious intent. Ed:
Israel doesn't worry about what a passenger might carry onto a flight as much as they focus on the traveler himself. [...] This approach allows people who present no danger to travel without being treated like a criminal from the moment they step into the airport to the time the plane lands at their destination.
Exactly right. The current US policy that manifests itself in the confiscation of sewing needles from dear old ladies has the result of placing us in a constantly reactionary mode: the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters so we concentrate on eliminating every sharp object in everyone's possession; the recent British plot switched to liquid explosives so now we have a beady eye out for hairspray and shaving cream. Concentrating on people and intent will allow us to be much more proactive--if we stop a terrorist as a result of personality screening, then it makes no difference what his potential weapon is.
Ed anticipates the predictable screeching about "racial profiling":
The Times notes that some complain that such a program could turn into racial profiling without any objective safeguards. Some passengers who refused to cooperate in interviews got threatened with arrest, prompting lawsuits. [...] These criticisms should have died on 9/11. The important point about airport security is to secure the airport and the airplanes, not worry that social attitudes may get bruised.
Again, this is spot-on. I saw a civil rights attorney on Hannity & Colmes the other night who almost self-destructed in rage at the mere suggestion that the Israeli style of screening be used. As a commenter to Ed's post asked: what exactly would be the damage done to some who is "racially profiled", anyway? Hurt feelings? Inconvenience?
If all the money currently being used to pay the employees of a blundering bureaucracy was used to hire and properly train a top-notch team of screeners, the possibility of an improper detention, of even Arab or Muslim travelers, would drop.
We are wasting billions on an inefficient system that is not nearly as safe as it should be--all to safeguard the feelings of a small minority.
August 16, 2006
Whither Condi, Part II...(Or Should That Be: Whither GWB?)
Condi (Warren Albright) Rice's latest on the cease-fire in Lebanon (via Andy McCarthy at The Corner):
"I don't think there is an expectation that this (U.N.) force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah," Rice said. "I think it's a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily." If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, "one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization."
Emphasis is Andy's, and he nails it. Is she even hearing the words coming out of her own mouth? Is the Secretary of State of the United States of America pinning her hopes on voluntary disarmament? This is the high point [ed. So far.] of Hizbollah's 25-year existence; to expect them to lay down their arms voluntarily is delusional. That's like Chamberlain expecting Hitler to disband the Wehrmacht after Munich.
And what's with the assumption that "others" will be "willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization"? What is this, first grade? "Mom, he called me a poopy-head!" Is this the extent of the power of the US--calling Hizbollah a terrorist organization? Bloody hell.
And Rice works for George W. Bush. As a sharp Instapundit reader observed:
"I grow more and more convinced the Republican majority will end itself by 2006 if the Left will just shut up for five minutes."
True, and that's saying a lot.
I guess the only hope is that Rice and Bush know that the cease fire will not last, the Olmert government will fall, and new P.M. Netanyahu will prosecute the next war properly. I simply cannot believe the alternative--that this is the true sentiment of the administration.
August 14, 2006
Nuclear Doofus
John Derbyshire notes someone who needs a clue:
"There is a vast, but not unlimited, amount of highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium in the world, and it is within our power to keep it secure. The United States does not lose gold from Fort Knox, nor Russia treasures from the Kremlin Armory<1>." ——Graham Allison, NUCLEAR TERRORISM (2004)
Emphasis mine.
Uh, Graham, I think you mean "plutonium and weapons-grade uranium". All naturally occurring uranium, even if refined to a metal, must be "enriched" if you want to make a bomb. Even that term seems a little inaccurate: the isotope U-235 must be physically separated from the much more abundant U-238. When it is enriched enough, it becomes weapons-grade. But only uranium needs to be "enriched". Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element, and Pu-239 is capable of a chain reaction as soon as it's manufactured. "Weapons-grade plutonium" is redundant and indicative of someone who doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Posted at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)August 12, 2006
Whither Condi?
I've been blithely throwing around the fantasy suggestion of a Giuliani/Rice ticket in 2008, but I guess I've been blinded by Rice's brilliant media persona. Michael Rubin writes in The Corner that Rice is not exactly covering herself in diplomatic glory:
Condoleezza Rice may still be a media star, but her track record places somewhere around Warren Christopher in the annals of recent State Department history: Rice reversed course on Iran, and even offered this terror-sponsor nuclear reactors. Rather than moderate Tehran, her move signaled weakness and further emboldened the Islamic Republic. Ayatollah Khamene‘i responded to the offer by asking, four days later, “Why don’t you just admit you are weak and your razor is blunt?”
- Remember Iran’s centrifuges? They’re still spinning.
- North Korea defied international consensus to launch missiles, one of which was aimed at the waters off Hawaii. Japan sought robust UN action. The US sided with China against our ally, Japan.
- She agreed to a ceasefire resolution that rewards terror, justifies hostage-taking, and resurrects the legitimacy of Hezbollah claims to the Shabaa Farms.
And et cetera.
There have been warning rumbles before, but I think now would be good time to cast a very beady eye on any idea of Rice on a presidential ticket.
Posted at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)August 08, 2006
Rumsfeld: Never Better
Cal Thomas highlights Donald Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. Rumsfeld is known for plain speaking, but I don't think I've ever seen him hit the nail more directly on the head. Thomas:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.
Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."
Emphasis mine. Included, of course, on the side that "does all it can to avoid civilian casualties" is Israel, who has exercised extreme reticence in defending itself against the thousands of missiles Hizbollah has launched.
The double standard of ethics that Rumsfeld so pointedly illuminated seems to be entrenched worldwide, even among countries that have suffered tragic losses in the near past from similar fanaticism. It is a very, very depressing development.
August 06, 2006
The Defenders Of Liberty And Justice
Pamela of Atlas Shrugs has been blogging from the battle zone. She is in the midst of the latest in a long string of attacks upon the country by those who wish to destroy Israel--the only outpost of liberal democracy in the Middle East.
The Israeli Defense Force has a well-earned reputation as one of the most powerful and efficient military forces in the world; its accomlishments are legendary. Here is a photo Pamela took of these warriors:
Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." And when a country knows its very existence depends upon the performance of its fighting force, I wonder if maybe the collective persona of its national identity is reflected in the faces of its soldiers.
We cannot let these people down.
Posted at 11:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)August 01, 2006
A Powerful Litmus Test
Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey relates an interesting conversation he had with some work colleagues (hat tip: LGF):
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with a co-worker, on the concept of the disporportinate Israeli attacks on Lebanon compared to Hezbollah attacks. He pointed to me his dismay at Hezbollah's rockets ineffeciency at hitting targets. He said "If you noticed, they bomb each other almost equally in amounts of missiles shot, but 90% of Hezbollah's rockets miss or hit nothing, while all of Israel's rockets hit something. If Hezbollah had better rockets, the civillian death toll on the Israeli side would be huge, and they would be really hurting by now."Impressed by this point of view that I haven't considerd before, I asked him what he would've thought, if a Hezbollah rocket had attacked a building in Israel, killing 55 civillians, of which 30 were children. He responded immeidtely "I would've thought it was great! A7san!".
So I repeated the same question to 8 other co-workers, and the responses so far have been as follows: 7 said they would celebrate, and 2 said that such an attack would've been bad, but justified! Yeah! Not a single person said that the death of any civllian, on either side, is an equal tragedy. Civillians dead on our side is tragic, civillian deaths on their side cause for celebration.
This is reprehensible, of course, but not really too surprising to me. I don't think it would have been realistic to expect German citizens in Berlin to mourn British civilian deaths to the same extent that they mourned their neighbors down the street, even if they hated the war and had soured on Hitler.
But the relevant point for me, sitting here in Texas, is that there are millions of people in liberal Western democracies who would also jump for joy if the tables of military power were turned and Hizbollah had one of most powerful armed forces in the world.
The issue, of course, boils down to intent: does anyone really believe that the Israelis intentionally targeted a house full of children? The question is a powerful litmus test--it's understandable that an ill-educated, poorly informed rural Lebanese Arab might believe such a thing. But why is a western media--besotted with its narcissistic self-image as the conveyer of truth--enabling the propagation of these criminal untruths? And why is the western intelligentsia lapping it up?
A liberal friend of mine likes to cite the bombing of the King David hotel by Jewish militants in 1946 as a counter example of "Jewish terrorism", but the analogy only proves my point, not his: the hotel housed several agencies of the ruling British government, including the military command. It was as far from the typical jihadi bombing of a cafe or shopping mall as can be. And, just as in the case of the Qana air strike, the Israelis had issued a warning prior to striking.
The beady eye of judgment falls upon those who should know better.
