#9
I can see how Blixie could see it this way. He can't seem to find/see any evidence of nuclear weapons or other WMDs so, naturally, global warming must be more dangerous than something he can't find/see since he knows that it's occurring just like (former future)President Al does.
Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious.
With the Shia majority in Iraq now running the country, the Arabs now have to confront Iran directly. And that they are doing. Saudi Arabia is supporting the Palestinian Fatah organization against the Iranian supported Hamas. Saudi Arabia is also using its money to support Sunni Arab, and Christian, factions in Lebanon, against Hizbollah, the Shia minority and its Iranian backers. Saudi Arabia is also giving support to the Sunni Arab majority in Syria. For decades, the Saudis tolerated the Shia minority that ran Syria. No more. The situation has changed, especially with Iran gaining speed in its effort to build nuclear weapons.
Yummy red-on-red about to begin, get yer seats and yer programs ...
The Saudis are even, secretly, cooperating with the Israelis. Iran has always been seen as a greater danger to Israel than the surrounding Sunni Arab nations. Hizbollah, which is a Lebanese Shia organization, made a name for itself during its disastrous attack on Israel last Summer. Although Hizbollah lost by every measure, they won in the arena of public opinion. Both the Israelis and Saudi Arabs (and Sunni Arabs in general) hated that. Proof that the enemy of my enemy....
The removal of Saddam has already crippled al Qaeda throughout the Islamic world. The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world. Now the Saudis are mobilizing against that other terrorist backer; Iran. The Saudis are committing over $100 billion to this battle, and doing it out of the purest of motives; self interest.
#1
The sight of American troops in Iraq enraged al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals in general. This was the one thing these maniacs could not tolerate. They all flocked to Iraq, began killing lots of Moslems, and after a year or so of that, plummeted in the popularity ratings throughout the Moslem world.
#1
Very interesting article. Yes, he concerns me on social issues. But the more I think about it, the more I think he may be the right man at the right time.
Listen, he's dead on in the WoT. This article makes me believe he's a fiscal conservative, something even President Bush has not been accused of. I would hope he'd let the social issues work themselves out.
For example, abortion will ONLY be settled in the Supreme Court now (since it started there). Thus, the only affect he may have as Pres would be judicial nominees, 2 of which President Bush has already nominated himself. On "gay rights", I assume he'd let the States settle that themselves, and obey the "will of the people" who overwhelmingly deny it when it's put to a vote (even in liberal states like OR and WA). Really, the only "conservative" issue left where he may play a role would be gun control.
But, who's our alternative? Hillary and/or Obama would seize guns faster than Giuliani. The only other Republican option is John McCain, and he's just as liberal on social issues as Giuliani. I haven't really heard much, but I wonder what Rudy's stance is on illegal immigration? He's such a tough guy on enforcing the laws, that I've gotta wonder if he'd push for some real enforcement at the border. At the very least, he'd definitely have a better shot than milquetoast McCain.
I absolutely HATE picking "the lesser of two evils". And, I'm extremely interested in the "social issues" discussed (especially abortion and stem cell research). But, thinking through this to it's complete logical conclusion, I wonder if Giuliani is "my type of guy" in the end. Especially in light of how litte effect the President has on those listed social issues (abortion, gay rights, gun grabbing, etc.).
Posted by: BA ||
01/25/2007 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
this guy took the reigns of the USA on 9-11, a TRUE leader, I would say VERY electable.
Posted by: bk ||
01/25/2007 10:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I dont agree with everything about him but I would support and vote for him a THOUSANDS times before I would vote for McBackstabber or "No-Nuts" Hagel.
#4
Dinkins declared: If we had a police officer on every other corner, we couldnt stop some of the random violence that goes on, since it resulted from poverty and racism, not poor policing. Accordingly, Dinkins wanted to turn the police into social workers. His police commissioner, Lee Brown, believed that cops should stop reacting to crime and become neighborhood problem solvers.
And this is the exact analysis applied by the leftards to the supposedly mysterious causes of "terrorism" and their exact prescription for a solution: UN/Starfleet/nursery school hand-holding.
#5
No, he isn't. I don't vote for gun grabbers. If it come down to a vote between Clinton and Giuliani, I will vote for whatever nutjob the Libertarians are running.
#6
The gun issue is an emotional one, just like Stem cell and abortion. These are issues that can only be resolved at the Supreme courts and not by prez mandate, if we think he can mandate radical gun reform we are kidding ourselves and Clinton would have done it. This would hit the supreme court in seconds. Giuliani needs to be looked at with regard to deeper issues, the WOT, economy, energy, budget, etc... and let the emotional hot button issues for the courts.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/25/2007 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
These are issues that can only be resolved at the Supreme courts and not by prez mandate, if we think he can mandate radical gun reform we are kidding ourselves and Clinton would have done it.
This is exactly right. Besides, some States, like Texas have gun rights solidly incorporated into their State Constitutions.
Posted by: Chuck Darwin ||
01/25/2007 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
How about a Rudy/Bolton ticket??? Boy would that trickF&*k the Dems
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/25/2007 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Unfortunately, Secret Master, a vote for the third party is usually more of a non-vote for the lesser of two evils, or actually, a vote for the worst of the three.
Clinton was elected because a lot of middle-of-the-roaders voted for Perot. Think how different the world could have been.
Your right. Your choice. Secret ballot. N'uff said.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/25/2007 14:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This article doesn't seem to say anything about the border, immigration or amnesty for illegal aliens. But from what I remember about what I've heard or read about Giuliani in the past he is soft on this issue which makes him unacceptable to me. If a donk is the only alternative I might vote donk just to teach the Republicans a lesson about ignoring their conservative base. Sorry, folks. I know that's a hard choice but I figure the only reason for not closing the border and deporting illegals is that the politicians are crooked and I don't see that much difference between crooked donks and crooked republicans. No way could I vote for McCain. Just no way in hell. Not McCain or Giuliani either if his position on this issue is what I think it is. If the big boys don't want Hillary in the White House they better get wise about the border. Think I'm wrong? Maybe you don't remember when California was a red state. We gave you Pete Wilson, Sam Hayakawa, George Murphy, B1 Bob Dornan, Dick Nixon and Ronald Reagan. This is the state that passed Proposition 187 only to see the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals shoot it down. Jimmuh Carter never even bothered to campaign here. We would vote for a republican if he was the right republican. But now our demography has changed, you know what I mean, and we don't see Bush doing the right thing for us. We have to suffer with crowded schools, hospital emergency rooms that look like the third world and constant demands for more "affordable" housing. A lot of our hospitals are closing because they can't afford to care for the indigent. Bush has written us off as a blue state and we may, in fact, be lost. But it didn't have to be this way and if he'd secure the border he might get a few more votes out of us. Otherwise he is likely to lose a few more states the same way.
#11
Actually, EU6305, that's also true in solid red (current day) states too. I noted a STARK difference in the makeup of the delivery room area in between our 1st and 2nd future ranters. A lot more spanish being spoken because of the federal mandate that they have to treat them if they come in the E.R. And, this is Georgia, not a "border state" like Cali, TX or AZ. It may be happening quicker there, but trust me, it's everywhere.
Posted by: BA ||
01/25/2007 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You are right EU6305. Giuliani is soft on immigration issues. He's no Conservative. Pro-gun control, pro-special rights for gays, pro-abortion, pro anmesty for illegals etc. Also, a New York mayor doesn't sell real well West of the Mississippi. I hope the Repubs find a Conservative in time or its gonna be President Hillary. Gulp!
#13
I'm not a big fan of either one, but a McCain/Guliani stands a pretty good chance of beating the donks. Sure, they're not what we want, but they stand a good chance of grabbing a monster portion of the middle, and that might be what the 'pubs are looking at.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/25/2007 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone - a "leftist," if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.
But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, "dissent is patriotic," and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.
That's why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.
But what about "patriotic terrorists?"
That's kinda neat. . . .
Are you a patriotic terrorist?
If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who've taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs - rather than simply talking about them at Spago. If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they'd all be wearing cute black vests - but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/25/2007 14:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I just call them traitors. And traitors should die. In pain. Lots and lots of pain. Pain by nerve induction?
#1
Whazis guy smokin', anyway? Don't he know it's a unwinnable quagmire?
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/25/2007 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I don't know how much of the new manual is informed by General Petraeus' two notable failures in Iraq: building a brittle edifice of government in Mosul that collapsed at the first challenging puff,
That's one way of looking at it. But when Petraeus left Mosul, his successors were unable to maintain the coalition. The Sunni tribal chiefs drifted away from the conference table, and without their cooperation the terrorists were able to regain a foothold. The transition was completed when we pulled troops out of Mosul to participate in Fallujah II and when the terrorists who escaped Fallujah regrouped in Mosul.
and the inadequate training and equipping of the Iraqi army due to corruption and mismanagement.
It's likely that the early attempts to train up an Iraqi army were doomed no matter who was in charge. It takes time for change to take hold.
The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows--all emit a Stygian gloom about America.
Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.
Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.
To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that "Democrats--and even some Republicans--scoffed at his policy." "Scoff" is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer's byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all "support the troops."
Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.
"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."
Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. In his SOTU rebuttal, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb ripped into the current economy, saying it reminded him of the early 1900s: "The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Ah, we've fallen to the level of czarist Russia.
You know the pessimism has turned manic when no one is allowed to depart the asylum. Sen. John McCain's support for Iraq and the new Bush plan is now being described in press reports as not only costing him support in the polls (the asylum's inkblot of reality) but worse, the support of campaign contributors.
It is a phenomenon fascinating to behold. Its causes are multiple, but here are several:
Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.
The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.
The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.
The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."
As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.
On the "Charlie Rose Show" this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: "My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence a human problem."
At our current juncture, Gen. Keane's words probably rub many the wrong way. But there's a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.
In 1966, Sen. George Aiken delivered a speech on Vietnam famously translated for history as "declare victory and go home.' " On current course, it looks like we may declare defeat and go home.
Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
A few weeks ago, a fleeting comment was made by one of the senior officials of Palestines Islamic Jihad movement regarding what was said of the relationship between Hamas, prominent figures of the Palestinian National Authority (PA) and of the Fatah movement. The question posed to the Islamic Jihad was one concerning its solidarity, backing and support of the Hamas movement. What was both strange and blatantly striking was that the comment emphasized that the Islamic Jihad movement was unlike that of Hamas. Something caught my attention in this brief commentary; it has become customary for statements such as these to be resounding and zealous, always implying the phrases common destiny and all in the same boat, etc.
However, a closer examination of the Islamic Jihad movement in Palestines recent history would reveal monumental truths and alarming facts about the magnitude of Irans unbelievable infiltration of the Islamic Jihad movement and the projects that it sponsors and supports. Its no secret that a substantial number of symbols and leaders of the Palestinian Jihad were impressed by the figure and experience of Khomeini, especially after the Iranian Revolution. Gradually, some of these personages declared their adoption of Shiism, and their following of the religious references and guides of Irans seminaries (hawza). This is a strange precedent seeing as Palestine had never encountered the presence of Shiism on its lands before. A number of student unions, charities, trade unions and religious authorities affiliated to the Islamic Jihad movement started to promulgate Shiism as a doctrine, ideology, culture, and a policy under a severe Iranian guide.
The reluctance of Palestines Islamic Jihad movement to participate in serious political mobility, its gradual withdrawal from the political arena and its focus on its own infrastructure was almost as if it were attempting to emulate Hezbollah's project, which was undertaken in Lebanon. Historically, Iran is not characteristically known for its serious and effective support of the Palestinian cause. What it demonstrated of thunderous marches and organized chants, launched after the Friday prayers to revile the United States and Israel of which the threats were solely for the mobilization of the masses, which in turn was aimed for media consumption and towards the consecration of the Iranian Revolution and its rulers.
Currently, the process of a search for a new reality on the ground in the Palestinian territories is gradually taking place. Despite the conspicuous Iranian financial and moral support of Hamas, Iran is fully aware that the true power and backing of Hamas comes from the Muslim Brotherhood movement and the global organization that leads it, of which Iran is a part. Iran is fully aware that infiltrating Hamas and diverting its support in favor of Iran is a difficult and complex endeavor. It also realizes that Fatah movement and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which are all projects that aim at achieving liberation, do not rely on religious discourse and culture. Consequently, Iran strongly depends on the Islamic Jihad movement to effectuate the new and aspired status quo that will propagate its project on the land of the most important of Arab causes. Ostensibly, Iran seems to provide a resistance that is both free and noble whereas in reality it is a secretive and underhand attempt sheathed in political obscurity that offers a new chapter of national promotion of the so-called crescent.
Mr. Shobokshi hosts the weekly current affairs program Al Takreer on Al Arabiya, and in 1995, he was chosen as one of the "Global Leaders for Tomorrow" by the World Economic Forum. He received his B.A. in Political Science and Management from the University of Tulsa.
Imam Fawaz Damra, who the FBI calls a threat to US national security, was deported from the US to Palestinian Authority controlled areas in Judea and Samaria, a.k.a. the West Bank, via Jordan. While crossing into Israel, Damra was detained by the IDF, questioned, and then released by Israeli courts claiming there is not enough evidence to detain him further.
The fact is that Damra is a very dangerous man, the FBI calls a threat to US national security. Considering that Damra is more of a threat to Israel than he ever was to the US, and that Damra will be in position to take a direct role in leading terrorist attacks on Israel, the decision to allow Damra to roam free will surely be remembered as a low point in Israeli history.
Damra was found guilty in the US of lying about his past on his US immigration form, hiding his links to terrorist organizations and persecuting Jews. The case centered on video taped sermons in which Damra openly called for Jihad against the sons of monkeys and pigs, the Jews. These tapes were sent across the US to incite violence and raise money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Other charges and allegations against Damra include a link to Osama Bin Laden, a counterfeiting operation at mosque he led in Brooklyn, working with Sami al-Arian to raise money for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, money laundering, funding families of suicide bombers, and obstructing an FBI investigation,
Damra also associated with both El Sayyid Nosair, who murdered Rabbi Meir Kahane and was involved with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as with the "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman. While all this was going on, Damra was meeting with local Jewish community leaders, charming them with rhetoric of peace and then simultaneously calling for their deaths in his Arabic sermons.
Thus, Israel has granted the terrorists a new ideological leader, one with instant credibility specifically because he was deported from the US and held for questioning by the IDF. Damra will easily gather an instant following in PA controlled areas, and will be able to raise large sums of money to support terror via his network of worldwide supporters. Damra will also be able to make and distribute as many video tapes as he wants with impunity.
Whatever knowledge and experience Damra has in counterfeiting from his Brooklyn mosque days is an additional threat to Israel. The FBI showed Damra printed currency inside his own mosque, but the details appear classified by the US. As such, we do not know exactly what Damra knows about counterfeiting, but considering the PAs financial situation, and their desire to destroy Israels economy, such skills and knowledge are likely be appreciated by the Abbas and PA.
On the international stage, while the PAs welcoming of Damra is not a violation of the Oslo accords, it is likely Damra will become a catalyst for incitement to violence, which is a violation of Oslo. Additionally, Damra may have aspirations of surpassing the fame of his old friend Osama Bin Laden, if not his deeds.
Israel, however, has done more than just free an emerging terror leader. By allowing the PA to grant asylum to Damra following his deportation, Israel has de-facto granted the PA the ability to take part in international sovereignty and border treatiesrights that only sovereign nations have. Thus, Israel has once again granted more authority to the PA than it has to itself with limited home-rule authority of Jewish cities in Judea and Samaria.
Israel failed to deny a border crossing privilege to a known threat, allowing Damra to freely roam where he poses an obvious threat to international peace and stability. So far, the only thing Israel has not done to welcome Damra is send him a dozen roses. The best we can hope for now is that Israel keeps a close eye on Damra, to say the least.
Fred Taub is a boycott consultant and is the President of Boycott Watch (www.boycottwatch.org) which monitors and reports about consumer boycotts, and Divestment Watch (www.divestmentwatch.com) which exposed the illegal nature of the divest-from-Israel campaign as well as why divestment is bad for the US and is anti-peace.
What follows is the main list of "rogue/suspect" anti-spyware applications, none of which can be recommended for anti-spyware protection... Devious sons-of-guns.
#4
I'm pretty happy with AVN free edition. It runs like McAfee used to before it became intrusive bloatware.
If you want to try it out, don't download the trial version. Hunt around until you find the free version, which is half-hidden on their web site. The trial version has nag screens and gets annoying.
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.
Bringing democracy to Iraq has forced the Islamic world to confront the terrorism monster they have created. Before Saddam was taken down, the Gulf Arabs depended on Saddam, as loathsome as he was, to keep Iran busy. Since 1979, Shia radicals have been running Iran, and supporting Islamic terrorism. But most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis who, as a matter of pride and principle, despise Shias, and Iranians. But with Saddam gone, the Iranians have gotten more ambitious. 
