Abu Wabu

The blogosphere is a better place today, thanks to Captain Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, Frank J of IMAO, and Derek Brigham of Freedom Dogs, who have formed this man's army of right-wing bloggers into the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. The masthead is growing exponentially.

Our motto: We Eat Chickens For Lunch. And do we ever.

Captain Ed explains:
The men and women of the military do the real fighting, and we salute them and support them by supporting their mission. Milbloggers give us the best of both worlds by not only defending our nation and fighting (and beating) terrorists around the globe, but also by reporting on the fight first hand. There is honor in engaging in public debate for policies which we believe are in our nation's best interest as well. For many of us, we know that without presenting our arguments in the national forum, many in the media and the public will quickly overpower the debate and threaten the policies we feel give us the best long-term opportunity to defeat terrorism and the states that fund and shelter them.

Many on the left disagree, however, and often they provide challenging arguments and valuable perspectives on policy and the manner in which it gets implemented. However, many more do little but make ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. They spend a great deal of effort labeling people rather than providing rational arguments on policy, and even the labels they select don't provide much more than amusement.

...First of all, the term "fighting keyboardist" describes our efforts pretty well, and we think the pseudo-military terminology is pretty danged amusing. Derek himself designed the logo.
And why the chicken hawk? When we looked into it, it turns out that the chicken hawk is a pretty impressive predator. It's the largest of its family. This species vigorously defends its territory, getting even more aggressive when the conditions get harshest. It adapts to all climates. Most impressively, it feeds on chickens, mice, and rats.

Make of that what you will.

Frank, Derek, and I invite you to join the 101st Fighting Keyboardists (motto: We Eat Chickens For Lunch). I'm starting a blogroll and will post the code for other members to display on their blogs. We welcome all of those who feel they qualify for the unit, but especially those who have a sense of humor as well as a sense of purpose. This way, the next time someone refers to you as a chicken hawk for your blogging, you can remind them that as a member of the 101, your talons are your best weapon and that feeding time is near!

We are the idiot left's worst nightmare, their Army Of Darkness.

Expose The Left has it.

What a shameless pussy.

Ace Of Spades lays out the true nature of Islamofascism as a virulent strain of racism that not only approves of, but indeed calls for the murder of infidels (non-Muslims) as a matter of course, by any means necessary including those condemned by western conventions, while claiming protection under the very rules of honor they mock with their unbridled barbarity.

I'm posting this article in full because it needs to be available everywhere. This is about behavior, as I've been saying forever. This is about Islamist racism and the cost we must exact upon its practitioners:

Islamism = Racism

Which is why we can't extend the Geneva Conventions to enemies who do not respect the conventions in turn. Like Islamists.

Consider:

Islamists believe their holy book gives them license to murder, rape, and maim "infidels." And also: to lie as regards surrenders and treaties, treating these as mere opportunities to regroup for the next attack.

Such behavior is considered dishonorable by every one else in the world (if not outright inhuman).

But not for Islamists. The dishonorable and inhuman is permitted as long as the victims of such dishonorable and inhuman treatment are not practicing Muslims.

Martial honor, at least in the West, is historically a matter of compact. A knight, for example, owed honorable conduct towards those who themselves possessed honor. An enemy knight considered honorable was owed honorable treatment in return. If he intended to fight unhorsed, you were required, by honor, to get off your own horse, so as not to have a dishonorable advantage over him. If he yielded, you were obligated to grant him mercy and not simply behead him.

A more lenient code applied to those who weren't considered honorable. A commoner shooting at you with a crossbow wasn't honorable, not only because he wasn't of the knightly class, but also because he wasn't using an honorable weapon. A Christian ethic of mercy and fair treatment might be owed to such an enemy, but not the greater duties demanded by honor.

The Geneva Conventions are similarly granted according to compact, and to those who, by agreeing to them and actually obeying them, demonstrate themselves to have honor and to be owed honor in return. There are more pracitical reasons the Conventions, by their own words, apply in full force only to those who agree to be bound by their strictures themselves -- namely, one would like to give incentives for merciful and humane treatment of prisoners, and provide disincentives for those who don't provide such treatment, namely, the freeing of opponents of such dishonorable enemies from extending to them such fair treatment.

However, the Conventions still, whether by happenstance or because of cultural norms, are a compact, a system by which those with honor are treated with honor and those without honor are treated... humanely, but not quite well.

And as a compact, the Conventions are based upon behavior, not inherent status. Soldiers of the most evil regime of the twentieth century -- Nazi soldiers -- were owed humane treatment because the Nazis, despite their other evils, did in fact treat American and other allied prisoners of war reasonably well. (Most of the time, at least.)

And, historically, there wasn't necessarily any reason why the most evil opponent couldn't also have honor, and be owed honorable treatment. True enough, thuggish and cruel men would tend to not have honor, by bent of personality and lack of morality; but a cruel and bloodthirsty opponent could yet treat his defeated opponents humanely and be considered honorable, if cruel.

At which point we come to the Islamists.

The Islamists do not believe that honor is owed to opponents based upon their behavior, or their adherence to a certain code which requires reciprocal honor to that code. The Islamists believe that honorable, or even humane, treatment is only owed to other Islamists, or other fervent Muslims of the same branch of Islam.

To the extent they treat enemies honorably, they do so only based upon inherent status. A fervent Muslim of the same branch of Islam, and only such a person, is owed honor. No one else, no matter how honorable their behavior, is owed honorable behavior in return. Or even to be treated as something more than an animal to be ritually slaughtered.

Islamists are permitted to murder, rape, cheat, and lie to any non-Islamist. Their religion says so, they assert.

Of course, they don't believe that non-Islamists are permitted to treat them similarly; they have a privileged status, according to the Koran. They are superior, according to the Koran.

Their enemies are animals, according to the Koran.

Were America to extend full Geneva Convention protection to Islamist enemies who do not even consider treating non-Muslim prisoners and kidnap-victims with any more dignity that a farm chicken, we would be, essentially, agreeing to and acceding to their worldview.

They are privileged by God Himself to commit all nature of barbaric actions against their infidel enemies; but their infidel enemies, of course, are not granted this license by God to act similarly. They are allowed to, even compelled, to commit the worst acts of inhumanity against their infidel opponents, for their infidel opponents are not quite human, or not to be treated as such, in any event.

But their infidel opponents must respect their special, God-granted status and treat them as truly honorable opponents.

There are many reasons to object to extending Geneva Convention protections with full force to those, like Islamicists, who delight in cruelty and inhumanity. But one reason is psychological in nature, and nevertheless worth considering.

We cannot agree with the Islamists that we are subhuman and only they are entitled to honorable and humane treatement. We must insist, particularly with these racist thugs who consider those who do not share in their creed to be animals, that honor is based on reciprocal conduct and by compact.

We cannot agree that their status as fervent Islamists makes them our superiors and creates obligations towards them that they do not extend in return towards us.

For, if we do, are we not confirming their racist beliefs? Are we not telling them that we are, just as they believe, inferior to them by God's decree, and as such, fit only for slaughter or subjugation?

The Western tradition distinuishes between honorable warriors and mere murderers. An honorable warrior does not slaughter civilians; nor does he hide among civilians out of uniform, making it necessary to target civilian populations to bring the fight to him. Nor does he behead and rape those he captures.

Killers, murderers, and criminals do, of course.

The code of Western honor does not confuse the two. Islamist "honor" does-- the most vicious murderer is praised as "Holy Warrior" for detonating himself among women, children, and non-combatant men in a pizza shop, discotheque, or even a marriage celebration in a hotel ballroom.

It is honorable to be a murderer, Islamism teaches, so long as those being killed are not Muslims.

In a war in which ideology and religious memes are so obviously important, can we afford to endorse the Islamists' view of honorable murderers?

Jim Geraghty senses a baser level of discourse on the internet these days.

I think he just wandered into the wrong neighborhood and found that certain corners are populated by cranks from both sides:

...yesterday I had observed a fellow who had cited the 9/11 Commission report as evidence supporting his argument that Flight 93 had been shot down, when the report said the exact opposite, and asked, "Am I just aware of it more, or is there more of this phenomenon going around - people making arguments while A) completely misinformed, B) completely uninformed or C) outright lying?"

Well, proving that this phenomenon knows no ideological bounds, a commenter on Keshertalk made the following statement:

The passengers on Flight 93 should have been named the Time Magazine People of the Year. It was the moment we started to fight back. Who did win in '01? Kofi Annan. Perfect.

Time's Man of the Year in 2001 was New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

With "United 93" now playing in a theater near you, Geraghty cites a passage from the 9/11 Commission's report:

During at least five of the passengers' phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occurred earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided, and acted. At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye."

The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained.

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane.

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker responded, "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cock-pit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down."

The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C.

Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.

Great Blog.

ALLAHPUNDIT has the whole story laid out in CIA Leak: A Blog Primer.

And while the NY Times, WaPo and the MSM generally wish it would go away, it's only going to get bigger, as Thomas Joscelyn reveals. Using one single example from the Times, Joscelyn demonstrates the coming tidal wave of prevarications, omissions and outright falsehoods the MSM will employ to lionize Mary McCarthy.

Why are they doing this?

My new Daily Standard column, which builds on my blog posts concerning the whole Mary McCarthy matter, is now up. While there is some doubt surrounding the exact reasons for the CIA's termination of Mary McCarthy at this point, there is no doubt that the media has been quick to lionize her. On Sunday, for example, The New York Times ran a ridiculous piece that argued McCarthy had an "independent streak" because she challenged the Clinton administration on its decision to destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant named al-Shifa.

I say that the Times piece was ridiculous because the Old Grey Lady left out or spun nearly every salient fact surrounding the matter. Now, I realize that the strike on al-Shifa was controversial. Many public commentators to this day insist that the strike was a mistake. Christopher Hitchens made this argument for Slate yesterday. But, as I point out in my Daily Standard piece, the public discussion of the events in August 1998 has been quite lacking. The New York Times, in particular, has made no real attempt to understand the facts of the matter.

It would be more accurate to say that the Times has made no real attempt to present the facts of the al-Shifa matter to its readers. Also, I believe the Times understands the facts of the McCarthy scandal, and their implications for the Times, WaPo, Priest, et al, only too well. These actors have no real interest in saving Mary McCarthy's hide; she is simply the present means by which they hope to save their own.

The MSM wants the world to believe it is mounting a Woodstein-style campaign to expose the evils of the Bush White House, but there's a new player in town: the Blogosphere. And as the blogs showed with Dan Rather, John F'n Kerry, notorious liar Joe Wilson and others of their ilk, the Old Media can no longer lie, obfuscate and ignore facts with impunity. In fact, there can be no question that the Old Media has become a huge part of the problem of organized sabotage against the Bush White House, and I predict it's going to come back to hurt them repeatedly and badly. So does Christopher Hitchens:

It was obvious from the first that the press, in taking Wilson and Plame at their own estimation, was fashioning a rod for its own back. I await the squeals that will follow when this rod is applied, which it will be again and again.

And it should all hit full stride just in time for the November elections.

Groovy.

From NRO this week:

HERE COME THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES [JPod]

So Newsweek is reporting that Mary McCarthy denies being the leaker. This despite stories in the press saying that she failed a polygraph and admitted to it. McCarthy's not the the one who told Newsweek. Do you know who did? Her "close friend" Rand Beers. Who's Rand Beers? The National Security Council staffer who quit in 2003 and went to work as John Kerry's senior national security campaign adviser. You know who else is Rand Beers's old friend from the National Security Council staff? Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The idiot left are using the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame, which fictional event they decried when the White House pointed out how she pimped her husband to undermining the Bush Administration, to justify excusing Mary McCarthy for outing wartime intelligence secrets. That's not logic, that's treason.

Andrew C. McCarthy is the go-to man for evaluating Mary McCarthy's legal status. Mr. McCarthy prosecuted the '93 WTC bombing case and is a first-rate realist unaffected by partisan considerations.

NRO also has Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation on the problems I hope Mary McCarthy will face every day for the rest of her life.

Speaking of the enemy, Jonah Goldberg has it right about Osama's latest fodder, which of course was followed by a bombing in Egypt:

Blah, blah, blah: war against Islam, Zionist stooges, kill innocents. I'm sorry, but it really is time for Special Forces to shut this guy up.

Agreed. The sooner the better.

NB:
Tony Snow appears to have the job of White House Press Secretary. Good for him and good for Bush. Idiots hate Snow, so he's a good choice for adults.

Note to the kids: back into your highchairs.

Mark Levin dismantles John F'n Kerry in Unfit For Command:

Once again John Kerry sides with the enemy.

Did I say enemy? Yes. Anyone, like Mary McCarthy, who uses her public trust to undermine the war on terrorism is the enemy. The Washington Post can wrap itself and its source in civil liberties, but the public rightly won't buy it. These prisons in Europe reportedly exist to interrogate and house al Qaeda terrorists. While people may disagree over the war in Iraq, almost nobody disagrees that al-Qaeda must be destroyed.

The Democrat party is clearly lining up behind McCarthy now. The talking points have already been issued. Yesterday, Robert Menendez said this:

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called on President Bush to hold accountable those in his administration who leaked information about the Iraq intelligence in the run-up to the war and outed undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. "Apparently, President Bush doesn't believe what's good for the CIA is good for the White House," Menendez said.

More here.

Today, John Kerry said this, in part:

… Here's my fundamental view of this, that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, DC here. …

More here.

Not that the truth matters to propagandists, but Plame was not a “CIA agent” and a federal prosecutor has not charged anyone at the White House with leaking her name. Moreover, revealing her name would not have been a crime because, as is now clear, Plame was not undercover. But Kerry continues to repeat this lie because he and his ilk seek to divert attention from the very serious national-security breach committed by his contributor, Mary McCarthy.

Kerry also asserts that McCarthy was telling the truth when she leaked national-security information and that, somehow, she deserves some kind of special dispensation as a result. If we were grading his comprehension, he’d get a D. Do we know all she leaked? We know she revealed the existence of supposed CIA prisons in Europe. But we don’t know if the information she provided Dana Priest was truthful or accurate. And we don’t know what else she may have leaked in her many contacts with the media. And Kerry doesn’t seem the least bit curious about it, either. Moreover, in most cases I would think it is far more damaging to our nation’s security if high officials are leaking truthful information about our war activities.

Kerry has demonstrated, once again, why he’s unfit for command.

Read more of Levin's work here.

Our present body of knowledge begs to ask what the Clintons know and when they came to know it. Read on.

Wizbang: Media Circling the Wagons Around McCarthy

The Washington Post is already peddling its institutionalized intellectual dishonesty.

Sweetness And Light reports that Dana Priest's husband gets speaking gigs for notorious liar Joe Wilson, is Executive Director of CIP, has ties to MoveOn.org, Win Without War, other subversive organizations.

S&L also has figures on Mary and Michael McCarthy's donations to the 2004 Kerry Democrats.

NRO's Mark Levin:

Well, as of this morning (Saturday) most of the big media don't care. They're fixated with the weather and gas prices — and anything else that will divert the public's attention from the stunning revelation that a Sandy Berger crony has apparently been leaking top-secret information from her high post at the CIA. The media will continue to downplay this story as they cover-up their own role in exposing our nation's secrets, including the supposed existence of CIA prisons in Europe. She'll be called a "whistleblower" and praised as some kind of patriot (a patriot, in the eyes of the media, is anybody who undermines this administration and the war effort by leaking national security secrets to them). They will downplay that McCarthy was a Clintonoid who somehow managed to land a top post at the CIA, ultimately winding up in the CIA's Inspector General's Office, from where she could monitor CIA internal investigations of, well, leaks, among other things. (Emphasis mine, and a question: how exactly did she land that top post at the CIA, and who made that decision?)

Blogs For Bush's Mark Noonan:

She was responsible for investigating leaks? For how long? I really, really want to know the exact identity of the person who referred the Plame "leak" to Justice...if it was McCarthy, then we really do have a gigantic criminal conspiracy to undermine American national security...

I've smelled a rat over at CIA ever since 2002 - and I think we might have found it.

Ace Of Spades:

Hillary!'s infamous "a vast right wing conspiracy conspiring against my husband" line was built on fewer connections than this. Lucianne Goldberg knew Linda Tripp; Ann Coulter knew people working for Ken Starr, etc.

Based on those know-someone-who-knows-someone connections, Hillary! made her famous declaration, and -- this is important -- the press actually treated the
accusation as possibly accurate.

Well.

Is it time?

DC's mob of liberal Heathers, Cool Girls Who Rule the School, seems to be a very tight little clacque. Clarke. Berger. Clinton. Zinni. Wilson. Plame. Simon. Beers. Priest. McCarthy.

Almost all of them know each other; some of them are even BFF's (Best Friends Forever!).

A.J. Strata: Mary McCarthy Plame Source For Knight Ridder?

In From The Cold has a backgrounder on McCarthy.

This is just beginning. May it be a long, hot summer for these treasonous miscreants.

Oh, yeah: so much for that "exclusively Republican culture of corruption" nonsense. Wear it, pussies.

UPDATED
First we learn that CIA Inspector General's Office Clintonoid appointee Mary McCarthy has flunked a lie detector test and then confessed to leaking information about clandestine CIA prisons in Europe to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting in the WaPo about said prisons.

Then we discover that Mary McCarthy, Senior Director for Intelligence Programs on the National Security Council Staff, gave money to the 2004 Kerry campaign. Not an indictment, but certainly an indicator.

Oh yeah, and it appears that Mary McCarthy and notorious liar Joe Wilson have close ties.

Then we discover her connections with other Enemies of Dubya:
Zbigniew Brzezinski — Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
General Wesley Clark USA (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
General Anthony Zinni USMC (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, aka "Burgler", Classified Document Thief

Now it seems that Mary McCarthy may have been the victim of an internal CIA sting op because the NYT is reporting that there is no evidence of CIA Europrisons.

Go figure.

Captain's Quarters:
We may never know if the entire story about detention centers turned out to be a smoke screen intended to reveal a leak. We certainly have no evidence beyond the McCarthy leak and Priest's story. If it does turn out to be nothing more than misinformation for a leak probe, the Washington Post and the Pulitzer Committee will look very foolish indeed.

Bad news for idiots. Guess it must be a day ending in "y".

Shall we have a look at State?

UPDATE
Saturday morning brings more from Mac Ranger:

[I]n spite of what the WAPO editorial board thinks about its supposed right to print classified information, the JD is specifically aiming at them and more specifically reporters who have printed that information. McCarthy has been gabbing it up quite a bit over the years and no doubt will turn on her "friends and contacts" to avoid the slammer.

For those who have wondered why this administration never seems to "fight back", that is now effectually over.

The game is on.

Here's Michelle Malkin's response to peace-loving, progressive-minded stalkers:

I AM NOT AFRAID OF YOU
By Michelle Malkin · April 19, 2006 08:53 PM
You know who you all are.
And if you think I'm going to stop blogging/writing/making a living because you've plastered my family's private home address, phone numbers, and photos and maps of my neighborhood all over the Internet to further your manufactured outrage and pathetic coddling of a bunch of lying, anti-troops punks at UC Santa Cruz...
...you better think again.
***
Oh, and here's just a reminder of the kind of poor, "peaceful," innocent "children" at Santa Cruz engaged in throwing rocks, slashing tires, and running military recruiters off their campus:
Click here.
And here.
That's what this is all about--not me. Them.
***
Previous:
The moonbats strike back
More thuggery at Santa Cruz
Cut off tax money for UC Santa Cruz!
Seditious Santa Cruz vs. America
UC Santa Cruz hates our troops

I fear for the people Malkin describes because I fear they would hurt her and others if they could.

UPDATE
Frank J. has mounted a campaign to support Michelle against her peace-loving, progressive-minded stalkers, even though she is, in fact, a woman and a minority.

Bill Patterico on dealing with children.

UPDATE Ace weighs in with his trademark perspective. Not just funny but true; funny because it's true.

Winds Of Change says it best:

Tragedy and Courage in Baghdad
by Armed Liberal on April 19, 2006 02:44 PM

And as a good counterpoint to Michael Yon's post, here's a tragic one from Omar and Mohammed at Iraq the Model - their brother-in-law was just assassinated.

Their reaction: "Kill us, but you won't enslave us."

You want to abandon them, and the men and women like them? Not with my support. Not ever.

They write:
The terrorists and criminals are targeting all elements of life and they target anyone who wants to do something good for this country…They think by assassinating one of us they could deter us from going forward but will never succeed, they can delay us for years but we will never go back and abandon our dream. We have vowed to follow the steps of our true martyrs and we will raise the new generation to continue the march, these children of today are the hope and the future.

The latest unhinged babbling from the New York Times features this gem of BDS idiocy:

Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified.

Everyone knows the President doesn't have a wand! Besides, the only one waving anything is Big Dick Cheney, and he uses a Remington.

On his friends.

Seriously, not only is the statement idiotic on its face, it's also grossly hypocritical for a newspaper that has no problem cavalierly waving its own wand over classified material.

David Horowitz has a question:

Terrorist Sami al-Arian has agreed to admit to conspiracy charges that he provided material support to a terrorist organization (he was actually its North American head) and will be deported. Will the Academic Freedom Committee of the AAUP, Ellen Schrecker, Joan Wallach Scott, the ACLU and Salon.com and the Nation magazine and other leftists including the Black Studies Department at Duke, who defended al-Arian and collaborated his organized campaigns to attack the Patriot Act and other national security measures, now apologize for aiding and abetting his homicidal war against Jews and his Fifth Column efforts in behalf of radical Islam's war against the United States?

Horowitz finishes with a "we'll see", but we all know the real answer is NOT ON YOUR F'N LIFE.

How many retired generals are against Rumsfeld staying on as SecDef?
Brain Shavings has the in-depth answer.

Hey, that was my lede:

Clueless Joe Wilson
How did the CIA's special envoy miss Zahawie's trip to Niger? by Christopher Hitchens.

In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife's account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn't think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam's point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.

Recall last week's well-travelled story of Maryscott O'Connor, who wakes up, eats, shits, walks the dog and goes to sleep hating President Bush.

Imagine that Maryscott O'Connor turned her passions to the minds and accomplishments of such men as Andrew C. McCarthy and Dr. Walid Phares.

Read their work, too. You could then weep for Maryscott's hysteria, I suppose, but I look for treasures, and these men are that.

Iraq Is the War on Terror by Andrew C. McCarthey
Are you ready for Hezbollah's Preemptive Terror? by Dr. Walid Phares

The Palestinians still want war with Israel. I guess they'll have it soon enough.


Getty Images caption: TEL AVIV, ISRAEL - APRIL 17: (ISRAEL OUT) An elderly Jewish man lies where he fell, amidst shattered market stalls, waiting for treatment moments after a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded fast food restaurant April 17, 2006 in Tel Aviv. At least 6 people were killed and dozens wounded in the attack which came as Israeli lawmakers were gathering for the start of the 17th Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem.

Hamas said "Our people are in a state of self-defence and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves." The Hamas-led government elected by Palestinians should understand that bombing a falafel stand full of civilians constitutes a war crime and that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves as well. In fact, the Israelis have correctly characterized statements by the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Lebanon governments as declarations of war, so I'm glad to see they got that straight.

Captain's Quarters on the ongoing Palestinian triangulation and more.

Roger Simon wonders if any part of the fifty million in blood money from Iran to Hamas will go into repeat performances. He need not ask.

The more the Iranian mullahs and their front madman emulate Hitler's Nazis, rattle their swords and defy the world, the more the antiwar-at-any-cost idiot left defends them.

From The Opinionnation ("There are no stupid questions; Only stupid people"), today's facts of life followed by the question the mealymouthed left refuses to directly answer.

Dear Reality, Wake the Left up
-Iran refuses diplomacy: houses top Al Qaeda leaders.
-Iran refuses peace:They refuse Russian compromise.
-Iran defies diplomacy: breaks IAEA seals.
-Iran defies diplomacy: Iran given 30 days to suspend enrichment.
-Iran refuses diplomacy: Enriches Uranium.
-Iran refuses diplomacy: tests secret weapons.
-Iran refuses diplomacy: vows to continue WMD program.
-Iran refuses diplomacy: 40,000 suicide bombers ready to kill Americans.
-Iran refuses diplomacy:Claims Israel will be annihilated by nuclear blast.
-Iran refuses diplomacy: Calls for Israel to be wiped off the map .

"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region.” –John Kerry

-Memo to those who think diplomacy and negotiation is plausible with a country that is unwilling to negotiate and refuses diplomacy: It does not work, it will not work and it’s impossible. Whose side are you on?

Hell, anyone who is at all honest can answer that: our enemy's.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."

Read it all.

Washington Times: Al Qaeda and Zarqawi Bailing From Iraq

Al Qaeda in Iraq and its presumed leader, Abu Musab Zarqawi, have conceded strategic defeat and are on their way out of the country, a top U.S. military official contended yesterday.

The group's failure to disrupt national elections and a constitutional referendum last year "was a tactical admission by Zarqawi that their strategy had failed," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the XVIII Airborne Corps.

"They no longer view Iraq as fertile ground to establish a caliphate and as a place to conduct international terrorism," he said in an address at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Victor Davis Hanson examines the matters behind the matter of Generals vs. Rumsfeld and arrives at his usual sensible conclusions. I didn't say preferable, I said sensible:

Changing the military to meet more nonconventional challenges was always going to be iffy — given the billions of dollars and decades of traditions at stake — and only more acrimonious when war, as it always does, puts theory into practice.

What we need, then, are not more self-appointed ethicists, but far more humility and recognition that in this war nothing is easy. Choices have been made, and remain to be made, between the not very good and the very, very bad. Most importantly, so far, none of our mistakes has been unprecedented, fatal to our cause, or impossible to correct.

So let us have far less self-serving second-guessing, and far more national confidence that we are winning — and that radical Islamists and their fascist supporters in the Middle East are soon going to lament the day that they ever began this war.

Read it all.

Wizbang: Wizbang has thoughts on the subject.

Captain's Quarters: It Certainly Looks That Way

FLIGHT 93

Reason’s Nick Gillespie:
“As the controversy over the upcoming Hollywood movie Flight 93 heats up a bit--the trailer for the April 28 film has been pulled from some theaters due to negative audience response--one thing seems clear: Even if the details are not fully knowable, the actions taken by the passengers to storm the cockpit remains one of the most powerful, inspiring, and brutally sad stories of 9/11. After communicating with the ground via cell and onboard phones, the passengers pieced together the narrative of the attacks and realized what they were caught up in--and that the hijackers planned to use the plane as a missile against a target in DC or elsewhere. To know that you are doomed and to struggle until the very end--well, "heroic" doesn't begin to cover it.”

Oh yes, it does. In fact it's all that need be said.

Joseph Campbell in his masterwork Hero With A Thousand faces described the mythological Hero's Journey, the "monomyth", the one true story that both defines and permeates the human spirit's experience:

A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boon on his fellow man.

Nothing better describes the story of the heroes who bestowed the boon of courage on their fellow man by fighting for control of Flight 93.

Any questions?
The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
Ahmadinejad provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be "wiped off the map."
On Friday, he repeated his previous line on the Holocaust, saying: "If such a disaster is true, why should the people of this region pay the price? Why does the Palestinian nation have to be suppressed and have its land occupied?"
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

Whatever you might think of notorious liar Joe Wilson, he ain't no poker player. Wilson bet his credibility against that of the President when he lied about all the salient facts surrounding his trip to Niger in a NYT article that blew classified material to the world and then falsely claimed responsibility for having uncovered forged documents. All in an attempt to undermine the Bush administration and therefore the war effort itself.

This was a costly bluff, says Stanley Renshon at the Political Psychology blog. His article, Fitzgerald Needs to Make a Second Correction, adds meat to the story of Wilson's Folly and also makes an important point about the Fitz investigation that I was glad to see come up the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes was asking Newt Gingrich why Bush would have thought it necessary to "smear" Joe Wilson in apparent retaliation for his false Niger claims. Gingrich, clearly exasperated at Colmes' sheer obtuseness, kindly explained to the buffoon in the most respectful manner that answering a man's lies with the facts can hardly be portrayed as a "smear." I wouldn't have been so generous with Colmes, I'm afraid, but that's irrelevant.

This is relevant:

Given how much was at stake, including public confidence in an administration fighting a war in Iraq and more generally against terrorism, correcting damaging, but inaccurate misrepresentations by a clearly partisan and anti-Bush zealot (Wilson) was not only politically necessary, but a public responsibility.

As to punishing or seeking revenge, on what basis does Mr.Fitzgerald make this claim? Was it because the administration was angry at lies directed at it and the public about a subject of the most serious consequences? He doesn’t say.

Read it all.

Glenn Reynolds reports that THE OFFICERS' CLUB has been redesigned and renamed as Op For. And they're podcasting!

Back in January, after the Iranians ditched the Vienna summit, the blogosphere erupted with "what ifs?" I was one of them, contending that if this spat did come to fisticuffs it would come in the form of a Desert Fox style air campaign, not a ground offensive.
In the latest from the Weekly Standard, retired Air Force General and former fighter pilot Tom McInerney envisions a similiar war option. General McInerney asks: What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.
The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.
This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions (the so-called JDAMS) to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.
You know, that sounds an awful lot like Operation Desert Fox to me, an idea that I caught some flak for back in January (many readers found it to be too weak and temporary of a solution to the thirty-year Iranian question). It never fails to amaze me that after a century of air power completely changing a millenium's worth of tactics, doctrine, and applying force on the battlefield we still underestimate the destructive capability of air war.
It is because our supremacy in air and space are so well defined that arguments over "nuclear bunker busters" and "OIF II" are completely irrelevant and moot. We can do the job without resorting to our last line of defense, nukes, or committing ground forces needed elsewhere to a new Iranian theatre, something both the West and the Iranians understand.

Still nothing but bad news from the Fitzgerald investigation for all the Bush-haters. First Fitz' erroneous filing sends the idiots and their MSM friends riding off in all directions with fresh lies, as Stephen Spruill reports:

Plame-watcher Tom Maguire analyzes the Libby team's response to Patrick Fitzgerald's filing last week. As you might recall, that filing led to an avalanche of stories about its revelation that President Bush authorized Libby to talk to reporters about parts of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. A misquote in that filing also led reporters to allege that Bush and Cheney told Libby to lie to the press. Fitzgerald corrected the misquote two nights ago in a letter to the judge. Some news organizations have followed up with their own corrections. Some are too busy getting other facts wrong.

And what does the NYT do with the Fitz revision? It buries it on Page A17 after blaring the initial, false allegation from Page A1. No change there.

Byron York has the Big Nut today, and concludes:

Libby's new filing, and the Fitzgerald filing that preceded it, suggest that the CIA leak case, if Libby goes to trial, will move far beyond the issue of Valerie Wilson. Fitzgerald's discussion of the National Intelligence Estimate and of the administration's general response to Joseph Wilson, Libby argues, "indicates that at trial all aspects of the government's response to Mr. Wilson will be relevant — including any actions taken by the President." If that is the case, then the trial, which Fitzgerald has said will be a limited criminal inquiry into whether Lewis Libby lied, will more resemble a broad inquiry into the politics of pre-war intelligence.

Wilson, Plame, the MSM, the idiot left: what a bunch of dunces. Either Libby will have his day in court and all the idiots will wind up with egg on their faces, or the Fitz case will die on the vine because the government doesn't want to give up real classified material, not the brightly-colored pretend-stuff Joe and Valerie like to play with.

Ace serves up More Dopery From The Washington Post, answering with a very clear and concise explanation all the idiots who believe their hero Moussaoui should just get to plead the Fifth in order to thwart Hallibush McChimpeyburton. Ace's conclusion is nuanced and sophisticated:

As Moussaoui can produce no emails in which he pleaded with his Al Qaeda confederates to give up the plan, or denied them any necessary aid to commit the ghastly mass-murder, or even told the truth when directly questioned by cops, he never abandoned the conspiracy, and thus is guilty of it, and thus, God willing, will be exterminated like the cockroach he is.

NRO's Tom Gross describes the countless double standards applied to Israel by world organizations steeped in dhimmitude and blatant anti-Semitism- even FIFA.

When Saddam Hussein's son Uday had Iraqi soccer players tortured in 1997 after they failed to qualify for the 1998 FIFA World Cup Finals in France, FIFA remained silent. Uday, who was chairman of the Iraqi soccer association, had star players tortured again in 1998. And in 2000, following a quarterfinal defeat in the Asia Cup, three Iraqi players were whipped and beaten for three days by Uday's bodyguards. The torture took place at the Iraqi Olympic Committee headquarters, but FIFA said nothing.
Again, FIFA simply looked the other way while the Taliban used U.N.-funded soccer fields to slaughter and flog hundreds of innocent people who had supposedly violated sharia law in front of crowds of thousands chanting "God is great." (Afghan soccer coach Habib Ullahniazi said that as many as 30 people were executed in the middle of the field during the intermissions of a single soccer match at Kabul's Ghazi Stadium.)

FIFA equally failed to speak out when soccer stadiums in Argentina were turned into jails.

...But then last week, FIFA finally found a target worthy of its outrage, and leapt into action. That target was Israel.

Read it all.

As David Frum points out, Claudia Rosett deserves some kind of medal for her tireless pursuit of the facts surrounding the most vastly corrupt organization in history. Her article asks the question, How Corrupt Is the United Nations?

The answer: more than you can possibly imagine, then more than that.

I glancingly linked to this Mark Steyn column earlier and point it out again in order to emphasize its importance as the most realistic assessment of the Islamofascist threat to date. It's as if the world is bowing down to Hitler all over again and won't take corrective action against the threat until another few million perish in the next holocaust.

What’s the difference between a hothead and a moderate? Well, the extremist Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” while the moderate Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is “the most hideous occurrence in history,” which the Muslim world “will vomit out from its midst” in one blast, because “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.” Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we’re just arguing over the details.

So the question is: Will they do it?

And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer.

The difference this time, after all the dying, will by necessity be the prophylactic wiping of Mr. Rafsanjani's beloved "Islamic world" from the face of the planet, a consequence solely of its suicidal hatred of the modern world.

No sooner does the Post get something right about pre-OIF intelligence and notorious liar Joe Wilson than they completely blow their credibility with a misleading story about the trailers identified prior to the invasion as bioweapons labs. CQ and Confederate Yankee have the story.

The problem is the Post's use of the NYT's favorite technique: start with a seriously misleading front page headline, then parse information above the fold so as to relegate the facts, which actually contradict the headline, to the end of the story. The intent is clear: to mislead and misinform.

It's business as usual for the MSM.

Including Good Morning America.

Christopher Hitchens bats cleanup on the Nigerian uranium story in The Sixteen Words Were True. No mercy for idiots there.



Michael Barrone fetes Ed Morrissey for practising that old-time religion, solid journalism:

Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters makes his living as manager of a call center. But he also blogs brilliantly and thoroughly. Those who insist that there could never have been a collaboration between the Saddam Hussein regime and al Qaeda on 9/11 need to read Ed's following blog entry, in full. It doesn't prove the case, or claim to, but it makes very interesting reading.
I am always amazed at those who claim, with absolute certitude, that we know that Saddam's regime had nothing to do with 9/11. We don't know that. We don't know either, with any certainty, that Saddam did collaborate on 9/11, but we know that he had motive and opportunity, and we know (read Ed's post) that there is some evidence of collaboration. Not conclusive, but evidence. Read.
Then read this, on how documentary evidence shows that Saddam's regime recruited suicide bombers to work against the United States, before 9/11.

The U.S. economy isn't listening to Nancy Pelosi.



Seems Lorie Byrd has had her fill of Clueless Joe's Woe Show. This is all you need:

When I have more time, I will remind readers about what a real threat to national security is, and it is not identifying someone that drove in and out of Langley’s main gate daily as a CIA agent.

The right points to the US Army surpassing its retention goals while the left points to an anomalous and temporary dip in recruitments. Bottom line: abundant volunteer US Armed Forces replenishment figures. Good News For Adults™, especially if we have to Face Down Iran.
UPDATE: Mudville Gazette has more complete analysis. It's always illuminating to clear away the fog of leftist lies and see how the truth outs; I look forward to it every day.



This is how Islam deals with floorcrossers.



Any questions?

# posted by Yr. Fthfl. Svnt. @ 4:37 PM 0 comments

Payback: Still A Bitch
Hamas has copped as a bunch of f'n crybabies by asking the UN Security Council for protection from IDF retaliation against their terror attacks on Israel. What one-way pussies. Hamas' problem is that they don't get that whole nation-state thing that makes a government responsible for attacks on others from within its borders. If the Palestinians want statehood, they should act like statesmen. Instead, they claim victimhood when the IDF kills their terrorists. It's a predictable reaction from a juvenile victim mindset that expects every last scrap of no-strings largesse from the rest of the world while rejecting civilized restraints against randomly murdering Israelis.

Alas, history has taught the Palistinian mind to expect that very state of affairs. The UN should tell Hamas to grow up and show some leadership instead of railing against a world of consequences, but we all know that won't happen.

Meanwhile, unlike the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli government continues to take responsibility for its deeds.

Three Years Later: how the NYT Page One story of July 19, 2003, "Bush releases excerpts of top-secret Iraq report" has somehow become a recently-uncovered "leak" from the Oval Office.

NRO's AT WAR Section today is nothing but bad news for idiots, and that's Good News For Adults™:
Michael Ledeen: There goes that sixteen-words myth again.
Bill Crawford: There’s more good news.
Deroy Murdock: Papers reveal Iraq-al Qaeda ties—again.

Iraq Liberation Day, a la Michelle Malkin and Power Line.

UPDATED APRIL 11

I guess it's just their time to implode. The Washington Post almost gets the whole Plame/Wilson story right in today's editorial, A Good Leak.

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

I disagree with the editors' implication that the White House's poor handling of the situation gives the Democrats permission to make "hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy"; an illegitimate claim is an illegitimate claim. But that really is the only problem with their take on the whole Wilson/Plame fiasco.

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

May as well say it again, in case the idiot left still can't figure it out: Plame, Wilson Still Traitorous Liars.

UPDATE
Three Years Later: how the NYT Page One story of July 19, 2003, "Bush releases excerpts of top-secret Iraq report" has somehow become a recently-uncovered "leak" from the Oval Office.

Notorious liar and Kosturbators' plaything Joseph C. Wilson The Umpteenth is still apparently taking money to lie about anything and everything, but he has now also adopted the childish anger and gaybaiting that is so common to the idiot left.

The New Editor shares some of Joe's more strident expressions of hatred and frustration. Apparently Joe thinks of Ann Coulter as "manly", calls Bill Kristol a drunk, and says he'd like to punch Zalmay Khalilzad "right in the face."

You're seeing a whole team of anger-management professionals, aren't you, Joe?

Ace: Top Ten Things Alleged Heterosexual Joe Wilson Really, Really Likes About Women

On a day that al Qaeda again attempts to foment civil war in Iraq with another mosque bombing, Strategy Page recounts the terrorist group's ongoing failures there.

Austin Bay points out that although such incidents as the mosque bombing get the headlines, many of Iraq's problems today simply involve crime or greed of one sort or another. Terrorist attacks notwithstanding, the rampant criminal violence and corruption that flourished under Saddam's vicious rule is still alive and well.

On the down side, the gangs are still conducting an unprecedented crime wave. This got started during the 1990s, as the UN sanctions left more and more Iraqis unemployed, and desperate. Even Saddam could not halt the growing crime wave. Months before he was overthrown, Saddam opened the jails and freed thousands of the criminals he had not killed yet. It’s still not clear why he did this, but it gave the crooks time to get organized, because after Saddam fell, the Sunni Arab secret police and organized street thugs, who kept the gangsters at bay, were gone. It’s been gangster heaven ever since. While there are more and more police on the streets, and jails are filling up with more hoodlums than terrorists, the crime rate is still very high.

The corruption in the government is still a big problem. While there are billions of dollars in oil money and foreign aid coming in for reconstruction, Iraqis still see a lot of stealing. Then again, Iraqis are at least admitting that this is not the fault of the Americans. It’s Iraqis stealing from Iraqis, and Iraqis have to solve this one.

The corruption has made politics more complicated than it has to be. Political differences are not as divisive as is the competition for key government jobs that give you the best opportunities to steal public money.

The squabbling over which party gets what has prevented the new parliament from putting together a new government. It’s inefficient, and embarrassing. And it’s Iraqis doing it to Iraqis. This is very unpleasant for most Iraqis.

Religious zealots are often as bad as the gangsters, with their demands for "contributions,” and physical violence against those who are not “Islamic enough.” Iraqis know that they are descended from the people who first made beer and wine. Despite Islamic laws against alcohol, Iraqis like to enjoy a cold beer, or something stronger. But not if the Islamic lifestyle police are in the neighborhoods.

The corruption among so many Iraqi politicians, and maintenance of private armies, means that, while Saddam is gone, there are still Iraqis who would like to replace him as dictator. Democracy isn’t something you just put on like a coat, and it works. You have to work at it, and while many Iraqis are, there are many more who would like to bring back the bad old days, just with a different cast of characters.

While such assessments scare the bejeezuz out of the more easily unsettled and the cut-n-run crowd, there are those whose belief in Iraq's future is considered and realistic as opposed to the left's concretized state of blind defeatism:

Though politicians like John Kerry call on the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, Jamal al-Din warns that Kerry's approach would represent “a defeat for the modern and civilized world” and a “victory for bin Laden, Zarqawi, and terrorism all over the Middle East.” Terrorism would then once again “knock on the door” of the West.

Jamal al-Din ran for parliament on the slate headed by former prime minister Alawi. This was a national unity slate, and it fared poorly in the election. But Jamal al-Din remains as insistent about the need for a unified Iraq as he is about the related concept of separation of religion and state. He talked little about Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd and much about truth vs. fear and democracy vs. tyranny. And when he spoke of terrorism, he spoke of Islamic terrorism, not terrorism by any particular faction.

During the question period, I asked Jamal al-Din to say who is winning in Iraq now, truth or fear; democracy or tyranny. He answered by saying that right now Iraq is “a kingdom of fear.” Diana West and I later agreed that this answer is more meaningful and perhaps more disheartening than Dr. Alawi’s claim (which has become a mantra of the left in this country) that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. In a civil war, there's an enemy army; in a kingdom of fear there are ghosts. An army can be easier to fight than ghosts.

But Jamal al-Din does not seem inordinately disheartened. He believes that the creation of a military and a police force with a national identity would enable the truth-fear, democracy-tyranny struggle to be played out in a clash between sectarian militias and the national army and police force. Though he did not say so, I felt that Jamal al-Din believes this struggle could go either way, and he clearly believes that much depends on the willingness of the U.S. to remain engaged.

In fact, as Scott Hinderaker points out, the biggest danger affecting Iraq emanates not from within, but from the same gang who have fought both Iraqi and American interests from the day George W. Bush took office.

Cynthia McNinny, the redundantly self-named Me, A Female Black Congresswoman, has pretended to apologize for her stupidity in the apparent hope of escaping indictment by a grand jury. If they vote to indict, you can bet your cracker ass that the racebaiting will begin anew and her "police escort" will step up security.
The more Sistuh McNinny shows her face on the tube, the more she looks and sounds like a damned fool.

Looks as if John F'n Kerry's bold (Kerryspeak for "oft-repeated") demand for an immediate retreat from Iraq is already off the news radar. A Google News search turns up articles in such media titans as the Myrtle Beach Sun News, Gulf Times, Monterey County Herald...oh well.

As Ken Pile said of Otto, Good.

The idiot left is all over Scooter Libby's "claim" that the President authorized "leaking classified information". There's only one problem with that spin, ya DUmmies: once the President authorizes the dissemination of classified information, that information is then known as "declassified". Got it? And there's still nothing there for the Plame-conspiracy suckers (angry Cartman voice: Gahddammit!). Tom Maguire notes, "either Andrew Sullivan can't read, or he can't write," but who says the two are mutually exclusive?
Funny how publishing Joe Wilson's baldfaced lies in the NYT is a noble thing, while releasing information that exposes those lies is somehow another Chimpy McHitlerburton crime. Only in Idiotworld™.

Rudi Guliani testified today at the Muossaoui trial about the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. He described witnessing people plummeting to their deaths from the heights of the towers. I haven't read the entire transcript yet, but so far I find nothing about him thinking at the time that America deserved it. I'm glad I missed seeing Moussaoui chuckle as Giuliani wept.

Harry Reid is still a pathetic weasel, and not just in Idiotworld™.

Power Line on the basic nature of the idiot left: "Only those who have their hands over their ears while shouting "La-la-la, I can't hear you" continue to deny that Saddam's regime supported terrorism."

Bridget Johnson discusses the joys of warmongering. A sensitive portrayal of the basic human desire to murder hundreds of thousands of innocents using weapons of mass destruction, which I understand from that old, uh, coot Helen Thomas is okay as long as the one doing it only does it to his own people:

"Duh, I don’t think there’s any justification for an unprovoked war against somebody who did nothing against us, duh.”

Nothing yet from Helen about what Saddam did to his own in a generation-long campaign of horror and genocide.

Maybe that's Old Weird Helen's problem with Dubya: that he refuses to emulate Saddam's retraint and just stick to gassing and bombing Americans inside America...or maybe just gassing and bombing Kurds and Shia inside the No-Fly Zones...or... nope. I still can't nail down Helen Thomas' problem with President Bush, but I do know this: Helen Thomas is a hero to the idiot antiwar left because like them she would have preferred leaving Saddam to carry on mass-murderin' in his own back yard.

This is also known as "speaking truth to power," but only in Idiotworld™.

Defense Secretary and Eeeevil War Criminal Donald Rumsfeld: "If the coalition does not have an adequate number of forces on the ground, as some argue, how did the Iraqi forces with coalition support manage to protect millions of Iraqis? And if terrorists tried and failed to pull off a massive attack, what does this say about their strength and their capabilities?"

Read the answers to this and other pertinent questions about Iraq today in Bill Crawford's The Other Side Of The Story.

Hateful wedding wishes from the left

This afternoon, the Huffington Post ran a blurb on this weekend's Colorado wedding of NBC correspondent Campbell Brown, 37, and Fox News analyst and GOP strategist Dan Senor, 34.
Below are some of the comments posted by HuffPo readers in response to the two-paragraph item:

randomizer37: "Oh my God, is he fucking ugly! Yet more proof that women are whores!"

Vaughn: "That guy looks like a fucking bug ... He has the job of a cockroach ... She probably fucked several TV execs to get where she is now."

bootedbydailykos: "Campbell Brown is From Conservative (mostly Republican) Richmond Virginia ... My husband who does video work knew her when she worked for a local station here in Richmond VA. She is a GOP whore. Which is why she married another partisan Hack / Whore for the GOP (Group of Parasites)."

TXfemmom: "How could she possibly ever trust someone who is such an accomplished liar? ... Some of these really smart women can be so dumb."

BushBites: "You know, the NBC woman's married to Allen [sic] Greenspan, the CNN woman was with Rush Limbaugh. The so-called 'liberal' media is controlled by Republicans and their women."

SBJack: "At her age she has to take what she can get ... even if it is gay and younger than she is. Desperate Housewife, indeed."

AllAmerican: "How appropriate ... BEAVER CREEK."

Jackalheadedgod: "Yeah, and what's her name, the brunette on CNN, had personal knowledge of Limbaugh's butt cyst until she took a blow to the head recently."

Joel: "Ugly dress. Only a gay Republican would marry a woman in a dress that ugly."
Let's hear it for those on the left who dismiss a man they don't like by calling him "gay," and who take a woman down a couple of notches by throwing around the word "whore" and labeling her ugly, old and desperate. No wonder they hate Senor's Republican ties so much; Republicans are mean and intolerant people.

Congratulations to Brown and Senor. Here's wishing you a nonpartisan honeymoon.

God love the idiots.

NBC: NASCAR fans are Muslim-hating bigots.

It's interesting to see what falls to the carpet in the course of watching Old Media fabricate yet another story. CBS telegraphed their contempt for voters, democracy and the facts, plus an institutional hatred of Dubya, through their efforts to influence the 2004 election, and now NBC has shown what it thinks of red-state racing fans in its efforts to stage a confrontation with Muslim "ringers" at a NASCAR event.

Of course everyone knows some shit-for-brains poseur who derides racing fans, especially those dumb NASCAR hillbillies, as somehow inferior, so maybe NBC figures it's just singin' to the choir. And yet the NBC folks on the prowl for ignorance and intolerance appear unaware of the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh.

MORE
The Eeeeevil Michelle Malkin
Little Green Footballs

The Predictably Hateful Muslim Press

More on the murder of Ilan Halimi

Jill Carroll on the record with "what was obvious (except to the American left) -- her captors did not treat her well...As I said yesterday, Jill Carroll has an obvious excuse. What is the excuse of those on the American left who utter similar nonsense and who defended the substance of Carroll's original coerced drivel?"

Bush Was Right. Na na na na na na. Thx to Power Line

Alberta's Western Standard has inspired its American friends who support freedom of speech.

Victor Davis Hanson on the path of the war.

David Frum's Diary is always a red-meat read.

Good.

Ace has at 'er. Hilarious.

So does the eeeevil Michelle Malkin.

So does Jill Carroll.

You got your Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the Georgia congresswoman who had an altercation with a Capitol Police officer. She said Friday a Capitol police officer started the incident by "inappropriately touching and stopping" her after she walked past a security checkpoint.

McKinney, speaking at a news conference, declared she will be exonerated.
"Let me be clear. This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman," McKinney said, surrounded by supporters at predominantly black Howard University.

McKinney is charging the officer who restrained her with racism and whatever else she can think of as suggested by her lawyers and voiced by her celebrity political-position-spokespersons Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover.

This is going to be great theatuh.

Captain's Quarters:
After the extraordinary release of Jill Carroll, many people wondered what she would say about her time in captivity. When she started issuing statements about how well she had been treated by her captors, seemingly forgetful about the murder of her translator, many reacted in understandable dismay and anger. That criticism crescendoed when her kidnappers released a video of Carroll giving what looked to be her opinions about the war, George Bush, and the American military.

However, her editors explain that the statement and the video were preconditions for saving her own life: The night before journalist Jill Carroll's release, her captors said they had one final demand as the price of her freedom: She would have to make a video praising her captors and attacking the United States, according to Jim Carroll.

In a long phone conversation with his daughter on Friday, Mr. Carroll says that Jill was "under her captor's control."

Ms. Carroll had been their captive for three months and even the smallest details of her life - what she ate and when, what she wore, when she could speak - were at her captors' whim. They had murdered her friend and colleague Allan Enwiya, "she had been taught to fear them," he says. And before making one last video the day before her release, she was told that they had already killed another American hostage.

That video appeared Thursday on a jihadist website that carries videos of beheadings and attacks on American forces. In it, Carroll told her father she felt compelled to make statements strongly critical of President Bush and his policy in Iraq.
Her remarks are now making the rounds of the Internet, attracting heavy criticism from conservative bloggers and commentators.

In fact, Carroll did what many hostage experts and past captives would have urged her to do: Give the men who held the power of life and death over her what they wanted.
I too wondered about Carroll's initial statements after terrorists dumped her in a Sunni neighborhood close to the Green Zone. Most of us have listened to similar opinions from reporters and pundits about the US effort in Iraq, and perhaps that's why many believed her statements to reflect her true opinions. Certainly the press has not built a reservoir of goodwill among their readers or the military.

It's good to remember than anytime a hostage gets released by their captors instead of escaping or being freed by authorities, it's usually to send a message. Having been a captive for three months, fighting to stay alive and relatively unharmed every moment of the time, the promise of release for a few minutes of meaningless babble in a video and an initial statement would sound like a terrific bargain to any civilian.

Not long ago, the US acknowledged that even its POWs had to make these kinds of bargains with captors to avoid torture and murder. Many brave men died at the hands of the North Vietnamese trying valiantly to remain defiant through years of captivity because of the prevailing orders at the time that forbade American servicemen from acting in their own defense, losses that inspire us to acts of courage but also in the end did nothing to prevent the enemy from using POWs as propaganda tools. By the time of the Gulf War, the American public had developed the sophistication to understand that programmatic answers videotaped by agents of tyranny meant nothing.

I wonder why we forgot it in this instance. Jill Carroll will have plenty of time to tell us her story, but I think we would all benefit by taking a deep breath and holding our fire until she's safely home and in a clearer mental state. The Christian Science Monitor's explanation makes sense; if it's untrue, we'll know soon enough, but for the moment I think we can all give Carroll the benefit of the doubt.