#1
This was an eye-opening read (for me at least). It's a bit long but well worth the time. It clarifies much of what I've felt re: judicial overreach, and it gives the best historical context for the issues involved vis-a-vis national security that I've read anywhere.
#2
excellent post! Even more important we Reps get out and vote every election...or do you want President Hillary Rodham Clinton appointing (lifetime) judges with a Donk Senate Judiciary rubber stamp?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2006 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No Frank, of course we don't. But the liberal lunacy is spread well through the judicial branch, from top to bottom. How to fix it?
I don't know if this has appeared at the 'burg before, but it is interesting.
The Moslem world sprawls around half the east, from the Pacific across Asia and Africa to the Atlantic, along one of the greatest of trade routes; in its center is an area extremely rich in oil; over it will run some of the most strategically important air routes.
With few exceptions, the states which it includes are marked by poverty, ignorance, and stagnation. It is full of discontent and frustration, yet alive with consciousness of its inferiority and with determination to achieve some kind of general betterment.
Two basic urges meet head-on in this area, and conflict is inherent in this collision of interests. These urges reveal themselves in daily news accounts of killings and terrorism, of pressure groups in opposition, and of raw nationalism and naked expansionism masquerading as diplomatic maneuvers. The urges tie together the tangled threads of power politics whichsnarled in the lap of the United Nations Assemblylead back to the centers of Islamic pressure and to the capitals of the world's biggest nations.
The first of these urges originates within the Moslems' own sphere. The Moslems remember the power with which once they not only ruled their own domains but also overpowered half of Europe, yet they are painfully aware of their present economic, cultural, and military impoverishment. Thus a terrific internal pressure is building up in their collective thinking. The Moslems intend, by any means possible, to regain political independence and to reap the profits of their own resources, which in recent times and up to the present have been surrendered to the exploitation of foreigners who could provide capital investments. The area, in short, has an inferiority complex, and its activities are thus as unpredictable as those of any individual so motivated.
The other fundamental urge originates externally. The world's great and near-great powers cover the economic riches of the Moslem area and are also mindful of the strategic locations of some of the domains. Their actions are also difficult to predict, because each of these powers sees itself in the position of the customer who wants to do his shopping in a hurry because he happens to know the store is going to be robbed.
In an atmosphere so sated with the inflammable gases of distrust and ambition, the slightest spark could lead to an explosion which might implicate every country committed to the maintenance of world peace through the United Nations Organization. An understanding of the Moslem world and of the stresses and forces operative within it is thus an essential part of the basic intelligence framework.
The Present Estimate
If the Moslem states were strong and stable, their behavior would be more predictable. They are, however, weak and torn by internal stresses; furthermore, their peoples are insufficiently educated to appraise propaganda or to understand the motives of those who promise a new Heaven and a new Earth.
Because of the strategic position of the Moslem world and the relentlessness of its peoples, the Moslem states constitute a potential threat to world peace. There cannot be permanent world stability, when one-seventh of the earth's population exists under the economic and political conditions that are imposed upon the Moslems.
And in the last 60 years, it is fair to say that Geroge Bush is the first to attempt to change those conditions, however unsuccessful his efforts may thusfar appear. That this is so should also indicate how immense the effort will be. The alternative is glassing, to which I am not unalterably opposed. But we will give the nice guy effort a little longer and wait till the last possible moment to implement the alternative. Our real mistake is not making it clear enough that we will indeed implement that alternative if pushed far enough. Somebody needs to explain to the Moslem leadership that it is not dumb blind luck that put us in the position we hold, though we will refuse no assistance available.
#1
Amen, NS. Good article and good comments. I know the motives behind the present course, but history would predict failure. I guess we can always say we tried. The only thing that this cult understands is brutal force. We need to apply that now. They certainly intend to if/when they become capable.
#2
It's like listening to my uncle in 1967. I thought he fell from a cherry tree and that influenced his faculties. I was a kid, it was a brave new world albeit jetsons paradigm did not materialize at the time and probably won't for some time.
I laughed, thinking how in this modern world people (certain kind) can indulge in such a lunacy. I still thought he was not correct in 1990.
#3
Our real mistake is not making it clear enough that we will indeed implement that alternative if pushed far enough.
This is Bush's one great failing. The nuclear option is the fulcrum of all other levers we apply in the Middle East. Not making this plain only emboldens our enemies and needlessly complicates our efforts. Were the situation reversed, atomic weapons would have already been used against us. That we so cautiously refrain from any allusion to them is a disservice to our soldiers and the security of our nation.
Life consists of choices, and no choice is graver than war or peace. The 9/11 assault on New York City and Washington, D.C. posed such a choice. Should we go to war against bin Laden and the Taliban? The answer had to be Yes or No. Those who deny that the President of the United States was confronted with that choice are not morally serious. They do not live in this world.
In the days after 9/11 it was clear that no criminal prosecution could work, because the Taliban baldly lied to the world about hiding al Qaeda and bin Laden. Thus the only choices for the United States were to do nothing, or to change the Taliban regime to get at al Qaeda. Doing nothing would have rendered us more of a target. Thus the war in Afghanistan was the moral choice to makeindeed, the only moral choice. The alternative to fighting and killingremember, this is the real worldwas helplessness.
In this world, helpless superpowers are just shark bait. We fought, and we were right to fight.
Once the Taliban were thrown out, the Administration faced another hard choice. Two hateful regimes were known to support the kind of terrorism that endangered this country. Dealing with them was going to be much more difficult. Saddam Husseins regime was so thoroughly permeated by lies and fear among its own denizens that gaining clear intelligence was simply impossible. Certainty about Saddams WMDs was just as illusory as certainty about the exact nature of his relationship with al Qaeda. Even insiders to Saddams hall of mirrors were kept in ignorance thats how he ruled, by sowing confusion, terror and lies.
Yet no sane person could doubt that Saddam had terrorist connections, and that he tried to get his hands on nukes as far back as the late 1970s, when his first nuclear reactor was built by the French. So the question had to be faced: Is Afghanistan enough? Or should we also knock down Saddam?
Now this is the real worldnot the dream world of those who believe they know all the answers. The United States faced another agonizing choice, where every avenue had its risks. Knocking over Saddam was full of danger and a failure to act was also dangerous. Passivity wouldnt fix this. Pacifism wouldnt solve it. You had to do something or get off the pot. Either way you could be wrong.
The idea that the Administration twisted intelligence about Saddam is grotesquebecause US intelligence has never been able to pinpoint hidden WMDs. On nukes the CIA has been consistently wrong, ever since it was stunned by Stalins atmospheric nuclear explosions in the 1950s. Stalin had spies like Klaus Fuchs high in the Manhattan Project, simply stealing our bomb designs. The Soviets could therefore build their nukes much faster than we expected.
Thats the record: The CIA failed to pinpoint WMD programs in the case of Stalin and Mao, and decades later with Libya, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and now presumably Iran. Who needs to twist intelligence if it wont tell you anything anyway? It is pure delirium from the fever swamps, and of course it evades what adults know all too well: that we are forced as moral actors to make choices in the face of unavoidable gaps in our knowledge. Harvard Business School calls it decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Or as Joan Rivers used to say, Oh, grow up!
Our top decision makers therefore have to act in the absence of perfect knowledge. The inherent uncertainty about WMDs set the pattern for the Cold War. That is why Mutually Assured Destruction became a necessity: because we could not predict a massive ICBM attack and act to prevent it. Kremlinologists used to try to read the latest power-shifts in Moscow by looking at news photos of Breznhevs pudgy apparatchiks in their fur hats and greatcoats, waving from the top of Lenins Tomb. That became a joke during the Cold War because they always got it wrong.
Well, here we are again. Uncertainty applies just as much to Islamofascist threats. Everything we do (or fail to do) involves gambles. And as much as the higher-ups of the CIA deserve criticism for constantly back-stabbing the Bush Administration, they cannot be blamed for failing to penetrate what Winston Churchill called a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. No intelligence agency can simply use magic to pull reliable facts from a welter of imponderables. It hasnt been done. It probably cant be done. You certainly cant bet your country on it.
The Left, the media, and the Democrats are still steeped in denial of those simple, stubborn facts. Maybe reality is just too frightening for them. Whatever it is, to live in such denial is to surrender any claim to moral seriousness. It utterly disqualifies one to be a decision maker. We can thank our lucky stars that Bush, Blair and Cheney are adults.
So we are left with the Cheney Criterion: If there is a one percent chance that leaving Saddam in power would subject the West to nuclear terrorism, we would choose to change his bloody regime. The US and UK acted in the full knowledge that we might be wrong about our facts about a closed regimeand if we were, we would be screamed at for years and years by the International Leftthe New York Times, the WaPo, KozKidz, the Guardian, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and all the yellow bellies in Europe.
Bush, Blair and Cheney did not have the luxury of pretending that hard choices can be wished away. That is what Harry Truman meant about the buck stopping here, in the Oval Office.
The greatest disappointment since 9/11/01 has been the total moral vacuity of the Lefta complete and utter nullityboth here and in Europe. Today, five years later, psychological denial still rules the day, and the few Democrats who raise their heads above the screaming mob are chased out, like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller.
One-third of American voters are still being suckered by the left-wing media, who live in some sort of Toon-Town where you can Have your Cake and Eat it Too, where Lunches are Free and Health Care is Too, and where there are no ideological killer movements in this world, and to achieve World Peace you just have to point your finger at the Warmongers and scream really loud. The Left is now populated by mewling, puking infants, as William Shakespeare put it, utterly lacking an understanding of the world as it is.
It is a sad sight to behold. We need unity, not denial. As it is, the Left has become a Fifth Column, fighting the civilized world and busily explaining away danger. The New York Times can get away with sabotaging our fight for survival against the worst fascist movement since you-know-who. The Left is even descending to Nazi slogans and scapegoating Jews. A generation ago, who would have believed it?
Yet the world keeps moving. Yesterdays decisions are past, and we have to live with their consequences. It is five years since the outrages of 9/11. The elected Iraqi government has Saddam on trial in Baghdad, but Iran is speeding toward nuclear weapons. For almost three decades the Mullahs have been shouting Death to Israel! Death to America! at the top of their lungs- ever since a feckless Jimmy Carter allowed Khomeini to take over the geostrategic fulcrum of ancient Persia.
And liberals are still telling us that Tehran doesnt really mean it. How do they know that?
In the loudmouth department Ahmadinejad even out-does Saddam. The AP just quoted him as saying:
You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation If you do not return to monotheism and worshipping god and refuse to accept justice then you will burn in the fire of the nations fury, Ahmadinejad said.
I officially announce that Iran has joined the worlds nuclear countries.
We can forget about national unity in facing Tehran, too. The demented Left will never understand that we must make our choicesagainwith gaps in our knowledge. Because the Mullahs are expert at psychological warfarelyingwe will not know what decisions are right for a long time. All we know for sure is that the mewling, puking infants of the Left will blame any adults in sight, for the anxieties of having to live in the real world.
And yet, who would choose to put the screaming infants in charge?
It'd be nice if it were true but I don't believe a word of it. This is just more of the minuet. Hat tip to Orrin Judd who thinks this is for real.
Iran has finally blinked, reportedly agreeing to a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as a confidence-building measure in response to growing international pressure.
This is a welcome development that can potentially take the wind out of the sails of the ship of sanctions planned by the US and its allies at the United Nations Security Council. A diplomat close to talks between the European Union high representative on foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, and Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Larijani, in Vienna made the announcement on condition of anonymity.
According to the source, Larijani did not rule out the possibility that Iran would cease uranium enrichment for a month or two. Iran failed to fulfill the requirement of the international community to cease uranium enrichment by August 31, and its case is now before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/13/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iran steps back from the brink
Journalist steps further into delusion.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/13/2006 0:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There's always LUGGAGE-GATE > e.g. Norkies using planes to transport weapons + nuke equipment, when WMDS-techs absolutely positively have to be there over-nite, or at least while France is leading UNIFIL2.
#3
According to the source, Larijani did not rule out the possibility that Iran would cease uranium enrichment for a month or two.
That's it? That's the big breakthrough? LOL. EU doinkers.
Ironically, precisely at the time Larijani was disclosing this important information to Solana, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told the Iranian press that returning to the past case of suspension was not "a reality".
LOL. Same old thing. Yeah, just ignore the friggin' gorilla in the room. The surreal stupidity of "diplomats" is amazing. Add in the institutional inability to do anything but babble, pander, and cower, and you get this epic farce.
#4
I'll repeat (big surprise!) what I said about Iran on 9-11:
Iran will do anything, say anything, sign any agreement, attend any talks necessary for whatever length of time if it stalls military intervention long enough for them to fabricate atomic weapons. Nothing else even remotely comes close on their agenda in terms of this priority.
They would stuff the 12th imam straight back down his well if it delayed their nuclear aspirations even a single millisecond.
To think otherwise is the height of suicidal folly.
One Word, Two Meanings
Kim du Toit
September 13, 2006
6:06 AM
Ive just about had it up to here with Lefties complaining that when we call them on their latest line of crap, were impugning their patriotism or some such nonsense.
Heres the intrinsic problem, and its why America is so divided as a nation: we conservative/Red Staters and you liberal/Blue Staters have diametrically-opposed visions of what constitutes the Patria.
Our patria is a representative republic, founded on pretty much immutable Constitutional principle; your patria is a popular democracy with a living Constitution.
Our patria is a capitalist society with low, limited and broad-based taxation; your patria is a neo-socialist society with embedded wealth redistribution policies (through onerous graduated tax rates, incremental taxes and inheritance taxes).
Our patria values private property ownership; your patria would prefer that most property belong to the State.
Our patria believes in a State welfare policy which offers a helping hand only to those in genuine need; your patria redefines need as anyone who asks for it.
Our patria values private gun ownership; your patria would prefer that officers of the State be the only armed entity.
Our patria believes in self-reliance; your patria prefers to keep people as wards of the State.
Our patria believes in sovereign nationality; your patria insists that national boundaries are irrelevant.
Our patria believes in devolving political power downward as much as possible; your patria concentrates political power upwards.
Our patria believes in a robust, America-first foreign policy; your patria prefers accommodationism.
Our patria would prefer to fight evil decisively; your patria believes that we have brought most of the evil upon ourselves, and that evil is a relative term anyway.
Our patria has a legal system where judges uphold the law; your patria has judges who implement public policy by fiat.
Our patria is a colorblind society; your patria favors tokenism, separatism and affirmative action.
Our patria is a place where personal advancement depends on ability and desire; your patria is envious of the successful and is constantly trying for equality of outcome.
Our patria believes in a strong military; your patria thinks militarism is evil.
To make this as succinct as possible:
Our patria is America; your patria is Europe.
But most importantly:
Our patria is the longest-lasting political institution of its kind ever attempted by mankind; your patria has failed miserably in every place ever attempted.
With differences so radical, its little wonder that the word patriotism has become essentially meaningless.
#2
Remember, FASCIST in Clinton/Leftspeak is BOTH HATED DESPICABLE HITLERIST/NAZI = WELL MEANING BUT ERROR/MISTAKE-PRONE LIMITED COMMUNIST-TOTALITARIAN-GOVERNMENTIST, depending on the MSM Poll of the moment. The antithesis of a LIMITED COMMIE is a FULL COMMIE. Left > America = Amerika is a Socialist country which must choose between Limited National Communism verssus FULL COMMUNISM, the Error-ridden NANNY STATE vs the SAFE SECURE POLICE-ARMY STATE. Rest assured it remains yours and all Amerikans fault you didn't uhderstand what Great/Saint Bill Clinton really Really REALLY R-E-A-L-L-Y MEANT WHEN HE KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY LIED, MISLED, AND DECEIVED YOU + ALL AMERICA = AMERIKA. ITS ONLY MEANINGLESS, BUBBLEGUM, GEE WILLICKERS BEAVER MR. WILSON + MARY ANN, POLITIX/POLISCHTICH, isn't it, when Bill says he's POTUS by fraud. MARSHA MARSHA MARSHA...
#3
Definitely worth a look and a think. I'm proud just knowing they're out there.
The tacit looks of approval and the subtle courtesys from strangers are my strongest memories of returning in October 1968.
The anti-war crowd and critics just weren't important to take seriously then, as they are now.
The USA will survive in spite of them.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/13/2006 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Betcha if the editors of the NYT did that in 1942, after they were drafted, they'd been clearing bunkers on Okinawa in 1945, if they lived that long.
#3
Don't forget impeaching FDR for causing or forcing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor + not making peace wid Japan before Midway + US losses + not modernizing the War-Navy Depts
"sufficiently" during the Depression + pre-Pearl/Midway INTEL failures + failing to protect the biotic enviro of Midway Island from both Amer + Japanese bombs and bullets + being in a wheelchair, i.e. NOT properly representing the proper Socialist Man/Amerikan Citizen-Comrade + post-PH NOT obeying the League of Nations + waging war against a Japan > no threat to CONUS per se. ITS ONLY MIDWAY, ONLY WAKE, ONLY GUAM + MANILA, ETAL. NOT A DE FACTO US MAINLAND STATE OR CITY. FDR is waging an ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, CRIMINAL IMPERIALIST "WAR FOR COCONUTS/BANANAS" - AMERICA AND ONLY AMERICA MUST UNILATERALLY = MULTILATERALLY $$$ SUPPORT THE WORLD-WIDE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WHILE HAVING NO PACIFIC OR ASIAN OR INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS AND WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE LEAGUE IS USING AMER TAX DOLLARS, D *** IT. ITS HITLER + TOJO'S + MUSSOLINI'S + UNCLE JOE STALIN'S, ETC. BIZZ HOW THEY SPEND AMERICA'S $$$.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
