Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

What to do, what to do

Peggy Noonan on Fallujah:

We know what the men and boys who did the atrocity of Fallujah look like; they posed for the cameras. We know exactly what they did–again, the cameras. We know they massed on a bridge and raised their guns triumphantly. It’s all there on film. It would be good not only for elemental justice but for Iraq and its future if a large force of coalition troops led by U.S. Marines would go into Fallujah, find the young men, arrest them or kill them, and, to make sure the point isn’t lost on them, blow up the bridge.

Whatever the long-term impact of the charred bodies the short term response must be a message to Fallujah and to all the young men of Iraq: the violent and unlawful will be broken. Savagery is yesterday; it left with Saddam.

It is not only coalition forces that should send this message. It is important that Iraqis themselves–pro-peace and pro-democracy Iraqis who are attempting to build a new government–come forward to denounce what happened in Fallujah. They should stand before the world and denounce the atrocity in the most serious terms. So should our allies. And so should the United Nations.

She’s got it right, I think. The perpetrators of this dastardly, evil act must pay and pay dearly – for all our sakes, American and Iraqi alike. The message we send by our response, as Noonan says, ought to be the precise opposite of the one sent by Clinton after Mogadishu. Anything less only guarantees more of this sort of thing.

But there’s another big question here: at what point do we begin to regard the DU scum cheering our enemies on as just as much the enemies of freedom as the Fallujah terrorists and Saddam loyalists are? It all kind of reminds me of the Lefty approach to dealing with terrorists: namely, never, ever admit to the fact that you might have a blood-enemy dedicated to your annihilation out there, or in the case of the DU whackos, a bit closer at hand than is really comfortable.
Continue reading “What to do, what to do”

Share

My work done for me

Michele has once again saved me the trouble of posting something – this time on the Fallujah atrocity:

Like I said previously, the people who committed these horrible acts today were not your everyday Iraqis. They are, in fact, the evil we came to wipe out. They are just an extension of Saddam, doing his bidding even though he is not there to call to them. But they know. They know by heart what Saddam would be saying to them now: Kill the Americans. Make them hurt.

They are not the people we are trying to liberate. They are not people who give a rat’s ass about democracy. They are the enemy. They are Saddam. In order to restore peace and bring democracy to Iraq, they must be contained.

Well, okay, I’ll jump in here with a quick comment. They must not be contained – they must be utterly destroyed.

I’m sickened by the people who are saying that Americans deserve this treatment because we killed Iraqi babies and raped their wives and burned their oil fields and probably stole all their food and ate their cattle. Regardless of what nationality the victims were or if they were independent contractors or employees of the United States government, they were victims of a brutal crime and now their families are victims of the heinous acts that followed. Yet you sit there in your comfortable chair in a democratic world, screaming for the troops to pull out of Iraq and just leave them there, stranded halway between oppression and freedom. You play your moral equivalancy card or you start up with your theories claiming that the Bush administration are may have staged this – just like everything else bad that happens in the world – in order to get “the Bushies” in a rage that will lead to Bush activism.

How it must suck to be you, to spend your days trying to spin and turn every phrase, every action into a negative story. The hatred you carry around is a disease. You want bio-terrorism? What do you think happens when you spread that disease around? It certainly doesn’t make for peace, does it? I mean, isn’t that what you’re about? Peace? And don’t think that our enemies don’t know what you’re up to. They revel in your hatred and negativity. They take it a sign that they are winning, that eventually they will be able to just waltz right in here and blow shit up. Guess what? You’ll be dead as well and the last thing I will do will be to thank you for all that you did to embolden our enemies.

One more addendum: that’s the next to last thing I’ll do for ’em. The last thing will be a more direct expression of my gratitude for their dhimmitude, most likely involving one or possibly both steel-toed boots.

Oh, and yet one more thing: how come nobody on DU or any of the other Lefty outhouses has called this a war crime, the way they do whenever Bush so much as belches? Funny, that.

Update! Also in the “doing my work for me” category, Greyhawk has some specific examples reminding us all of whose side the media is really on.

Share

Bang, zoom

In the course of absolutely taking apart a garden-variety Eurotwit, Jason Van Steenwyk says:

Were you guys born cynics? Or did you grow up rooting for the Astros or something?

Ouch. Oh, and be sure to read the rest of it.

Share

Uhh, thanks, but no thanks

I hate to keep bringing this stuff up, but the local NPR affiliate is holding a pledge drive this week, and as one of their premiums they’re giving away Richard Clarke’s book – and a subscription to Newsweek. Damn; where’s my checkbook?

My own top ten slogan suggestions for these reactionary mouth-breathers:

  1. NPR: we know more than you do. Go on, admit it. Please.
  2. NPR: Bush still sucks!
  3. NPR: News reporting and commentary. Guess which is which.
  4. NPR: This free market is a dark and scary place, and we can’t make it on our own.
  5. NPR: How do you Republicans live with yourselves, anyway?
  6. NPR: Free beer! European, of course.
  7. NPR: Smarm is good.
  8. NPR: BBC Lite.
  9. NPR: Bring it on, Air America!
  10. NPR: Every bit as much fun as crack, but without that white shit around your mouth.

You can ask me the obvious question here, but I honestly don’t have the answer.

Share

Fear not, April fools

Just to reassure those who might have worried, I won’t be pulling any April Fool’s hijinks this year. Instead, the blog may disappear completely for a bit – I’m mulling a switch from MT to WordPress, and if I go ahead and do it it’s going to require some downtime. Frankly, I don’t think I can top last year’s April Fool’s page anyway.

Share

Dead can’t dance

This ongoing process of watching the Dems shoot themselves in the foot again and again as the rest of us clap in time with their mad hopping about is sure getting to be a lot of fun. And in that vein, here’s some very amusing speculation:

The archetypal liberal is the guy who, every morning, drops a dollar in the lap of the homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building and who, every evening, blames conservatives for the fact that there’s a homeless man camped out in front of his apartment building. In other words, liberals don’t think things through; they opt for gestures, knee-jerk reactions that feel good, without the slightest consideration of long-term consequences.

Such was the case in their demand that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify, under oath and in public, before the 9/11 Commission. Now their demand has been met. Testify she will, even though there’s no compelling reason for her to do so; indeed, she’s already testified — albeit not under oath — for four hours in private session before the commission. There’s not a shred of evidence she lied.

Now the liberals will get their wish: Dr. Rice will tell her side of the story, under oath, in public. And with the suspense that’s already gathering around her appearance, it will be a hit. The rest of the nation will soon discover what careful observers of the Bush’s inner circle already know: Rice is the most poised, articulate, and convincing speaker in the entire administration. She will mop up the floor with Clarke.

Not only will Rice make short work of Clarke, she will emerge from the hearing with conservatives flinging themselves at her feet, begging her to run for president in 2008. (There’s already a website devoted to her potential candidacy even though she’s said, on multiple occasions, she has no interest in the office.) And it would serve liberals right if she did decide to run, for Rice would be their worst nightmare. She would win the women’s vote outright, peel away half the black vote, and set back the Democratic party for a generation.

But that’s not the kind of thing liberals concern themselves with. Right now, they got her to testify. They stuck it to Bush.

It sure must feel good.

Bullets! More bullets for our Left/liberal friends, quick! Hey, somebody go fetch us a drum mag!

Share

Some people live and learn, and others just live

Diane Rheem is currently enjoying a little Bush-bashing tête à tête with Zbigniew Brzezinski, and I honestly don’t know when I’ve ever heard a more shallow, partisan, unworkable, and downright moronic analysis of international events. This is certainly a new low even for Rheem, who didn’t have much lower to go in the first place, since she’s got to be just about the worst of the NPR fifth-columnists. So far they’ve touched on every absurd and laughable Lefty cliché in the entire 9/10 Fool’s Pantheon. It amounts to a tour de farce of Democrat foreign-policy failure, complete with the customary blindness to the fact that it is failure. “Bush is all wrong – he should be doing more of what we did.” “We,” of course, being the Carter admin. Simply amazing.

Update! Quote from Zbiggy: “Our military power is at its zenith; our political credibility is at its nadir.” Well, not with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam it isn’t, asshole. Sheesh. “Unilateralism,” “rush to war,” “unjust bias towards Israel,” “alienating our allies,” “root causes,” “no WMDs,” “ignoring the possibility of a diplomatic solution” – they’ve hit on all of ’em here. Like I said: amazing. That I’m still capable of being surprised by this utter nonsense, that is.

Share

Goodbye to the Left

Another Lefty sees the light, says goodbye to all that, and it’s a must-read, gang:

Here’s the analogy: Heidegger’s peculiar neutrality-slash-denial about Nazism and the Holocaust after the facts had come out, and the contemporary Left’s curious neutrality-slash-denial after the facts had come out about Marxist genocides—in Russia, in China, in Cambodia, after 20 million, 50 million, who knows how many millions had been slaughtered. Not all of the Left; many were honorable opponents. But for many others, it just hasn’t registered, it just hasn’t been incorporated into their “analysis” of history and human nature; it just hasn’t been factored in. America is still the one and only evil empire. The silence of the Left, or the exclusive focus of the Left, on America’s alleged crimes over the past half-century, the disdainful sneering at America’s deplorable “Cold War mentality”—none of this has to be reassessed in light of the evidence of genocides that surpassed Hitler’s, all in the name of a Marxist ideology. An ideology that doesn’t need to be reassessed. As if it was maybe just an accident that Marxist-Leninist regimes turned totalitarian and genocidal. No connection there. The judgment that McCarthyism was the chief crime of the Cold War era doesn’t need a bit of a rethink, even when put up against the mass murder of dissidents by Marxist states.

The point is, all empires commit crimes; in the past century, ours were by far the lesser of evils. But this sedulous denial of even the possibility of misjudgment in the hierarchy of evils protects and insulates this wing of the Left from an inconvenient reconsideration of whether America actually is the worst force on the planet. This blind spot, this stunning lack of historical perspective, robs much of the American Left of intellectual credibility. And makes it easy for idiocies large and small to be uttered reflexively. (Perhaps the suggestion I recently saw on the Instapundit.com Web site calling for an “Anti-Idiotarian” party might be appropriate.)

It’s sad, though, because one senses that Mr. Hitchens forced a lot of people on the Left to confront their blind spot, their on-bended-knee obeisance to anyone in the Third World who posed as a “liberator,” from Mao to Castro to Arafat and the Taliban. This was why Mr. Hitchens was so valuable and hopeful in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, hammering away at the point that the Islamo-fascists weren’t friends of the oppressed, they were oppressors—of women, gays, poets and all dissenters.

But now, a year later, it seems that despite Mr. Hitchens and a few other voices, such as Todd Gitlin’s, the blind-spot types have won out on the Left—the blind spot to Marxist genocide obscuring any evil but America’s. You could see it at the Sheeps Meadow. You can see it in the hysterical seizure on Enron and other corporate scandals: See, we were right all along—corporations and businessmen are (surprise!) greedheads. This excuses averting their eyes from anti-American terrorism—from people and regimes preparing to kill Americans rather than merely diminish their 401(k)’s. Enron was the fig leaf many on the American Left needed to return to their customary hatred of America. Because America isn’t perfect, it must be evil. Because Marxist regimes make claims of perfection, they must be good.

Say it with me once more, y’all: welcome to the world of the wide-awake, Ron. And do please note that his closing line is one I’ve been using regularly and repeatedly myself for going on three years now. Ahem.

(Via Sullivan)

Share

Fiddling while we burn

Some wisdom from Jeff Goldstein:

For some finger-wagging partisan scolds, Rice’s public testimony is an opportunity for the Truth to Set Us Free!(tm) (allpowertothepeopleamen).

But of course, this is nonsense, as Rice had already testified before the commission privately (and Richard Clarke, the catalyst for this latest dog-and-pony show, himself refused to testify publically in 1999, on the same principle of executive privilege the White House has been citing) — meaning all that’s really happening here is that a bunch of grandstanding politicians have succeeded in further politicizing national security, to the detriment of us all. Well, except maybe John Kerry. And Richard Clarke’s publishers. And a few media outlets.

So, yeah. Bravo!

[update: is there any doubt Donk webflack Josh Marshall is angling for a Press Secretary job in some future Democratic administration too horrible to imagine? Marshall asks, “Why is this is a joint session? Why can’t the president and the vice-president meet with the Commission members separately? Is there some, as yet unexplored, constitutional issue of the president and vice-president needing to appear jointly?”

Sure Josh. Let’s just call an Executive Branch timeout and put governing the country on the backburner. That way, we can all enjoy this partisan clownshow while you fill column inches at 2-cents a word. Hell, Kerry doesn’t have to show up for work, why should the President and Vice President, right?

Maybe I shouldn’t be saying this, but I personally never understood why certain other old-line bloggers always got all misty-eyed and tingly over Marshall in the first place. I never saw much to distinguish him from any other Bush-hating Old Media liberal journalist. To me, he was always just another one.

Share

French awakening

He’s French, he’s pissed off, and he’s right on target:

The morning of Jan. 29, upon hearing about the attack on a bus in Jerusalem, I did not experience the expected emotion. It seemed such a “normal” thing, and I have not enough tears to shed for people I do not know.

The next day, on Jan. 30, I read an article about one of the victims — Avraham Belhassen, 26 years old, a young father — and realized that I could tolerate no more. I can no longer tolerate terrorist folly, Islamist hatred, the passivity of Muslims, the blindness of the West.

Following the attacks in Madrid, this feeling struck me again. The reaction of the Spanish people, cringing in fear before the Islamist claim of responsibility, bothered me even more. I can no longer tolerate such cowardly Munich-like behavior that leads inevitably to dishonor and war.

The reaction of the European media and political class to the elimination of Sheikh Yassin — the master of hate and terrorism, and one who had called for the murder of Jews — pushed me over the edge. I can no longer tolerate descriptions of the monster responsible for hundreds of deaths and thousands of wounded as a “spiritual leader,” a poor “paralytic in a wheelchair.” I can no longer tolerate murderous, barbaric Islamist hatred.

I can no longer tolerate the electoral victories of Islamists in Algeria, Turkey or France. I can no longer tolerate the indifference of Muslim leaders and the majority of Muslims to the suffering of non-Muslims. I can no longer tolerate their affected statements or their perpetual self-victimization.

I can no longer tolerate the double game of Yasser Arafat, the Saudi princes or Pakistani leaders. I can no longer tolerate watching Muslims dance with joy, in the Palestinian territories or in Paris, following attacks on the World Trade Center or an Israeli bus. I can no longer tolerate their anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism, anti-Buddhism or anti-Hinduism.

I can no longer tolerate those who hate liberty but take every advantage of it. I can no longer tolerate Islamist lack of respect for secularism and equality, between men and women, Muslims and others. I can no longer tolerate their lack of respect for the cultures of the very countries that shelter them. I can no longer tolerate the multiplication of veils on women in the streets of Paris.

I can no longer tolerate the relativism and masochism of a West incapable of recalling its own history other than to denounce it. I can no longer tolerate comparing the Crusades to jihad, when the Crusades were nothing but a parenthesis in the history of Christianity while jihad is an integral part of Islam.

I’ll put this one in the “Our Allies” category, rather than the “Our Enemies” one usual for items involving the French, because that’s exactly what this guy is – a new ally. Welcome to the world of the wide-awake, Jean-Christophe. It ain’t pretty right now, but we’re working on cleaning the place up a bit.

(Via LGF)

Share

An old sad song

Roger Simon has plenty on Kofigate, which I haven’t been paying near enough attention to myself. I suppose that’s because I can’t say I’m at all surprised by any of it at this point – decades worth of UN shenanigans and malfeasance have got me all jaded, I guess. Hell, if Kofi himself or some other UN martinet stuck up a liquor store this Saturday night I doubt I’d so much as bat an eye.

Share

Let Clarke eat cake

More what-if’s here, but they’re perfectly legitimate fodder for discussion, I think:

LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda’s purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.

Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization’s plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.

Bold mine, ’nuff said.

“Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast,” he reportedly said.

But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.

“Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run,” Mohammed is quoted as saying.

Damn that Bush – his strategery seems to have worked! The liar, the weak-on-terrorism Chimp! Let’s not forget that Mohammed’s nephew is Ramzi Yousef, the scum behind the first WTC attack – the response to which was handled in the Democrats’ preferred fashion, and which prevented nothing at all. (The above link is to a piece by Laurie Mylroie from 1995 and is well worth a look.)

And I find this bit curiously amusing:

According to the transcript, Mohammed has maintained that Zacarias Moussaoui, the French-Moroccan facing trial in the United States as the “20th hijacker,” had been sent to a flight school in Minnesota to train for a West Coast attack.

That would buttress Moussaoui’s contention that he is improperly charged with participation in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, because he was preparing for a different al Qaeda operation.

Who cares? We can only hang his worthless ass once.

Share

No sale

Neal Boortz has it right, as usual:

The media just loves stories like this, don’t they? Lately, it’s the same basic tale: A soldier refuses to serve in the war in Iraq, because he says it is wrong. Immediately, this unhappy troop’s story is broadcast all over the world. The inference? Why…one combat troop says the war is wrong! If the troops aren’t on board with the war, then it must be a bad idea! Today’s “conscientious objector” is Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, who says he became convinced the war in Iraq was morally wrong.  Too bad.

Do we really have a case of cold feet here? When you sign up to serve in the armed services of the United States of America, you serve at the direction of the Commander in Chief, the president of the United States. Once you sign on the dotted line, you are the property of the government for the term of your enlistment. Should a deployment occur, off you go, to do whatever you’re told, no questions asked. The time for figuring out that you are a conscientious objector, or a coward, or whatever, is before you volunteer, not after the country has spent tens of thousands of dollars training you.

Yep. End of story. Not one jot or tittle of sympathy here for Mejia, or any other fair-weather soldier who presumes he has a right to dictate the terms of his service to his CinC. And no credulity have I left for the media’s transparent attempts to publicize this sort of thing, either.

Share

A platform I can wholeheartedly endorse

What if Thomas Sowell were President? Here’s what:

Cabinet-level departments, for example, would be reduced to just two — the Defense Department and the State Department, with the latter purged of the weak-kneed internationalist crowd who have dominated it for so long. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, etc., would all be abolished as just money-wasting bureaucracies serving outside special interests, instead of the people whose taxes support them.

Government subsidies would be drastically reduced, starting at the top. That is, there would be a prohibition against giving a dime of government money to anyone whose annual income or total assets exceed one billion dollars. Why should agricultural subsidies be going to Ted Turner and David Rockefeller, or “universal health care” pay for their medicine?

Who could object to cutting off subsidies to billionaires? Once that was done, however, the next step would be to cut off millionaires. Then we could proceed on down the income scale until people making a hundred grand a year could no longer expect to be subsidized with the taxpayer’s money.

The great advantage of this way of proceeding is that it would rob the media of opportunities to run sob stories about how some poor person was hurt by cutbacks in some government program — even when the vast majority of those who were hurt were the bureaucrats who run these programs and slick special interests who hide behind the poor.

Of course, there would be hordes of unemployed bureaucrats being interviewed on TV, complaining that the world was going to end, without their vital contributions. But that could be brushed aside.

I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

Update! Speaking of Sowell, John Hawkins has a compilation of great Sowell quotes up. Excerpt:
Continue reading “A platform I can wholeheartedly endorse”

Share

Hypocrisy as policy

Frum on target:

For all the to-ing and fro-ing about Clarke’s intentions and integrity, however, we’re basically back at the same old argument about who the enemy is. The Clintonite view – classically expressed by Clinton NSC staffers Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in The Age of Sacred Terror is that we are up against a purely stateless terror network. Al Qaeda is its own independent thing, disconnected from Arab governments. In the current Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria takes the argument one step further, arguing that al Qaeda does not need states at all.

This way of looking at things has its advantages – principally that it spares the United States the unwelcome task of re-examining its relationships with its traditional allies in the Middle East, and especially with Saudi Arabia.

But this way of looking at things also has one big disadvantage: It’s not true.

President Bush’s achievement in the war on terror is to have seen the problem for what it is, without illusions – and then to have had the courage to act. Richard Clarke’s attempt to present the 1990s as a heroic age of struggle against terrorism is an audacious upending of the facts. The United States was hit and hit and hit again – and never even acknowledged to itself who was hitting it and who was paying for the hits.

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush’s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There’s a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

Yes indeedy. Takes a cast-iron stomach to listen to pantload after pantload of this foolish blame-Bush-for-9/11 crap from people who wouldn’t have supported going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan (or anywhere else) pre-9/11 in the first place, who didn’t really support it post-9/11, and who are doing their damnedest even yet to hamstring any attempt to reign in terror-sponsoring states like, say, Iraq. “Protect us,” they’re saying, “in spite of our silly-assed selves. And if you do a good enough job, we’ll call for your head on a pike – and if you don’t, we’ll do the same. And God help you if we get attacked again by the very people we’ve spent so much time and energy aiding and abetting, if only indirectly.”

And that’s really only the start of it. Trash and defund the CIA for decades, then bitch when it does a less than stellar job collecting intelligence. Insist on the importance of outdated and essentially meaningless “alliances” with states that actively work to thwart our efforts, then whine when those same efforts fail. Refuse to allow Bush to even pick his own damned employees for months and even years, and then complain when the critical work done by their departments reflects their headless condition. Refuse to admit there’s a war on, and then call for an aggressive investigation when the other side scores a few hits on us in contempt of your juvenile pacifism. March in the streets in protest against the “cruelty” and ” imperialist aggression” of Bush’s War, and then act shocked when some real cruelty and horror is visited on you here at home.

Situation Normal – All Fucked Up.

Here’s a proposal for you double-talking twits: if you aren’t prepared, right now, this very minute, to support sending our troops a-hunting for al Qaeda and their thousand and one subgroups in any nation on earth where they might be plotting their next attack even now – with or without UN support, with or without the kind of intel certainty that you demand but in truth can’t ever be had – then you can keep your damned yaps shut next time we get attacked. Period.

And another thing, too: not another word from your side about any “stifling of dissent,” either. Not. One. Word.

Gawdalmighty, the nerve of these Lefty asshats.

Share

The peripheral that won the war?

An interesting idea:

Are language study programs available in MP3 or Ogg Vorbis format? Yes, they are. The apps might not be “there” yet, they’re oriented towards desktop study or they’re just MP3 files of spoken language. The respect that the iPod is getting these days suggests that it has the processing power to be much more than just a music player.

Developers, and geeks at the service academies, listen up: somebody with deep pockets is ready to buy this in volume. Never mind the phraselators that will do the translating for you, there is no substitute for an instructed human brain. In the end, economies of scale can make instructing the human brain cheaper. Make a gadget that you can attach to the soldiers so they drill on language while they PT, and you’ll know that the training will take. Better still, the soldiers will be able to summon that skill during periods of stress and exertion (when it’s needed) because that’s when it was learned. If Uncle Sugar provides the application and support, the GIs will probably provide their own iPods—we are Early Adopters.

Of course, Jobs is such a complete liberal flake he probably wouldn’t much approve of militarizing iPods, but what the hell.

Share

Pitiful

Oh ferchrissakes:

WEST BRANCH, Iowa – Yellow ribbons tied around utility poles to welcome soldiers home from Iraq were removed by the National Park Service, which says they are a political statement.

About a dozen ribbons were posted along a park service-owned street that runs through the Herbert Hoover National Historic Site, where his presidential library, birthplace and grave site are all located.

A resident who was involved in placing about 40 ribbons around town Tuesday said she cannot understand the objection.

“We wanted to let the troops know that we are welcoming them home,” Sandy West said. “I was very disappointed in a government organization that wouldn’t even support the kids.”

Maybe if they put up a few posters of Saddam alongside. You know, to allow for equal time for Lefties.

(Via QandO)

Share

Loser’s advice on winning sought

Just gotta love this one:

LONDON (AFP) – US presidential hopeful John Kerry needs to stop acting so French if he wants to win the race for the White House, a French-born, US-based consultant and “medical anthropologist” says.

“Kerry’s trouble is that he is simply not the common man,” Clotaire Rapaille, who’s been contacted by Kerry’s campaign team for advice, told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

In the wake of the US-led war on Iraq, which France opposed, the Democratic hopeful’s command of the French language, plus his background in France and Switzerland, could be a real liability among US voters, he said.

“Forget the French connection,” he advised.

“The French are thinkers — ‘I think, therefore I am’. Americans want somebody who is going to take action. All this association of Kerry with thinking too much and nuance and five-sentence answers is off-code.”

He added: “American culture is an adolescent culture… In America, you have to be the common man, be able to make people think you are the common man.”

Emphasis, of course, on “make people think you’re the common man.” This arrogant French dick-with-ears just summed up Kerry and the rest of the Teddycrats about as well as it’s ever been done. “Trick ’em into thinking you’re just like they are – then go back to eating snails.”

Another thought: why would the increasingly-desperate Kerry be asking this (or any) Frenchman for advice on how to win anything in the first place? Hey, JFK, just get it over with and surrender already.

(Via Tiemann)

Share

BBC to take marbles, go home

The BBC lied, someone died – but don’t dare try to figure out what went wrong or we’ll pitch a hissy, damn you:

Senior BBC staff are threatening to take some flagship programmes off the air rather than face criticisms from an internal inquiry launched in the aftermath of Hutton.

A remarkable series of internal battles, which has pitched some of Britain’s most senior broadcasting figures against one another, has led to the threats. The inquiry, chaired by the BBC’s director of policy, Caroline Thomson, has been described as a ‘kangaroo court’.

Executives and presenters complained that the inquiry went against natural justice, was trying to find scapegoats for the Hutton debacle and had poisoned relations. The strength of feeling among senior BBC figures comes at a difficult time for Acting Director-General Mark Byford, who has been attacked for agreeing to the inquiry.

Byford hopes to become the next Director-General to succeed Greg Dyke, who resigned after Hutton. But staff said he could be presiding over ‘mass walkouts’ if individuals are attacked by the inquiry.

Stars such as political editor Andrew Marr, Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman, and Today’s John Humphrys and Jim Naughtie have all raised concerns at the process that has been likened to ‘the BBC’s own Guantanamo’.

Everything is just fine here at the Beeb, so leave us alone and let us get back to what we do best – because when you get right down to it, it’s our way or the highway. No accountability, no oversight, and above all, no criticism of us allowed – ever. Think that’s too harsh? Well, read a bit further then:

‘[The inquiry] is pointless but, worse than that, they might get a rush of blood and decide more heads must roll,’ said one very senior figure.

‘I think people would down tools: not just presenters, but producers and editors, and it might go higher than that. They’ve got a fight on their hands if they do anything to anyone.

Bold mine. Reading this hilarious story, one word keeps coming to mind: Waah. But the funniest bit of all comes still later in this article; a complaint that the inquiry amounts to a “Politburo-style investigation.” Now, how ironic is that coming from a passel of such hard-core Lefties?

(Via Sullivan)

Share

True legacy

Steyn on Clarke – and Clinton:

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa’eda’s attack on the USS Cole: “‘What’s it gonna take, Dick?’ Sheehan demanded. ‘Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f****** Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa’eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'”

Apparently so. The attack, on the Cole, which killed 17 US sailors, was deemed by Clinton’s Defence Secretary Bill Cohen as “not sufficiently provocative” to warrant a response. You’ll have to do better than that, Osama! So he did. And now the same people who claim Bush had no right to be “pre-emptive” about Iraq insist he should have been about September 11.

As for Clarke’s beef with Bush, that’s simple. For eight years, he had pottered away on the terrorism brief undisturbed. The new President took it away from him and adopted the strategy outlined by Condoleezza Rice in that Detroit radio interview, months before the self-regarding Mr Clarke claims he brought her up to speed on who bin Laden was: “We really need a stronger policy of holding the states accountable that support him,” Dr Rice told WJR. “Terrorists who are just operating out there without basis and without state support are a lot less dangerous than ones that find safe haven, as bin Laden does sometimes in places like Afghanistan or Sudan.”

Just so. In the 1990s when al-Qa’eda blew up American targets abroad, the FBI would fly in and work it as a “crime scene” – like a liquor-store hold-up in Cleveland. It doesn’t address the problem. Sure, there are millions of disaffected young Muslim men, but, if they get the urge to blow up infidels, they need training and organisation. Somehow all those British Taliban knew that if you wanted a quick course in jihad studies Afghanistan was the place to go. Bush got it right: go to where the terrorists are, overthrow their sponsoring regimes, destroy their camps, kill their leaders.

Instead, all the Islamists who went to Afghanistan in the 1990s graduated from Camp Osama and were dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and North America, where they lurk to this day. That’s the Clarke-Clinton legacy. And, if it were mine, I wouldn’t be going around boasting about it.

Well, they’re not exactly going around boasting about it, Mark. More like trying to hide it, under a crazy-quilt of revisionist lies.

Share

Winning

VDH sums up:

When terrorists are rounded up now in Spain or the United States or deported to Britain, they deny rather than brag of their erstwhile Afghan training, and plead that they are either innocent or were misled. None throw down the gauntlet and bore us with the old long harangues — a la Richard Reed — about the imminent death of the West.

While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pontificate about losing the war on terror, al Qaeda is nearly finished. What we have been seeing lately are its tentacles flapping about in search of prey, after the head has been smashed — still for a time lethal, but without lasting strength. We should remember that perhaps the bloodiest month for Americans in the European theater of World War II was not during 1943 and 1944 amid the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, or Normandy, but rather in January 1945, a mere five months before the close of the war, when GIs fought back the last bitter German offensive.

Likewise a mere four months before the surrender of Japan the United States began the most bloody campaign of the entire war at Okinawa, where almost 50,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or missing. The fighting, which killed the commanding generals of both sides, did not end until a mere two months before the surrender. What later is seen rightly to be last gasps at the time often appear as irrefutable proof of inexhaustible strength and endless war to come.

Instead, a much better measure than the week’s explosions is a systematic examination of al Qaeda’s position, then and now.

You know what to do.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix