He'd be right at home in our Democratic Party . . .

While reading this article about the sinking of the South Korean military vessel, I couldn't help but think back to the irresponsible, contrived attacks on George W. Bush's GWOT policy:

In South Korea, where attitudes toward the North go to the core of the country's politics, opposition politicians have expressed deep skepticism with the official line that Pyongyang was at fault. Choi Moon Soon of the opposition Democratic Party, a member of the National assembly, is typical. He told TIME on August 13 that he believes the ship simply ran aground, and that the government concocted the whole North Korea attack story as a way to influence local elections that were held on June 2. (Elections which President Lee's ruling party actually lost.) He says he doesn 't believe the government will ever publish the report, and questions even whether it actually exists.

As TIME magazine reports, Choi Moon Soon (lyrical, huh?) is wrong. He would make a great "truther."

I'm not a "Bush follower" but . . .

Terrorism - Salon.com:

. . . Seriously: if you were a Bush follower, wouldn't you feel as though you were owed a major apology for all the accusations and the fuss that came from Democrats and media figures, accusing you of supporting radical and Constitution-shredding policies when, it turns out, they actually crave those policies in order to feel safe? Doesn't all of this bolster the Republican claim that those attacks on the Bush administration for civil liberties abuses were not due to genuine conviction, but rather for partisan gain (in the case of Democratic officials) and cheap, preening, wet-finger-in-the-air moralizing (in the case of media stars)?

Say what? Never let the jihadists see you sweat

Foreign policy is a tough nut, but in light of reports that the Obama Administration is shuttering the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in response to purported Al Qaeda threats, this story is interesting, wherein Democrats claim that Obama's reaction to the Gentleman Jihadist attack was intended to deny a propaganda victory to our enemies ("Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch" - POLITICO.com):

"Imagine if the president had freaked out," the White House ally said, suggesting a dramatic Obama reaction could have provoked chaos in the air travel system.

But that was the moment when some Democrats began to grow concerned about the White House’s strategy.

The muted response, allies said, was aimed at denying al Qaeda a propaganda victory, and at demonstrating how little the terrorists can now disrupt Americans’ lives. “The president and his team have done a good job at handling the situation given the competing interests at play. He’s been forceful without the bellicose chest bumping of the last administration,” said Jim Manley, the chief spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “One thing he’s got going for him is Republicans have no credibility on this issue when their sending out former Vice President Cheney you know they’ve hit the bottom of the barrel.”

Yeah, imagine.

Re. the Gentleman Jihadist: We dodged a bullet

Because of the Christmas holiday, I haven't read a whole lot about The Gentleman Jihadist story, but it is interesting to watch the reaction of politicians related to the whole matter.*

To be clear, I believe it would have been amazing for "authorities" to have been able to avert this act by the Gentleman Jihadist, so I am restrained about casting blame for what might have happened. (I'm also henceforth restrained from whining about not being able to take my 3.5 oz tube of toothpaste in my carry-on). That being said, those dismissive of the dangers we face and shrilly opposed to almost any preemptive security measures need to own certain aspects of this threat.

For example, in a NYTimes report we read:("Security System Failed, Napolitano Acknowledges" - NYTimes.com):

Privacy advocates, for example, have tried to stop or at least slow the introduction of advanced checkpoint screening devices that use so-called millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger’s body, so officers can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been hidden. Security officers, in a private area, review the images, which are not stored. Legislation is pending in the House that would prohibit the use of this equipment for routine passenger screening.

To date, only 40 of these machines have been installed at 19 airports across the United States — meaning only a tiny fraction of passengers pass through them. Amsterdam’s airport has 15 of these machines — more than just about any airport in the world — but an official there said Sunday that they were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United States, for a reason she did not explain. (emphasis added)

And I guess this is the rub in wanting to treat Jihadism as a criminal matter. Innocent until proven guilty falls short in a war context. But it surely fits the squishy, soft-headed mindset of today's Left. Not to mention it's an awfully easy pose to strike for the party who is not sitting in the Oval Office. But let's be clear that we dodged a bullet in this instance.






*President Obama--who is on vacation, hasn't said much, and that's okay from my perspective; though I don't recall a parenthetical statement such as "the White House Press office traveling with the President" in reports about Bush. Correct me if I'm wrong. Gosh, does this guy ever stop working on behalf of the American people?

Hope and Change for Jihadists!

I thought this was a peculiar quote in an article about the failed Detroit bomber:("Wealthy, quiet, unassuming: the Christmas Day bomb suspect" - The Independent):

Another significant factor is the report that the bomber was an engineering student at University College London. Dr Leivesley said that al-Qa'ida was recruiting people with engineering qualifications as well as highly placed scientists, particularly in the nuclear field.

"Al-Qa'ida is finding it difficult to recruit young people," she said. "And, interestingly, the election of Barack Obama is a factor in that, because, whatever you think of him as a president, the fact of him shows young people that there is an alternative to killing yourself. Al-Qa'ida is, however, targeting more highly skilled people." (emphasis added)

Whuh?

UK's Blair says Saddam ouster right, without WMDs

Yep.

Blair articulately defends his decision on Iraq. And it drives people on the Left crazy that one of their few elected leaders won't yield to their intimidation.

Who the grown-ups are (on foreign policy)

Andy McCarthy has a great op/ed about Congressional Dems' immature politics (Another Phony Scandal).

From the essay:

That is, while Democrats politicize “torture,” “domestic spying,” the Patriot Act, and now the CIA’s efforts to defeat al-Qaeda, Republicans are generally supporting Obama’s Pakistan policy for the greater good of protecting our national security.

Eventually, people do figure out who the grown-ups are.

About Cheney's "secret" program . . .

One story about the recently-revealed "secret program" (that "Cheney lied about" and Panetta (heroically!) reported and terminated) ominously states that the program was related to "assassinations." Well:

According to the Wall Street Journal, the program which Democrats were so angry about turns out to be an effort “to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives.” Excuse me, but this is the Democrats’ idea of a scandal? Most Americans would not only expect, but demand, that the CIA do everything in its power to kill al-Qaeda operatives before they strike our country. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones. These targeted killings are not assassinations — they are legitimate strikes against an enemy that has declared war on us and attacked us where we live.

Administration's recent strategic maneuver to the rear

Someone is probably keeping track of the Obama administration's various retreats from overheated campaign rhetoric about the GWOT (a campaign, the political one, not the military, which for the Democrats has lasted the past 8 years). Here's one "strategic maneuver to the rear" I spotted in a WSJ article this a.m. in relation to claims that CIA Director Panetta has admitted that the CIA misled Congress:

The flap over Mr. Panetta's recent disclosures reignites a broader debate between Congress and the executive branch over the limits of executive power. The release of the letters came the day before the House is scheduled to debate an intelligence bill that will test those limits once again.

The White House issued a veto threat on Wednesday over provisions in the bill that would require more expansive briefings of intelligence committee members on covert actions, taking a position against Democratic lawmakers and in line with what the Bush administration had advocated.

The provision would raise "significant executive privilege concerns," according to a White House policy statement. The broader bill contains several measures to bolster Congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

[Democrat House Member] Holt said he was surprised Mr. Obama continued to support the practice of more limited briefings.

Smacking down moralistic moral equivalency

A little history lesson (here) about ending WWII for Jon Stewart.

Is that a cricket I hear?

At least the WSJ is reporting some of the good news out of Iraq:

Good news out of Iraq is becoming almost a daily event: In just the past week, we learned that U.S. combat fatalities (five) dropped in July to a low for the war, that key leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have fled to the Pakistani hinterland, that troop deployments will soon be cut to 12 months from 15, and that Washington and Baghdad are close to concluding a status-of-forces agreement.

Now this: Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq.

That's good to hear.

Oh' Blackwater, keep on rollin' . . . or not

Perhaps I'm on a roll. After the Kelo-bashing post below which drew bi-partisan support over at TennesseeFree.com, I thought I'd post about a movie I watched on Comcast "On Demand" the other night: "Iraq For Sale."

From the movie's website (IraqforSale.org):

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

You can get an idea of the producer's (Robert Greenwald) "politics" by his filmography, and Iraq for Sale certainly has its share of MikeMoorish crocumentary gimmicks; nevertheless, I am troubled by the movie.

Not because I think we invaded Iraq as a sweet deal for Cheney's cronies. Not because I think the military industrial complex is running our government behind the scenes. Not because I think that the atrocities committed in the name of the U.S. are greater in number or more egregious than they were in other wars (as they say, "war is hell" and it often brings out the worst in a person--it's probably more accurate to say it manifests a person's true character).

Rather, the concerns the movie raised are whether we are able and willing to hold private companies going to war for us accountable, and whether the fact that the Pentagon is outsourcing so many services is a symptom of more than just valuing efficiency (indeed, it doesn't appear that these contractors are a better "value" for taxpayer's dollars. In sum, I don't think a policy of using contractors like this is immoral or indicative of some nefarious motive or inherently "Rethuglican"; however, it does not seem to be a policy that is working . . . to the degree that it may be a practice which is immoral to continue.

At least one reason for a Clinton supporter to support the Surge

Sidney Blumenthal was driving while intoxicated on the night before the NH primaries--and police say he was traveling 70 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Clinton aide, Blumenthal, accepts deal in DWI case:

"Blumenthal pleaded guilty March 28 to a standard, misdemeanor DWI charge. He was fined $900, and his driver's license revoked for 10 months. Blumenthal can seek to get his license restored after 120 days, however, if he completes and alcohol education program in Washington, D.C., court records show.
. . . .

Police negotiated a plea bargain in part because the arresting officer, Christopher Ditullio, was called up for service in Iraq, and would not have been available to testify, [Capt. Peter] Segal said."

Myths about McCain's comeback

Sorry, but this is a foolish statement ("Stealth fighter McCain plots 2008 comeback" - Yahoo! News):

"Once the Republican heir apparent, McCain's campaign plunged close to extinction this year, as a cash crunch and his unpopular support for the Iraq war and moderate line on illegal immigration took a toll."

(emphasis mine) McCain's support for the Iraq War only hurt him among Ron Paul supporters . . . no other Republican primary voters.

The writer later makes this statement, indicating that McCain's "comeback" is somehow related . . . maybe among his one-time supporters among the media elite, but--again, not among GOP primary voters:

Recently, he staked out fierce opposition to the use of torture on terror suspects, and unusually for a Republican candidate, called for a serious effort to tackle global warming.

Say thanks to the Troops

Regardless of your view on this war, I encourage you to visit this site to say thanks to someone serving in Iraq.


H/T: The Corner.

"Peace-loving" nut assaults Rice

Reading today about the assault of Condi Rice by an anti-war freak ("Protestor painted in 'blood' accosts Condoleezza Rice") reminded me of these prescient bits from Ann Coulter's column this week ("Have You Hugged An Islamo-Fascist Today?"):

Conservative speakers are constantly being physically attacked on college campuses -- including Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, David Horowitz and me, among others. Fortunately the attackers are Democrats, so they throw like girls and generally end up with their noses bloodied by pretty college coeds. But that doesn't make it right.

Michael Moore can waddle anywhere he wants in America without fear of violence from Republicans. But we still have to hear about every testy e-mail Paul Krugman ever
receives as if liberals are living in the black night of fascism. Any time Krugman wants to get into a "Most Vicious Hate Mail" contest, just say the word. You don't hear me sniffling.
. . . .

If liberals want to face real fascism, try showing up on a college campus and denouncing fascism.

Are Republicans Crazy? Is Doug Bandow a Republican?

Though his name seems to evoke "Conservative Pundit" from my memory banks, I have to admit I had lost sight of Doug Bandow. But over the transom today came this op/ed ("Are Republicans Crazy?") about the prescience of Ron Paul and the ignorance of all the "other" Republican candidates for president. I say "other" because I think Paul is a fair-weather Republican and his candidacy, if Republican, is quixotic.

If the title doesn't give you the gist of the article, the fact that the article's google pole position is held by antiwar.com should. But here's the thesis of the article:

"The bell is tolling for the GOP warmonger caucus. Unless the leading Republican presidential contenders join Ron Paul – soon – in detaching themselves from the failed Bush policies, many more Americans are likely to conclude that the Republicans are crazy. And to vote accordingly."

Bandow is beside himself that Republicans (not just the GOP presidential candidates) don't agree with him and Ron Paul and Usama Bin Laden about the Global war against Jihadists, and he r_e_p_e_a_t_e_d_l_y proclaims that Paul is not "blaming America" when he says that we are the subject of the Jihad because we have a military presence in that part of the world and because we have been bombing Iraq for the past decade. It sounds to me like Paul is saying that we are causing Jihadists to hate us or that we are forcing them to defend themselves, doesn't it to you?

But that is a semantic game Paul is playing and it isn't really the issue. We have interests in a stable middle east. Israel deserves our support. Oil is a commodity that we need to be able to buy. We cannot allow Jihadists to plot, scheme, train, and arm themselves unhindered in their war against us. A decisive number of GOP primary voters understand this; ergo, it stands to reason that all (save one) persons seeking to win a GOP primary understand (or at least pretend to understand) this.

But even a Republican candidate for president who doesn't view foreign affairs the same way as George W. Bush (or W's zionist neo-con puppetmasters!!!!) can appreciate that Republican voters balk at suggestions that Bush's motives for this war were nefarious; that the mistakes or misjudgments made in this war--as opposed to every other war in history, were extraordinary; or that we will be safe from Jihadist designs if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq (and are on our best Jihad-neutral behavior indefinitely).

Maybe if GOP primary poll samples included Liberal journalists and other pacifist-lite Americans Ron Paul would be polling higher than 2%. Maybe.

Person from same state as Bush pleads guilty . . .

Although I'm not sure that his state of residence belongs in the lead paragraph, it is good to see some this man and others being held to account for crimes against America.("In Surprise, Oilman Admits Iraq Kickbacks" - New York Times):

"Oscar S. Wyatt Jr., the Texas oilman accused of cheating the United Nations oil-for-food program, pleaded guilty yesterday to paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s government in 2001 to gain access to lucrative Iraqi oil contracts."

I sure hope he gets the maximum sentence of 24 months (he could've received 70 years if he had not entered a plea agreement).

But the phrasing of the first paragraph is odd because from all indications the United Nations (as an organization) was up to its elbows in the criminal activity. And speaking of tangled webs, I came across this report of another American businessman who paid Saddam for oil contracts:("The Sanctions: Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein"):

"Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq."

Second-stringer sucker-punch

Via Tennessee Politics Blog I hear that TN Congressman Marsha Blackburn got blind-sided by a seemingly irrelevant (though I am open to a rebuttal) question:

"Marsha Gets Embarassed on TV -- MSNBC's show 'Tucker' had a substitute host David Shuster the other night with the guest TN Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Marsha was on the show to criticize the New York Times for running an ad sponsored by MoveOn.org criticizing Gen. Petraeus. Shuster turned the table on the conversation when he asked Marsha if she knew the name of the last solider from her district to die in Iraq. She couldn't, but it turns out it's 18-year-old Jeremy Bohannon."

Turning the proverbial table is all well and good, and as skilled as Blackburn is at getting/using air time, I doubt she'll allow this to happen again, but I'm not sure that she ought to have been able to answer that question; what do you think?

History's treatment of Bushitler

I had the pleasure of hearing a presentation from Cal-Berkeley (Boalt Hall) Law Prof. John Yoo at a meeting of the Federalist Society--Nashville Chapter this evening. Yoo has worked in all three branches of the Federal Gov't, and--though he is a lawyer and legal scholar first, you probably at least know of him if you've been paying attention to politics over the last decade. From his bio:

[Yoo] was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism matters arising from the September 11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee under Chairman Orrin Hatch. Upon graduating from law school, professor Yoo served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.

His thesis tonight was that almost all of the "consensus" great presidents have pushed the envelope on executive powers, generally in response to great challenges.

Whether or not his thesis is true (I think it is), his lecture provided splendid historical context on the issue of how fascist or dictatorial or autocratic (or unprecedented?) George Dubya Bush's executive actions aren't.

For example, did you know that FDR authorized the wire-tapping every single phoneline in America, without a warrant, prior to WWII (here, here)? I figured not.

As I said above, Yoo argues that the American presidents viewed as "great" aggressively used their executive powers to defend America's interests during exceptionally challenging periods. Despite a 24/7/365 Left-wing demolition effort from the first Wednesday in November 2000 till today, it is interesting to consider how history will treat George W. Bush and his way-paving in the war against global Jihadists.