This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Foreign Policy

  • The surge comes to Washington

    The surge against the Administration has begun in earnest this week. Smelling a political defeat (instead of the military defeats they enjoy), the Democats have begun clinging to their only remaining weapons – deceit and the media. Eric Pfeifer in the Washington Times reports this morning that Joe Biden on Meet the Press yesterday, changed horses in midstream and declared that we need a date certain withdrawal;

    “I really respect him, but I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Mr. Biden said when asked about Gen. Petraeus’ expected recommendations. “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops, and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”

    Mr. Biden voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and previously advised against setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American forces.

    If he figures that Gen. Petraeus is wrong, why’d Biden vote for his confirmation a scant few months ago? Why is Biden bothering to listen to Petraeus?

    According to the Wall Street Journal’s Neil King and Greg Jaffe, Biden has been beseiged by reality, though;

    Senate Democrats, propelled by strong opposition to the war within their party, have tried for months to force a swifter withdrawal of U.S. forces. Those efforts won some Republican support, but not enough to overcome a presidential veto. Democrats now acknowledge there is little to no chance that enough moderate Republicans will defect to force a major change in strategy.

    “Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto there is nothing we can do to end this war,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, (D., Del.) on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Nothing he can do except keep talking down the war. The Washington Times’ Sharon Behn reports that the troops in Iraq say the surge is working but only barely;

    Many U.S. soldiers on the ground in Baghdad caution that improved security in the capital city will last only as long as the surge. If American troops were to leave, they say, the insurgents could be back within hours.

    U.S. forces broke up insurgent networks and curtailed the ability of terrorists to strike, said Sgt. Gregory Rayho, 30, of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the recipient of three Purple Hearts during his time in Iraq.

    His overall assessment is upbeat: “It is my opinion that the surge is working.”

    But he also said continued success in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, where his fellow soldiers patrol, depends on the continued presence of American troops. Should they be withdrawn, the future could be deadly.

    Why would the terrorists flow back into the void left by Americans? Is it because they anticipate a military victory? Of course not – they know the desparation of the situtation would only encourage the fifth columnists here in the US to whine and wring their hands and work against our victory with deception and lies.

    All for the sake of politics, according to Biden as quoted in the Washington Post;

    “What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. “Whether or not they’ll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen.”

    They haven’t made it difficult for terrorists in Iraq or terrorists in Afghanistan, or terrorists in Guantanamo – they’ve made it difficult for Republicans in Washington.

    And the Iraqis are asking us to stay, asking us for more time (hardly sounds like an occupation by “crusaders” does it);

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers Monday that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country.

    “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough,” he told parliament.

    “Despite the security improvement, we still need more efforts and time in order for our armed forces to be able to take over security in all Iraqi provinces from the multinational forces that helped us in a great way in fighting terrorism and outlaws.”

    But the Democrats would rather heed the advice of bin Laden (who sounds more like Al Gore everytime he broadcasts a new video, by the way) and leave the Middle East – the source of most of the world’s problems for decades. The Washington Post puts more emphasis on Ambassador Crocker’s report – because it will show less progress in the last three months;

    Yet despite the spotlight focused on what has become known as the Petraeus report, the testimony of the man sitting beside Petraeus at the witness table, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, may carry far more import for the long-term future of Iraq and the U.S. presence there. With little progress to recount in how the Iraqis have used the political “breathing space” that Bush promised his war strategy would create, Crocker’s inevitably more nuanced appeal for time and patience is likely to be the tougher sell.

    Yeah, cuz three months of piecing together a political solution for Iraq is an eternity, right? Petraeus will give the good news that the first part of the plan for Iraq is working - the part that needed to be accomplished first.

    According to Kamangir’s translation, the Democrats have already succeeded in emboldening the Iranians;

    The newly-assigned commander of the IRGC stated, “If the enemy succeeded in securing Iraq, they would definitely attack Iran. Fortunately, and thanks to Muslims of the region, they failed in this conspiracy.” He added “If they are not sure about their plans, that’s because of their failure in Iraq”. “The Islamic Iran has turned into a great regional power…and all world powers are anxious about the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran”

  • Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy failing

    The Washington Post’s lead story this morning is General Petraeus’ impending recommendation of drawing down one combat brigade from Iraq. The Weisman/Wright written piece begins;

    Army Gen. David H. Petraeus has indicated a willingness to consider a drawdown of one brigade of between 3,500 and 4,500 U.S. troops from Iraq early next year, with more to follow over the next months based on conditions on the ground, according to a senior U.S. official.

    The pullouts would be contingent on the ability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to sustain what the administration heralds as recent gains in security and to make further gains in stabilizing Iraq. President Bush signaled the possibility of drawdowns after visiting Anbar province earlier this week. After meeting with Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, Bush said he was told that “if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces.”

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have hit a brickwall in their “redeployment” scheme – the Republican Administration. From the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller;

    Rank-and-file Democrats in Congress are criticizing the party’s leaders for allowing the White House to sap momentum from the antiwar movement during the August recess.

    “The White House is taking great advantage of the Democrats not pushing back,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, California Democrat and co-founder of the antiwar Out of Iraq Caucus.

    “We need bolder steps from the Democrats,” she said. “The people of this country are waiting for some leadership — some bold leadership — from the people that they elected to be the majority of the House and the Senate.”

    Um, the people also elected the Republican Administration, Ms Woolsey, because they don’t trust Democrats to protect us and the country. I don’t know what bolder steps you can take – neither does the Democrat Leadership as quoted by the Washington Post;

    “Clearly, we don’t have the numbers to override the president’s vetoes, as has been clearly demonstrated,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), “nor do we expect to for a long time.”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

    So while the Democrats try to make the withdraw from Iraq look like their plan and their idea, the President is actually getting ahead of them and doing it without a time schedule from Congress and as the tactical situation permits – like he has planned to do all along. And the Democrats can’t keep their promise to force an immediate withdrawal of troops so they can have photos splashed across the front pages of newspaper of people climbing on the last helicopter out of the Baghdad Embassy in time for the election next Fall.

    But the Democrats are cherrypicking which reports they want to believe from WashTimes’ Miller;

    Democrats planned to seize upon other war studies presented this week that, in part, highlight failures of the fledgling Iraqi government, including a report on Iraqi security forces yesterday by an independent commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. commander in Europe.

    The report, however, did not support calls for a speedy troop withdrawal, which Democrats say would extract U.S. forces from a civil war and force the Iraqi government to take charge.

    Commission member John Hamre, president of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, told a House panel that continued U.S. military presence in Iraq safeguards the United States’ many strategic interests in the Middle East.

    “Every one of those interests would be seriously diminished if we have to crawl out or run out of Iraq,” he told the Armed Services Committee.

    The report concluded that Iraqi security forces would not be ready to police their country alone for at least 18 months. It recommended giving Iraqis a lead role but with substantial support and training by U.S. forces.

    Frederick Kagan in The Weekly Standard why the Post is cherrypicking and leaking the Jones report in “What the Jones Report Really Says“;

    SOME IN THE MEDIA have been remarkably quick to report on leaked copies of reports about Iraq before the average person has a chance to read them. There is a reason, apart from the usual journalistic desire to be first with a story. The reports often don’t say what the reporters want them to. First leaks about the National Intelligence Estimate and the report of the Government Accountability Office turned out to have painted them darker–and in the case of the NIE much darker–than they actually were. That is even more true of the report of Retired Marine General Jim Jones about the state of the Iraqi Security Forces. 

    Roy Blunt, House Minority Leader, farting in a hurricane, asked Democrats to be objective;

    House Minority Whip Roy Blunt urged members to take a “broad, objective look” at the reports, noting that the Jones report showed “that real progress is being made in raising a reliable Iraqi army.”

    “As Congress continues to take in these reports and evaluate the merit of their recommendations, we owe it to our men and women fighting abroad to take a broad, objective look at the conditions in the field, the progress they continue to make, and the ways we can come together as an institution to help — not hinder — their continued success,” said Mr. Blunt, Missouri Republican.

    Here’s the farting in a hurricane part;

    Democrats have attempted to discredit Gen. Petraeus ahead of his delivering the administration’s war assessment.

    Mrs. Woolsey said Gen. Petraeus’ report would be “packaged spin” from the White House, echoing early criticism of the report from Democratic leaders.

    Mr. McGovern also took a pre-emptive swipe at the progress reports.

    “What the president has to say doesn’t carry much water here,” Mr. McGovern said. “I don’t trust the president on this war any more. I know those are strong words. I just don’t [trust him].”

    Yeah, well, when you talk like that, Congressman, we don’t trust your party with the keys to the White House. The Post quotes McGovern as threatening a revolt from the hairy-armpit crowd;

    The new effort at compromise by the Democratic leadership could alienate liberals. “You may end up with a revolt from my wing of the party if we do something that doesn’t pass the smell test and, quite frankly, infuriates our constituents,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a firm opponent of the war.

    Sorry, but your constituents don’t have a say in a representative Republic – they voted for you they didn’t vote for the other 334 representives. They only get a voice once every two years – pity they continue to waste that vote on you, Mr. McGovern.

    The Purple Avenger at Ace of Spades reminds us that Petreus had not one nay vote for his confirmation. Including Schumer.

    COBDanny (who, by the way has first hand experience with General Petraeus’ briefings) says this won’t sit well with the peace-at-any-cost Left.

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express trolls the depths of Democrat.com and comes back with trophy gems like this;

    General BETRAYOUS told the conservanazi republikan caucus what he was going to report BEFORE HE EVEN WENT TO IRAQ. GEN. BETRAYOUS IS A CONSERVANAZI STOOGE THAT WANTS TO KEEP THE conservanazis IN POWER.

    Gateway Pundit explains their derangement – apparently 42% of Democrats think President Bush had something to do with the 9-11 plot.

    The NY Sun wants Petraeus to run for President. (h/t Micheal Goldfarb)

    Sweetness and Light catches Schumer’s edits to his anti-troops statement earlier in the week. Shades of Orwell’s Winston Smith.

    Wordsmith at Flopping Aces tempts the Paulians in with red meat.

  • Petraeus report dismissed as “Bush Report”

    When I made the public comment days after 9-11 that Democrats would end their charade of supporting this country and it’s national security in short order, I was criticized and chastised. But that’s why I made the comment, I suppose.

    Since then, we’ve had recorded incidences of wounded soldiers being spat upon, we’ve had Little Dick Durbin calling them SS Nazi camp guards, John Murtha calling them murderers, John Kerry telling us that the troops aren’t very smart, John Edwards calling the war against terrorism a bumper sticker phrase, Harry Reid told us the surge had failed before it even started…well, I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Today, the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller writes that they’ve already dismissed the upcoming Petraeus Report;

    Congressional Democrats are trying to undermine U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ credibility before he delivers a report on the Iraq war next week, saying the general is a mouthpiece for President Bush and his findings can’t be trusted.

    “The Bush report?” Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said when asked about the upcoming report from Gen. Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq.

    “We know what is going to be in it. It’s clear. I think the president’s trip over to Iraq makes it very obvious,” the Illinois Democrat said. “I expect the Bush report to say, ‘The surge is working. Let’s have more of the same.’ ”

    The top Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California — also referred to the general’s briefing as the “Bush report.”

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Gen. Petraeus’ report was potentially compromised by the White House’s involvement in drafting it.

    Imagine that – the Executive Branch actually cooperated among the various agencies to produce a report to the Legislative Branch. Van Hollen, you’re an idiot. That’s what the Executive Branch should be doing. Where did you take civics? In space?

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express sums the current variation of BDS very well;

    These moveon morons can’t see anything because they are just totally consumed with hatred for President Bush and anything Republican. They are still smarting from President Bush’s trip to Iraq this week and the overwhelming support for the CIC demonstrated by the troops.

    Rather than embrace the report from the General that is up to his armpits in the situation in Iraq, the Dems would rather pick their own little reports to refer to. No surprise here – the reports they are banking on are less than optimistic. But why would we expect anything else from the Defeatocrats?

    Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive targets my favorite imbecile, Little Chuckie “the Putz” Schumer who says that the surge is working despite our troops;

    Wow Senator, really. So the Sunni tribes that before had either helped Al Qaeda, tolerated them, or were intimidated into submission by them, decided to fight them on their own. And somehow they chose to show this by allying themselves directly with us and conducting operations with US troops. Hmm go figure, but noted military expert Chuck Schumer wouldn’t just be running his mouth would he? Just standing on the Senate floor flappin’ his gums about things  he is woefully ignorant about, this is the US Senate for cripes sakes.

    And yet there he is, lying in that disgusting tone those collegial jagoffs use.

    Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters disputes “The Putz”;

    The Iraqis aren’t fooled. They named the police station after the man who masterminded the liberation of Ramadi from al-Qaeda. They named it after US Army Captain Travis Patriquin.

    Peejz at Right Voices points out that they haven’t read the darn thing yet, so who are they to judge?

    What is it that they do believe? Well, the GAO report, of course, and why is that? The Democratic Congress ensured that the report would deliver negative “grades” for the Iraqi government by asking the GAO to evaluate whether or not the benchmarks have been met now–just two months after the major combat operations of the surge began.

    And me? Well, the surge working was inevitable – the reason Iraqis are stepping up is they were certain that if the Democrats won the Congress last November, they’d pull US troops out – just like the Democrats told us they would. Instead, Bush sent more US troops – the Iraqis realize that our support to them isn’t hinged on political rhetoric, but genuine commitment. The reason they didn’t step up before was that they were pretty certain that Americans would cut and run and leave them hanging – like we’ve left Vietnamese, Somalians, Haitians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians and Cubans hanging. And the iraqi Shi’ites in 1991. Why would Iraqis commit to hanging thier own asses out after we’ve become famous worldwide as cut-and-runners?

    George Bush proved to them that the US is there to win despite the political climate here. And they responded in kind. The Iraqis cowboy’d up.

    My buddy, Kate, likes to quote Jose Marti; Man loves liberty, even if he does not know that he loves it. He is driven by it and flees from where it does not exist. We just needed to show the Iraqis that we are willing to point the way to liberty.

    And Gateway Pundit has all of the good news from Iraq in one neat, handy package. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs posts pictures of US atrocities in response to Schumer.

    Curt at Flopping Aces, in “The New Democrat Offensive“, parses two articles from WaPo’s Karen Young on the subject “Iraq Army Unable to Take Over in a Year Report Says” and “Experts Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq“. She might have a shred of credibility or at least the appearance of journalistic integrity if she’d ever written an article on the other side.

    Brings to mind Spiro Agnew’s comment about the “nattering nabobs of negativity” from our Viet Nam Era.

  • Clinton, Clinton & Co.

    The Wall Street Journal’s Jackie Calmes writes that Hillary is easing her “husband” back into her campaign in “Two-for-One Deal” – as if we’ve completely forgotten that 90s brought us to the point where we are today;

    Hillary and Bill Clinton kicked off her fall campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, a rare joint effort calling to mind the uncharted waters of a White House with an ex-president in residence. Many voters in their audiences, even some nonsupporters, saw the potential precedent as a plus.

    The Clintons’ Labor Day weekend of stumping in New Hampshire and Iowa, the states with the first nominating contests in four months, was the third time they have publicly campaigned together this year. The campaign has focused on letting the New York senator make her case independently of her husband.

    Yes, she made her case independently of her husband – and her campaign, using the tactics of her husband’s 1996 campaign, began taking in money from shady characters, as documented quite thoroughly by Curt of Flopping Aces, Gateway Pundit and Michele Malkin.

    mRed at Invicible Armor tells us that, in true Clinton form, Bill says you could have knocked him over with a feather when he found out that yet another Chinese businessman handing the Clinton campaign cash was a crook. You’d think that it’d be the other way around, wouldn’t you? I’d be more surprised that legitimate Chinese businessmen were contributing to the Clinton campaign.

    Bill Gertz in today’s Washington Times recounts some of the events we have forgotten from a decade ago;

    The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigated what it called the Clinton campaign fundraising “scandal” in 1997 and issued a report showing that four persons were linked to large illicit contributions thought to have come from China’s government through Hong Kong.

    […]

    William C. Triplett II, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member whose 1998 book “Year of the Rat” highlighted the 1996 funding scandal, said he suspects that the Chinese are involved in Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid.

    “What we saw in 1996 was similar,” Mr. Triplett said. “Whenever the Clintons have money trouble, they turn to the Chinese and the Chinese don’t let them down. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that both 1996 and 2008 are Years of the Rat in the Chinese calendar.”

    The WSJ story quotes the most ominous statement from Hillary yet;

    “The day I’m elected,” she said, “I’m going to be asking distinguished Americans — including my husband — of both parties, to start traveling around the world, and not just talking to governments and leaders, but talking directly to people and telling them that America is back.”

    Yeah, that crooked, panty-waisted America that kept turning the other cheek towards al Qaeda, handed out money to bribe corrupt governements and apologies for things we’d never done  and sold off our defensive technology to China in exchange for illegal campaign cash will indeed be back.

  • 5000 new rifles, but no milk in Venezuela

    I read this statement from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez’ Alo! Presidente speech last Sunday as quoted by the Christian Science Monitor in the Washington Post today; 

    “I’m going to buy 5,000 Dragunov rifles from Russia…with telescopic sight, the best in the world, with infrared night-view. We will knock out any imperialist that approaches.”

    I guess we know at which imperialists Chavez wants to aim his Dragunov rifles. Any soldier worth his salt would prefer a Remington to the clunky Dragunov, though – but Hugo isn’t a real soldier anyway – he just pretends to be one in his drama play for the world’s thugs.

    Regardless, his choice of weapons isn’t the subject of this post. It didn’t take me long to find something more worthy of Chavez’ money instead of rifles. Julia, a Venezuelan who blogs on The end of Venezuela as I know it writes about the shortages of staples in Caracas. In Part I there’s sugar;

    “This is flour!” – I said – “No… try it… it’s also sweet… it’s the snow sugar that your mom uses for decorate the cakes…” I thought the sugar shortage was extreme enough when I started to get used to the brown sugar. I was clearly wrong; you never know when it’s extreme enough because my dad couldn’t even find brown sugar that day so decided to buy the two kinds of sugar that remained in the supermarket just to, well, give us the option to decide between the worse of those two.

    In Part II it’s cooking oil and milk;

    Then I make a quick calculus, 1000 ml for six people (without counting my godchild who is three months old) it’s almost nothing and won’t last for long. Besides, the shortage now its just partial, but before we notice it, we are not going to be able to find not even that small package of normal milk in a while…

    But Julia will very happy to learn that Chavez will have 5000 new sniper rifles with which to fight those nebulous imperialists that will never come – irrespective of who owns the rifles.

    I almost choked on my beer while reading this piece of trash from some pencil-necked dork named Steve Lendman who claims that Venezuela is a more perfect form of democracy than the United States. Sorry, I’m not linking it – you can google the retard;

    Chavez wants his new United Socialist Party (PSUV) to drive the revolutionary process and continue his agenda of reform for all Venezuelans. He wants everyone to enjoy the benefits, not just a privileged few like in the past and in the US today. Under his leadership, their future is bright while in America poverty is growing, the middle class is dying, and the darkness of tyranny threatens everyone under George Bush with his agenda likely continuing under a new president in 2009.

    Governance differences exist between these two nations because their constitutional laws are mirror opposite, and America has no one like Hugo Chavez. He’s a rare leader who cares and backs his rhetoric with progressive people-friendly policies. In the US, there’s George Bush, and that pretty much explains the problem. Knowing that, which leader would you choose and under which system of government would you prefer to live?

    Well, Stevie, I don’t see Americans flocking to Venezuela – do you? And I think if you read Julia’s Part II, you’ll get a pretty good idea which Venezuelans prefer;

    I should be able to go protesting everywhere I want to without having the fear of being attack or/ and detained by the police. I should be able to go out and came back home at any time I want or I need to without taking the risk to be mugged or kidnapped or killed. I should be able to say whatever I want to say about the government out loud even in government institutions without being called oligarch, rich or imperialist just because I think different. I should be able to ask any government’ help or support in health, or education or whatever I need or have the right to request as a citizen without being forced to wear a red t-shirt.
    […]
    Sometimes I want to be like other young people are, of course they have troubles and concerns in their political systems but they don’t feel constantly threatened by it. Some people can criticize and oppose to their governments and continue having a normal life. They can go to the beach in their own countries and find some peace. Not halfway peace, but real tranquility. I should be able to go to have some drinks with my friends, concerning only about calling the attention of the guy I like; without saying good bye because they are leaving the country.

    Chavez promises refineries to Nicaragua and Panama, oil to the Caribe Basin, oil to Cuba, pays for his cohorts’ political campaign in other countries. Oh, and this from AP;

    Laid-off Brazilian factory workers have their jobs back, Nicaraguan farmers are getting low-interest loans and Bolivian mayors can afford new health clinics, all thanks to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

    Bolstered by windfall oil profits, Chavez’s government is now offering more direct state funding to Latin America and the Caribbean than the United States. A tally by The Associated Press shows Venezuela has pledged more than $8.8 billion in aid, financing and energy funding so far this year.

    Yet his own people don’t have staples. What a wonderful guy.

    Related; Mary Anastasia O’Grady reviews two new books about Chavez and Venezuela in the Wall Street Journal today.

    Hugo Chávez By Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka Random House, 327 pages, $27.95

    ¡Hugo! By Bart Jones Steerforth, 570 pages, $30

  • UN – more incompetent boobery

    We discover this week that the only way UN weapons inspector can find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is if you put in their offices and then clear everything else out;

    Potentially hazardous chemicals mistakenly shipped from an Iraqi chemical weapons plant have been found in a UN building but experts insisted Thursday that they posed no immediate risk.
     
    UN deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said that while winding down their activities, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors discovered “gram quantities of certain liquid substances including phosgene (COCl2),” which she described as “potentially hazardous.”

    Yeah, it’s only potentially hazardous – as long as you keep the temperature below 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that the 2009 UN anti-racism conference is being organized by those champions of human rights, the Libyans;

    The same people who brought us the 2001 Durban antiracism conference, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic hate fest, are working hard to ensure that the follow-up meeting will be more of the same. We are talking about the United Nations, of course, under whose auspices six years ago the professed fight against racism was turned on its head. As if to top that sorry record, on Monday the U.N.’s Human Rights Council put Libya in charge of organizing the next such “antiracism” conference.

    Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, more famous for brutalizing black African migrants than fighting xenophobia, will thus be allowed to shape the agenda of the 2009 gathering. Libya’s only credential would seem to be that it ranks high on the list of human-rights offenders, and has some very recent experience. Until only last month, five Bulgarian nurses and one Palestinian doctor had been incarcerated in Libya for eight years on false charges of infecting children with HIV.

    Also on the list for the members of the panel is Iran – you know, those guys who are currently shelling Kurds across the border in Iraq. The guys who have vowed to wipe Israel off of the map. yeah, those humanitarians.

  • Democrats heading towards defeat

    In today’s Washington Post, Jonathan Weisman reports that Democrats just don’t see why their anti-Bush, anti-US, anti-National Security policies can’t get through the legislative process;

    A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.

    The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies — on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.

    Liberal bloggers and interest groups who are single-minded cattle and don’t have to get re-elected (the same goes for bloggers and interest groups on the Right, by the way) don’t understand why politicians, who do have to get reelected, don’t do their bidding?

    Why would a Congressman in, say, Dakota, listen to what a blogger with a $12/month blog in, say, Washington State? Because the blogger calls him names? Threatens to use the two readers the blogger has in the congessman’s Dakota district withold their vote? Well, it’s the same with even big blogs like Kos or Huffington – yeah, they have a huge readership, but ultimately, whom do they truly influence? There’s a large number of people/voters who don’t even know what a blog is, for pete’s sake.

    But the Democrat Party wants to formulate national security policy around the fickle desires of a few thousand nitwits who happen to have an extra $12 every month?

    The American Civil Liberties Union is running Internet advertisements depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) as sheep.

    “Bush wanted more power to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans, and we just followed along. I guess that’s why they call us the Democratic leadersheep,” say the two farm animals in the ad, referring to Congress’s passage of legislation granting Bush a six-month extension and expansion of his warrantless wiretapping program.

    Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), who leads a newly created House select intelligence oversight panel, lamented, “Democrats have been slow to recognize they are in the majority now and can go back to really examine the fundamentals of what we should be doing to protect democracy.”

    Protect Democracy? We have a responsibility to protect democracy from the actual enemies of Democracy who happen to be those 6th Century clowns who are hanging their men and stoning their women in public. Doesn’t that seem more important than worrying about if some NSA operator is listening to your kissy-face talk with your wife? Besides, no one is listening to your stupid phonesex calls – unless you’re having phone sex with Osama’s bodyguard. 

    Said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (Va.): “I would’ve thought the administration would have been bereft of credibility by now, but they seem to be able to get what they want from this Congress.”

    So Moran woke up from his drunken stupor long enough to miscalculate the political climate, huh? Maybe, Moran, because you live in the echo chamber of Northern Virginia – inside the Beltway – you missed the fact that most Americans are still concerned about our security. Maybe the President isn’t “bereft of credibility by now” like you think. Maybe inside your echo chamber, but the rest of America knows that the attacks on us aren’t over and we don’t want to have to suffer through the weak-kneed responses to which we’ve grown accustomed with Democrats. The kind of responses which encourage more attacks.

    Despite all of President Bush’s shortcomings, one thing is for sure; there haven’t been any attacks on American soil in nearly six years. Not that there won’t be one, but there haven’t been any recently – and a big reason there hasn’t is because the bad guys know the response won’t be a cruise missile fired at an empty tent.

    Hmm, Bloodthirsty Liberal sees it my way, too in “Wiretapping or Toetapping“.

  • Castro; Clinton/Obama endorsement

    According to Reuters and CNN, Tio Fidel is endorsing a Clinton/Obama ticket for next year;

    Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is tipping Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to team up and win the U.S. presidential election.Clinton leads Obama in the race to be the Democratic nominee for the November 2008 election, and Castro said they would make a winning combination.

    I guess this will do wonders for them – just like the Osama bin Laden endorsement for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I’m sure the left is positively giddy about this high-profile endorsement from the docile, harmless Castro.

    It seems he had some other nice to things about our other worthless Democrat Presidents;

    Castro said former President Bill Clinton was “really kind” when he bumped into him and the two men shook hands at a U.N. summit meeting in 2000. He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to “rescue” shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

    […]

    He said his favorite U.S. president since 1959 was Jimmy Carter, another Democrat, because he was not an “accomplice” to efforts to violently overthrow the Cuban government.

    See, anyone willing to forget that Castro is a bloodthirsty tyrant with hundreds of prisoners of conscience rotting in jail cells is just fine and dandy.

    Reuters also mentioned that Eisenhower cut off diplomatic relations with Cuba – but they neglect to mention why, I will. The first year after Castro toppled the Batista regime, in 1959, he sent a small ragtag force of his guerilla army to invade the Panama Canal Zone. The small force of about 50 was rounded up as they landed on the beach at Colon, Panama by the Panamanian National Guard under the cover American air power and naval batteries with no casualties and sent packing back to Cuba.

    The intent was to incite the Panamanians to drive the evil gringos from the Canal Zone. So it’s really no wonder that the President cut off relations, since the Cubans tried to invade US territory, is it? And you’d think it’s be worth mentioning.

    Reuters also neglected to mention that during the Carter years, the Soviets stationed 10,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba in the event that Carter decided to react to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And Carter allowed Cuban troops to have their run of Africa (Rhodesia, Angola, South Africa, the Congo) and Central America (Columbia, Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nigaragua) inciting armed conflict and terrorizing the populations where ever they could. 

    Is it any wonder he’d endorse a corrupt Presidential candidate with an half-witted idiot for a running mate?

    Stix Blogs wonders why the world’s thugs support Democrats whereas I don’t have to ask.

    Ace of Spades says that fugitive felons also support Clinton. big endorsement week for her, I guess.

    George Moneo at Babalu Blog has a memory like mine.