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

Category: Politics

  • We’re Doomed

    One of the most important lessons of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that military success is not sufficient to win

    That sounds like something from the Huffington Post, or Democratic Underground, doesn’t it. But it’s not. Those are the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Yeah, the Secretary of Defense says military success is not sufficient to win. What the Hell?

    I am at once astonished and yet, not surprised. The job of the Secretary of Defense is to ensure our military has what it needs to kick the hell out of our enemies. It is NOT his job to be a cheerleader for peace and diplomacy. His job starts when diplomacy ends.

    Reuters story

  • Annapolis is Pointless

    The upcoming US brokered mid east peace conference in Annapolis is going to be nothing more than political theater. The Bush administration thought they had scored a coup by getting the Saudis to agree to participate. Yeah, not so much. The Saudis have preemptively refused to even shake hands with the Israelis.

    Sooner or later we’ll have to face the fact that the Israeli/Palestinian problem wouldn’t exist if the Arabs weren’t the leading exporters of terrorism in the world. When the stated goal of one group is the extinction of the other, expecting reasonable, honest discourse from them is a waste of time and energy.

    The US expends far too much energy walking on egg shells to not offend our supposed allies the Saudis. May I remind you, that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis, and that Osama bin Laden just happens to be a Saudi his badself. Saudi funded madrassas teach hatred of the Jews and hatred of Western ideals, and you know, hatred of that GREAT SATAN, America.

    The US government keeps counseling Israel to not fight the terrorists that send suicide bombers and rockets exploding into Israeli neighborhoods. Would Americans demonstrate the same forbearance if people were exploding in Memphis or Boulder or Fresno? Of course not, we’d be out to kick someone’s ass, and we would be right to do so.

    So why is it that we counsel Israel to not fight? They are the only ally we have in the region, they are surrounded by enemies whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and yet, we tell them NOT to fight?

    Let’s try something new, because, we’ve done this for well over twenty years and it clearly isn’t effective. Let’s counsel ass kicking as foreign policy. When terrorists come and blow up busses, find out where they came from, and kick their asses. When rockets fly into suburban neighborhoods, bomb those who launched them back to the stone age.

    Israel is used to being reviled and under the constant threat of terrorism, how friggin’ horrid is that?

    Israel has fought several wars with their neighboring countries, and they have won, decisively, in each engagement. So, lets not counsel the Israelis to bear this burden of terrorism any longer. In his speech September 20th, 2001 President Bush said:
    Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. and: Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

    I submit that Israel made it’s choice in this regard long ago, and we haven’t backed them up. The House of Saud has also made it’s choice, but, because of this insane need we have to be seen as “Nice” to everyone, and the fact that our environmentalists don’t want us drilling our own oil, we coddle the Saudis and ignore the insane hatred of Jews, Christians and the west in general taught in the madrassas and mosques they fund.

    The Bush administration should apply pressure, that is tell the Saudis in no uncertain terms that their support of these radical madrassas and mosques is unacceptable and will not be tolerated a second longer. If that causes an increase in the price of oil, so be it. Righteousness has a price.

    Alcoholics Anonymous defines insanity as doing the same thing, over and over and expecting a different result. That is exactly what we demand from Israel, in forcing them to negotiate with those who fund and support the very terrorists we are supposed to be fighting.

  • Pelosi/Sanchez; bedfellows of defeat

    Jonathan Weissman of the Washington Post writes the page one story entitled “Politics Creates Odd Pair; Sanchez and Democrats“ ;

    It may be among the strangest of political alliances: a former commanding general in Iraq, blocked from a fourth star and forced into retirement partly for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the speaker of the House, desperate to end a war that the general helped start.

    But in partisan Washington, the enemy of one’s enemy can quickly become a friend, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the new marriage of convenience between Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez.

    On Saturday, Sanchez delivered the Democrats’ weekly radio address. He excoriated what he called the Bush administration’s “failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq,” then embraced Democratic legislation linking continued war funding with a timeline aimed at ending U.S. combat operations by December 2008.

    Hmmmm. No agenda there, huh? The Democrats want the war ended on their terms…rather than an actual victory. Sanchez wants to clear his name (the name that Democrats sullied, by the way).

    For Democratic leaders, Sanchez’s address has been a triumph, covered by the media nationwide. It interrupted a stream of stories about declining violence, which had stalled efforts to force a shift of war policy.

    A triumph? Today is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve been on all of the right’s blogs all weekend (fighting off this stupid flu) – unless it’s a triumph among the nattering nabobs of negativity (to borrow Spiro Agnew’s phrase) at Code Pink and the DailyKos. And I guess this pretty much proves that Democrats aren’t interested in winning the war against terror since they’re looking for some distraction from the good news to put the focus back on Sanchez’ tenure. Democrats are trying to recall the past – leadership is about the future.

    “I’m beyond perplexed,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who criticized Sanchez at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in 2004. “He’s chosen to play politics here. He’s opened himself up to what happened on his watch. He’s made himself a political figure, and I hope he understands that those of us who were on the ground watching at that time are going to push back.”

    Graham said that he repeatedly asked Sanchez in private whether he needed more troops to pacify the fledgling insurgency, and that Sanchez always said no. “He never said any of these things when it could have made a difference,” Graham said of Sanchez’s criticism.

    So I guess Sanchez’ complaint is that the Bush Administration is culpable for the situation on the ground in Iraq during Sanchez’ stint because they hired an incompetent…Sanchez.

    Wolf Howling astutely observes an apt comparison of Sanchez to “Little Mac”;

    While the Democrats of today may be enamored of General Sanchez and his message, history should provide them a cautionary note. Despite McClellan’s outspoken criticism of Lincoln for his poor prosecution of the war, the rhetoric failed once it became apparent that Union forces were succeeding and that victory was possible. In the end, the American electorate punished the Democrats for their anti-war stance in the 1864 election and for several decades afterward.

    Prairie Pundit doubts his expertise;

    He has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of counterinsurgency operations when he had the opportunity so there is little reason to think has acquired expertise since leaving.

    Even the Left doubts the wisdom of linking their cause (such as it is) to a former target;

    I can understand the cold political calculus that leads one to believe that getting a news cycle out of this is a benefit, but I think the long-term implications of this will prove much more harmful.

    My guess is that the Democrat “leadership” is getting real bad advice from a Karl Rove wannabe.

  • Obama: ‘Pillow talk Isn’t Experience’

    “I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,” Obama said, and added, referring to his relationship with his wife, Michelle, “There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues,” Obama said. “On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States Senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done.”
    Sadly, the voters of New York weren’t as savvy as Michelle Obama…
    Yes, Mrs Bill Clinton, not to be confused with any of the mistresses of Bill Clinton, has little actual experience. Being on the sidelines is not the same as being in the thick of it.
    But, talking about things is not the same as doing things. None of Johnny Carson’s wives could have made the Tonight Show what it was, and Melinda Gates would likely run Microsoft into the ground. Why then is Mrs Bill Clinton supposed to be able to do the same things her husband did?
    Bill Clinton was many things, and charismatic was the most important one. Something about him made people like him, in that aspect, Hillary couldn’t be more different than her husband.
    Chappelle’s Show is now in syndicated re-runs, which is great, because I never watched it on Comedy Central. They did a sketch about professional boxers, but, all of them were gay, it was the “Friday Night Sissy Fights” which, is what this over extended election season is beginning to look like. Which of the hack candidates (those who, like republicans Tancredo and Hunter and Democrats Biden and Kucinich have no chance of winning) will take a slap at one of the actual contenders next? Which one of the contenders will slam Hillary next? Who will slam Rudy harder Republicans or Democrats?
    Who gives a crap?
    There hasn’t been ANY substance YET in this idiocy and I see no reason to expect any soon.
    ABC News story

  • Verdict first; trial afterwards

    The Democrats are scurrying trying to squeeze some bad news out of Iraq, but it doesn’t seem to be working for them. They’ve painted themselves in a corner that they can’t escape. George Bush proved to the Democrats and to al Qaeda that he won’t back down from them, but the autopsy of the anti-democracy movement in the US has begun. In the December 3rd edition of The Weekly Standard, Noemie Emery begins recounting quotes from last November in The Stab That Failed;

    “Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed.” The surge was “a sad, ominous echo of something we’ve lived through in this country,” according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. “I’m confident it will not work,” said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama.

    Having Kerry’s seal of disapproval, coupled with Barack Obama, was almost like adding another 20,000 troops on the field, I suppose. Neither has been right about anything in the whole time they’ve been in the Senate.

    Gaius from Blue Crab Boulevard quotes the Financial Times’ Clive Crook calling the current Democrat situation a “trap”;

    Opposition to the war has been [Democrats’] chief theme. This still commands broad and strong support, of course, but the intensity could continue to fade. Republicans will seek opportunities to accuse Democrats of wanting the US to fail, or of wishing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – and those charges will acquire some force if the view that the surge has worked takes hold. For Democrats, even putting the recent fall in violence in its correct context poses a political risk, because it can be portrayed as failing to recognise the military’s efforts and achievements. If the Republican presidential contenders have any sense, they will tread very carefully here – while hoping that Democrats fall into the trap and helping them to if the opportunity presents itself.

    On cue, LauraW at Ace of Spades records the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum hand-wringing opinion piece about our stature in the world;

    Though I don’t especially want to perpetuate any stereotypes about the mainstream media, I have to say that this optimism is totally unwarranted. Not because things aren’t improving in Iraq — it seems they are, at least for the moment — but because the collateral damage inflicted by the war on America’s relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn’t just that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What’s worse is the fact that — however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now — our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we’ve paid is too high.

    Probably not as high a price as we’ve paid for foreign policy failures like Somalia and Viet Nam, though. The reason we paid such a high price in Iraq is because everyone expected us to cut and run from Iraq like we’ve done nearly everywhere else in the last 60 years. the fact that there’s a peace conference scheduled in Annapolis with all of the major players would have been impossible last year at this time. President Bush has shown a determination to see the process in the Middle East continue – regardless of the chatter from the left…and the Right , by the way.

    And our “image” in the world is just that – our cosmetic appearance. However, it’s clear that our “image” is backed by stalwart military power and a decisive, unwaivering commander (for the time being). From Curt at Flopping Aces;

    Problem is, we have always been hated, and loved.  It was the same 50 years ago and will be the same 50 years in the future.  Some hate how successful we are.  Some hate Democracy.  Some hate our ideals.  You can count al-Qaeda in that group and the question is, should we care?

    Crotchety Old Bastard writes that the Democrat candidates are cutting and running from the cut and run strategy;

    This is not at all surprising to anyone with a brain.  Of course that eliminates almost all Democrats who constitute the most mindlessly uninformed voting block in history.  But they have decided to surrender from surrendering.  From no less than the New York Times:

    That’s not leadership – that’s politics. The two major candidates for leader of the free world are sticking their finger in the air to determine what they think. COB sums up;

    These people are so pathetic that it is beyond comprehension.  Having championed the cause of defeat while pandering to their leftist base, they now face the very real possibility that we (America) may actually win.  Win in spite of their treasonous undermining.

    The Daily Kooks and so on will raise all kinds of hell and then vote for them anyway.  Why?  Because they have the same level of principles as their socialist candidates.

    Don Surber writes what I’ve been saying all along – they refuse to compromise and still they don’t understand why Republicans want them to fail;

    It is the line of the day from Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington Bureau. Writing about the inability of a Democratic Congress to do anything this year, Lochhead wrote: “Bewildered Democrats have concluded that Republicans simply want them to fail.”

    Just like Democrats want our soldiers to fail in Iraq.

    Unlike our soldiers, Congressional Democrats have poor leaders. Instead of legislating and compromising, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi bull forward.

    At Western Hemisphere Policy Watch, the anonomous author detects leftist lip-licking among our allies’ diplomatic missions here in DC at the prospect of being able to once again fleece the American taxpayers when Democrats take over both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year;

    The international left can barely contain itself. The prospects of a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House too good to pass up or wait for the election results to confirm the outcome in November 2008. WHPW Editors have yet to notice too much of this sentiment in and about town with the locals (i.e., Washingtonians), but the foreign diplomatic corp is buzzing even in Europe.

    Take for example the following program being hosted by the leftist Chatham House in the U.K. (i.e., Royal Institute for International Affairs, uncle of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York City) next month: America and Europe: From 9/11 to the 2008 Presidential Election with Guest Speaker James P. Rubin, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Chief Spokesman for the State Department and senior policy adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (1997-2000). The program is described thusly:

    The speaker will reflect on European attitudes towards American foreign policy, the loss of American prestige in recent years, the role of foreign policy in the 2008 elections, and what a Democratic foreign policy would mean for the transatlantic partnership.

    And, in the meantime, since they can’t attack the war, they can’t attack the troops, they have no effect on our foreign policy so they still pursue impeachment of the policy maker, according to Michele Malkin;

    Democrat leaders might have thought they put the impeachment circus to rest on November 6. But as I noted, the nutroots are gearing up for a stage production of a Beltway impeachment play that’ll open after New Year’s–and over this Thanksgiving holiday, Denny K’s peeps have been pounding the I-drum and hounding Democrats over their reluctance to go with the impeachment flow.

    I guess they don’t figure that this little drama doesn’t hurt our “image” in the world a bit – or they don’t care.

  • WaPo; Ron Paul’s run isn’t about Ron Paul

    In an opinion piece posing as news, the Washington Post put on page B1 of yesterday’s paper that truly mischaracterizes the entire Ron paul campaign;

    Now with about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters, Paul set a one-day GOP record by raising $4.3 million on the Internet from 38,000 donors on Nov. 5 — Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605. Paul’s campaign, which is three-quarters of the way to its goal of raising “$12 Million to Win” by Dec. 31, didn’t even organize the fundraiser — an independent-minded supporter did.

    When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it’s clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

    That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him….

    Well, unfortunately for them, the “the movement that has erupted around him” isn’t what’ll occupy the White House in 2009 if Ron Paul were to win the election. There are political realities like working with Congress that Pauliens, much as their predecessors in the Ross Perot days, don’t understand. The President doesn’t rule by decree. Much of Paul’s “beliefs” aren’t within the realm of possibility – and many Pauliens would oppose his efforts to do away with their SSI payments and their free healthcare. The “movement” around Paul, is politically and socially naive, much as one would expect 5% of the population to be. Much as one might expect Libertarianism to be.

    Much of his “support” comes from voters who will never pull a lever for a Republican outside of a primary election. People like Adam Kokesh, whom I’ve spent gigs of bandwidth on his deceit and political ambitions. Anyone who thinks that Adam Kokesh will vote for Ron Paul next November is fooling themselves. Kokesh supports Paul to make it appear as if Paul’s appeal crosses party lines. I don’t care if you ran Teddy Kennedy as a Republican – those hardcore Leftists still couldn’t bring themselves to vote Republican.

    5% of Republicans won’t win a national election. Weeks from the primaries, Paul has hit his peak at 5% (if that number is even correct). If Paul did win the primary nod, he still wouldn’t have the support he needs from mainstream Republicans or Democrats to carry him through to a national victory in November. And sorry, but that’s what he needs.

    So why are Democrats supporting Paul? For the same reason they supported John McCain in 2000 – he’s the easiest candidate for them to beat.

    So, in many ways, the Washington Post is right – Ron Paul’s candidacy and his support isn’t about him at all, it’s about the clowns around him whom he either seems willing to exploit or he doesn’t recognize the character of his supporters (or, rather,  the lack thereof). Paul’s candidacy seems more in the model of Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party run – an attempt to destroy the Republican Party from within.

  • Break Out the Rubber Hoses and Lead Saps, the UN doesn’t Like Tasers

    The use of TaserX26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use

    So says the U.N. Committee Against Torture. Well, we could, in the fine example of Leftist hero Che Guevara, use baseball bats, or in fine “peaceful” Islamic tradition sentence rape victims to 200 lashes. Hell, we could horse whip them, if we had horses…

    Yes, sometimes Tasers might kill you. The easiest way, of course, to avoid being tased, bro, is to NOT behave in a manner that will get you into confrontations with law enforcement. The second step is equally simple: If you are speaking to law enforcement officials, be respectful, be honest and most of all: BEHAVE. If you don’t give them a reason to hurt you, they won’t.

    That the UN is weighing in on Tasers is a direct, if obscure attack on the US, where Tasers come from and the largest block of ownership is.
    WCBSTV story

  • How the world looks from an insane asylum

    According to the Associated Press, Hamas is shocked that Arab countries would want to attend a peace conference;

    Hamas said Saturday it was shocked Arab countries have decided to attend next week’s U.S.-backed Mideast peace summit and underlined its opposition with a threat to launch deadlier rocket attacks on Israel.

    Hamas argues the time is not right for talks with Israel because the Palestinians are divided. With the Islamic militant group in control of Gaza, Hamas says moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas does not have a mandate to negotiate.

    “The announcement of the Arabs that they would participate in the Annapolis conference was a great shock for the Palestinian people,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, said in a statement. “Participation opens doors for normalization of relations with the Israeli occupiers.”

    Another Hamas official said the group was on the brink of developing a more lethal type of warhead for the rockets it regularly lobs from Gaza into Israel.

    “They can be developed in a short period to create sufficient terror and fear and make the Israelis live in pain no less than what our people live through because of the repeated incursions into our villages and cities in the West Bank and Gaza,” said Ahmed Yousef, an adviser to Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza.

    Israel, which warmly welcomed the Arab League decision Friday to go to the Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., has repeatedly said it expects Hamas to try and thwart peace efforts.

    Why couldn’t Arabs just enjoy the bombings and rocketings and killings like Hamas enjoys it all? When the Israelis penned up the Gaza Strip and stopped the marauding murderers from crossing into Israel, Hamas turned on their allies – just to keep their edge. Maybe those Hamas guys don’t have as firm a grasp on reality as some in the world would like us to think.

    Wall Street Journal writes that the US and Israel are making overtures to Syria to isolate Iran (Like Nixon used China to isolate the USSR thirty five years ago);

    Underscoring that effort, the Bush administration is even courting a long-time pariah, Syria. Syria’s bitter enemy, Israel, is going even further, indicating that its arms are open wide to Damascus. Talks with Syria could go some way in weakening Tehran’s strongest alliance in the region.

    “This is one of those moments in history where the Syrians have been given an opportunity to jump,” a senior Israeli official said this past week. “If they do jump, they will be embraced.”

    I wouldn’t dismantle the metal detectors at Annapolis yet, though. Jumping back to the AP story, apparently Hamas’ policy is being handled by hormone-driven 15-year-old boys;

    “We tell those going to Annapolis, we will not forgive you, and we will not forget if you give up any of our rights,” said one of the speakers, 15-year-old Uthman Abdullah. “History will curse you and your people will curse you.”

    Speaking of insanity, those people over there in that part of the world look mighty insane protesting US aid to cyclone victims in Bangledesh as reported by Gateway Pundit.