On Urban Warfare and Collateral Damage

There's many talking points and websites that cite statistics of Iraq and Afghanistan's "collateral damage", constantly used as fodder for anti-free Iraq rhetoric. Their problem? They believe the enemy adheres to the same principled warfare as our coalition military. Such a mentality is just western naivety, based on a hopeful idealism. Admirable in theory, but useless in reality.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Urban warfare is hell. I'll be the first to say to any of our US military, shoot first when you believe there is clear and present danger, and ask questions later. I prefer they come home alive, and sort it out via investigations. There can and will be regrettable errors. But we must face facts... this is not the wars of the past, where the enemies wore uniforms and were well defined. The enemies... for the most part.. did not hide behind burkas, children and disabled women.

Today's CBC News out of Canada, "Bomber who struck Canadians was 11 years old, military sources say".

Few details of the attack were immediately available. The soldiers were on foot patrol at about 10 a.m. local time when the bomb exploded.

The Canadian Press quoted a military spokeswoman, Capt. Amber Bineau, as saying the boy is thought to have been wearing an explosive vest when he walked up to the patrol.

She condemned the attack as a "last ditch-attempt" by militants to disrupt the progress of Afghan and NATO forces in establishing security in the country.

"These types of attacks demonstrate a weakness in the insurgency and do not impede the resolve of those who work to make Kandahar province a safe and stable environment," she said in a statement.

There was no official confirmation of the bomber's age or how the bomb was triggered.

snip

In a separate attack not involving NATO forces Wednesday, a suicide bomber dressed in a burka struck a police station in the western province of Farah, killing 12 people and wounding 27 others.

Initial reports said the bomber was a woman, but the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the attack, said it was carried out by a man named Mullah Khalid wearing the burka as a disguise.

As a reminder to the whiners of the world, allow me to give you a reintroduction to the enemy. The same cowardly enemy that demonstrates no honor in battle. The enemy that hides behind burkas instead of openly wearing a uniform like our coalition guys. The very same enemy that brainwashes "the innocent" into being their walking bombs.... children, disabled men in wheelchairs, or the mentally handicapped. It appears that brave, young jihadists - willing to die - are becoming an endangered species. Bad news for the bad guys.

So the next time you see reports of "women and children" being killed in a raid, and race to the conclusion that we are barbarians equal to those we fight, you might want to ask yourself:

Were they truly innocents? Or were they the next suicide bomber who's fuse hadn't detonated the bombs that kill our warriors?

An President Obama?"If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

An insightful column in the Israel Insider today by Barry Rubin, "LEBANON TO WEST: WAKE UP FAST!"

Anyone who has read my dissertations and rants knows I have the utmost disdain for our western media, our Congress, and the lazy American voters who insist on rejecting in depth education before forming opinions and casting votes. The media, charged with the education of voters on current events, constantly casts the US as the villain in the ongoing battle between the global Islamic jihad movements and western cultures and freedoms. The voters do not care to learn differently... takes too much time for "homework" and research. Spoiled US citizens are too easily distracted, and demonstrate little pride or aptitude for learning

Yet the path we insist upon traveling is fraught with danger of losing all we hold dear. What happens in the Middle East has an effect here, to the stubborn denial of average Joe and Josephine Blow. Each press headline offers more tinder to the fire that fuels jihad. Even tho their appeal is dwindling amongst Muslims for their brutal methods, it doesn't take many militants to inflict the damage and gain ground. It takes one suicide bomber, well placed in a public venue, to make an impact. It takes only a few well armed brutal leaders to subdue a nation into fear.

Rubin's article is a plea to humanity. Wake up, before it's too late. Much of his content revolves around Lebanon, too weak to stand up to Hezbollah. On the flip side, with 1/3 of the Shia Lebanese willing to fight back, Hezbollah leaders know they can't defeat the government militarily. But, as Rubin says, they don't need to. They merely need to control the government, forcing it to do their bidding.

Why should Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christians risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace; every American claiming Damascus might split from Tehran; every European preaching appeasement has in fact been engaged in confidence-breaking measures.

Hizballah doesn't need to win a military victory but only to show it can win one, using that position of strength to try to force its demands on the moderate government. . The government has already accepted Michel Suleiman, Syria's candidate for president. But Hizballah and the rest say this is not enough: they want veto power over everything.

This much is obvious to those of us who read. We have our own puppets in government with non-elected officials behind the scenes, controlling the marionette strings.

Rubin, blasting the western leaders and media for their inaction on behalf of Lebanon, and lack of urgency, reserves his strongest criticisms for the leading DNC candidate, Barack Obama.

If you want to know what's wrong, consider Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts out playing tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately." He calls for supporting the Lebanese government, strengthening the Lebanese army, and to "insist on disarming Hezbollah."

But how to do this? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."

In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of development. If people have more money they won't be terrorists. Of course, that was the policy of Hariri, which was countered by Syria blowing him up. In politics, bombs trump business. And any way you can't have a strong economy with no government and chaos. Part of the mistake here is Obama's assumption that Hizballah (and other radicals) want stability and prosperity. In fact, they want to use instability as blackmail in their pursuit of They don't want conciliation. It's a military-strategic problem, not one of community organizing.

The underlined statements (by me) drive a huge misconception home. It's true that a thriving economic Arab democracy is less a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. But what so many miss is this is the exact reason AQ and ilk cannot afford for Iraq to be in anything but chaos.... to keep instability and violence as such a level that the denizens cave in, relinquish all freedoms to oppression merely to live more easily through another day in hell.

Obama continues in his naivety, suggesting that the UN resolutions must be implemented. Terrific... this is the group that could not, and will not, even disarm Hezbollah. The UN and NATO are nothing but a history of one failure after another. The absolute irrelevance and corruption can be simply noted by the fact that the human rights committee is headed by Libya. Right....

But then Obama, with his Marxist views, speaks the soothing words that sound so good to gullible westerners, and strikes fear in the hearts of Arabs and Lebananese who desire freedom over Hezbollah oppression.

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Aptly translated by Rubin, Obama is "endorsing the Hizballah program." . Obama's largest failure as a leader is that he finds nothing in this battle worth fighting for. Diplomacy is, in his opinion, the answer.

Rubin then provides some the sarcastic comeback by Lebanon's government supporters to Obama's nonsensical suggestion.

"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizballah all those years?. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy?sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing 'national consensus' with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been 'building consensus' with them. Because what we did . . . was . . . unnecessary antagonism, a product of a 'corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.'"

"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."

The Lebanese see thru Obama's vision of "unity", and the serious damage following his Pied Piper vision can wreak. Why is it American's cannot?

But, as the sage and astute Rubin aptly says...

When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq's future, he signals every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. When his stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them; when Iran and Syria conclude they merely need stand defiant and wait until January 21 for any existing pressure vanishes, the U.S. position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.

Note that this does not make Obama the candidate favored by Arabs in general but only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem; it is one for all non-extremists in the region.

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

Amen to that....

Ex Veep Gore touts Myanmar tragedy to pimp global warming agenda

Andrew Bolt at Australia's Herald Sun as done a magnificent job examining the tragedy of Myanmar's unthinkable mass murder by Mother Nature. I'm not sure I can add anything of value to his article, Burma Killed by Tyranny". . He has already stated it in direct, non-PC terms.

What I can do is summarize. But I suggest an entire read is in order.

On Gore, morbidly promoting his pet cause.

ThE vultures are circling over Burma's dead. Hey, isn't that fat one Al Gore?

Sure is. And - flap, flap, plop - there he lands, the first to go picking over carcasses for scraps to feed his great global warming scare campaign.

What the world should be learning from this terrible loss of at least 60,000 people in the cyclone that hit Burma last week is that tyrannies kill more surely than any freak of weather.

But Al Gore, who won a Nobel "Peace" Prize for terrifying people with his error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth, wants you to blame instead his pet bogeyman. Tremble, sinners, before the wrath of a hot planet!

In an interview on America's NPR on Tuesday, Gore claimed Cyclone Nargis was actually part of a pattern.

Gore then goes on to cite recent storms in Bangladesh and China. Storms that were actually less intensive than many that hit decades ago when the world's gas emissions were nary a glint in Momma Gore's eye. Bolt does well, pointing out the research that debunks the nonsense the frequency and intensity of storms is not necessarily tied to the world's climate changes. There is no consensus among scientists of such nonsense. Gore, however, doesn't skip a beat for truth.

The *real* culprit:

But what's worse this time is that Gore's blundering attempts to blame global warming for Burma's agony distracts attention from the real causes of this catastrophe - despicable causes we may at least hope to do something about.

If Cyclone Nargis had struck not Rangoon, but Melbourne or Tokyo, it is unlikely more than a few dozen people, if that, would have died. And that's because we are free, and rich - as free people tend to be with capitalism. Even Bangkok would have survived this far, far easier.

But in Burma as many as 100,000 are now feared dead - victims not of global warming, but of a tyranny that has left them poor and defenceless.

snip

Whenever the Burmese people tried to protest against this junta-made poverty, and to demand democracy, they were shot - so often and in such numbers that China is now about the only ally the junta has left. In this way does resource-ravenous China, Olympics host, export its tyranny to the world.

Now consider how this junta - so brutal, unaccountable, incompetent, tyrannical and isolated -- has handled this latest disaster.

Two days before Cyclone Nargis hit, India's Meteorological Department warned the junta's minions it was coming, and where.

But Burma's state-owned media, one of the crudest propaganda outfits I've seen, issued no mass alerts. Indeed, illegal Voice of America broadcasts probably did more to warn Burma's civilians to take shelter than did Burma's own radio station.

The lack of warning to the population, who live in shacks and shanty's that make many of New Orlean's wards appear as mansions by comparison, was unspeakable. Even US Florida citizens, many of whom live in manuf homes, know their protections against the elements are severely limited. But at least they are told of impending doom and given the change to relocate to safer digs.

As if the Burmese/Myanmar authorities hadn't committed enough cardinal sins against their people, they are risking even more lives with their stubborn refusal to allow US aid.

Even now, the junta is killing people with its paranoia. Disaster assessment teams and helicopters from the United States have been blocked from coming in to prepare a huge rescue, and foreign aid teams not already in-country had their applications for visas stalled and aid shipments stopped.

Foreign journalists, whose reports would help raise appeal money, have been banned.

The UN is now "intensely" negotiating with the junta to let in aid workers and ease customs regulations on aid - literally begging the junta to let the world save its people.

So slow has the junta been to let in help, that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of aid group Medicins Sans Frontieres, suggested the UN Security Council adopt a resolution allowing aid to be flown into the country by force. China, naturally, is against such interference in the affairs of its "friend".

Apparently, the "junta" has allowed some shipments in... as long as they were bribed with sufficient cash. Which makes them not much more despicable than Gore, dutifully marketing his global warming panic to further line his fat ass pockets.

Beam me up, Scotty. I am quite sure I do not belong on this planet anymore.

DNC: Siding with Chavez instead of Columbia?

The story says it all. The largest steel maker in Venezuela wouldn't sell to the government, so they took it... adding to their collection of communications, electricity and oil. Chavez is making sure all the basic commodies of necessity are under his control

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday ordered the expropriation of Venezuela's largest steel maker after attempts by the government to acquire a majority stake in the company failed.

Venezuela's government will turn Siderurgica del Orinoco, which was controlled by Luxembourg-based Ternium SA., into "a socialist company," Chavez told workers gathered at a Caracas theater.

Sidor, as the company is known, "has now recuperated by the revolutionary government," Chavez said.

Since winning re-election in 2006 on promises to steer his country toward socialism, Chavez has made nationalizing major industries a top priority.

His government last year seized majority control of the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies, and of joint oil ventures run by some of the world's largest oil companies. Earlier this month, he announced plans to nationalize cement companies including Mexico's Cemex SAB, France's Lafarge SA and Switzerland's Holcim Ltd.

snip... continue reading at link above

Now that you've been reminded about the downward spiral of Venezuela under Chavez... I told you that story, to tell you this story from FrontPage Mag by Mark W. Hendrickson. Columbia is in deep shit. Their forces crossed into Ecuador to kill leftist Paul Reyes and other FARC forces hiding out there. This is, of course, the group bent on taking the Columbia government by force. This action sends Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, into a rhetoric frenzy.

A more serious condemnation came from Hugo Chavez. And now he's posturing troops on the Columbia border.

Even more outrageous than Correa’s conduct was the reaction of Venezuela’s mercurial leader, Hugo Chavez. Chavez eulogized the murderous Reyes as “a good revolutionary,” ordered 9,000 Venezuelan soldiers to his country’s border with Colombia, and made it plain that he would give FARC safe refuge from Colombian justice as long as he was in power. Chavez’ actions are clearly those of a man rushing to the defense of an ally. Those actions lend credence to the report that the confiscated computers document hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Chavez to FARC.

You might think that other Latin American countries—seeing that Chavez is trying to undermine Colombia’s government—would protest Chavez’ meddling, if not actually stand by Colombia’s side. Not so. The less radical Latin American presidents aren’t blind. They know how Chavez helped to organize disturbances in Bolivia and Ecuador that drove presidents from office so they could be replaced by Chavez allies. They know how much oil wealth Chavez is willing to spend to support left-wing allies and topple democrats throughout Latin America. This, I believe, intimidated them, and they joined Chavez in denouncing Colombia’s act of self-defense—an act which in no way hurt any other country.

So what do Chavez's not so subtle attempts to effect regime change from democracy to socialism in Columbia mean to the new breeds of US isolationist/protectionists?

Well, America was just about the last of Columbia's allies. And Pelosi has just forced the US Congress to join in on the "beat up on Columbia" free-for-all when she pulled the stunt of changing the rules about voting on CAFTA. under pressure from the AFL-CIO union honchos.

So here it is. A US ally is taking care of itself, attacking their rebel elements. They're not asking the US to send troops and do it for them, mind you. And yet what do we do? Start playing games with their economics for politics.

Hendrickson has an interesting take in his last paragraph... one that points out a looming contrast between union leaders of the past, and the leaders today.

This episode is highly instructive. It shows how completely Big Labor controls the Democratic Party. It also illustrates just how leftwing some labor leaders are. Earlier generations of American labor leaders would patriotically support our country’s allies. Sweeney, by contrast, is joining his fellow leftists from Latin America in beating up on Colombia. While democracy is under siege in our hemisphere, powerful forces in Washington are making common cause with democracy’s enemies. Shame.

I'd fall short of saying the unions are Chavez supporters. Afterall, socialism is not exactly a compatible critter with unions. But it is certainly ironic that US unions, exercising their power and influence over the Speaker and Congress, somehow find themselves on the same side as the Venezuelan despot and his subordinate neighboring thugs instead of our ally. And ya know, that's getting to be quite common nowadays... Hamas supporting Obama, DNC policies run parallel to al Qaeda's. This is quite the trend of late.

This is the Hillary/Obama party in control. Obama believes Bush as turned his back on Latin American countries. But the truth seems to sully his words as slick, politically motivated lies.

Just how are the DNC candidates to reconcile their party's behavior and policies with various national security issues? i.e... their constant cries the US must improve our image tarnished by the evil Bush. And we do this by abandoning Columbia economically, followed rapidly Iraq?? That should do mounds to increase "da love".

Perhaps what nags at me the most is why... just why... purposely or not... American leftists' vision for the US results in siding with our enemies instead of our allies darn near every time?

Obama vs Wright The politics of "change"?? Hardly

I've been trying to stay out of the Obama/Wright fray as it's covered non-stop in other blogs. But there's a couple of nagging problems I had with Wright's media blitz on the talking head shows over the weekend.

Theories raised were a false excitement by HRC and GOP supporters alike about how this "dooms" Obama's campaign. Even now, CNN commentators are spinning that Wright appears to be engaging in deliberate sabatoge of his "friend".

Others were saying Wright was deliberating sinking the Obama ship of "hope" in order to resurrect the race card and strengthen his position as a civil rights leader to a newly outraged black community.

And I could not disagree more with both theories.

Wright was poised to be the albatross around Obama's neck thru the ensuing primaries, and the general election. Were it to affect BHO's popular vote, it narrows the gap between HRC and BHO. The DNC rightfully could make a strong case to thru the nomination to HRC via superdelegates based on electoral college strength of the states she won because of a very narrow popular vote.

This "steal" from Obama then becomes less an outrage, and a logical progression for the DNC in order to secure the WH. The majority of DNC voters and the media cannot feed the civil rights movement legitimately since the call was then so close.

I firmly believe that there was a tacit agreement between Wright and Obama to stage a public divorce that would benefit both.

______________________________________

UPDATE: A planned strategy? Not so far fetched afterall. This distancing was predicted by Wright himself in an April 30th NYTs story.

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

END UPDATE
_______________________________________


For Wright, slated to release a book with his new found fame later this year (unknown release date), he gains a notoriety that could fuel sales for the "inside story" of their relationship.

For Obama, it's perfect. A public divorce forever removes the albatross from the DNC issue list... all prior to the upcoming primaries so as not to threated his presumed popular vote win. And it considerably lessens it's impact in the general. In fact, his "change" of heart would probably endear him in the voters' eyes. Much "soul searching" and heartache at severing relationships with one he revered for years. Add to that the public sympathy at being the "victim" of a long time friend and mentor.

____________________________________

UPDATE: Already Jimmah Carter calls BHO "courageous". Margaret Carlson says "Wright was disasterous" for BHO... "until today". Howard Fineman says this makes the pledged BHO supers more secure, and won't scare the unpledged away now that Wright is history. da spin is fast and furious. And all in Obama's favor. Just as planned
END UPDATE

________________________________________

That "public divorce" has now begun with Obama's breaking news press conference today.

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," said Obama, who added that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

snip

"I cannot prevent him from making these remarks," but "when I say I find these comments appalling I mean it. It contradicts what I'm about and who I am ... It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

In a break with previous comments, Obama focused his criticism on Wright the man, and not simply his remarks.

Obama said he gave Wright "the benefit of the doubt" before his speech on race relations.

"What we saw yesterday from Rev. Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of these old divisions," Obama said.

snip

He said he had not spoken with Wright since the minister's Monday speech, though he would not rule out a conversation with him in the future.

Obama said his relationship with Wright may have suffered irreparable harm. "There's been great damage," he said. "It may have been unintentional on his part, but I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

Obama effectively, and firmly, steps back. He remains a member of the church, however this poses no problem as Wright is no longer the pastor.

This campaign ploy is clever, and deliberate. It is also overlooked as the political move it is by the media. However I also believe that, behind the scenes, there is no relationship change with Wright. It was a cooperative effort in order to best benefit both on their respective paths.

This, of course, shows Obama to be no different than any other politician. The quintessential opportunitst who says and does anything to be elected.

It also puts a serious crack in his pride of "judgment"... playing the public "dupe", victimized by his friend and mentor who, BHO says, effectively hid his true beliefs for a couple of decades.
_________________________________

UPDATE TWO: A poster over at AJ's Strata-sphere turned me on to this March 18th blog post by Amy Holmes on National Review's The Corner. Now this is a woman who was truly prescient, save the launch of operation "The Pastor Plan".
END UPDATE TWO
_____________________________________

This is not the only crack in the Obama armor. His insistence that he is a man not emphasizing race and division is clearly belied by his own campaign site.

While over there, checking in on his "spin control" blog (under the "Learn" menu, titled "Know the Facts"), I noticed a category called "People". Silly me... I thought this was the campaign staff involved and never checked it.

But I wandered in and found a complete list of "people", neatly categorized by class or race. Classes/races includes:

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
African Americans
Americans Abroad
Environmentalists
First Americans (that's the native Americans to the rest of us...)
Generation Obama
Kids
Labor
Latinos
LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender)
People of Faith
Students
Veterans
Women


Whoa... no class for me as "white community".... I feel oppressed. Just "Women". But I think of myself as an American, not a "woman" fighting mythical obstacles. And I have worked most of my life in a male dominated field, sans hitches or glass ceilings.

But that's not the half of it. Each "category" of class/race has it's own blog devoted to them. And entirely different posts from the general Obama blog.

All I can say is, for a guy that touts "unite", he has a nasty habit of categorizing Americans. And this continued penchant for dividing us is directly opposed to his promises of unity.

Political Islam as the Spanish Inquisitor

Barry Rubin's article, "The Region: Stuck in the Middle Ages, Islam targets moderation" is an excellent analysis of the multifacets of Islam.

There are clerics radical in their oppression and adherence to fundamental Islam... or at least the Koran as interpreted by them. Many of these clerics advocate that Islam be the law of the land (Pakistan's Maulana Fazlur Rahman,of JUI-F in Pakistan's Parliament, just to name one), but do so via attempted legislation.

This has not fared well with the population, as they reject such strict governance and do embrace some western ideals. Such was the result of Pakistan's last election, and previous elections. There are areas (NWTA, i.e.) that do enforce it in their villages and regions. But Islam was not to be the law of Pakistan.

Hamas won elections in Palestine. However the party did not gain favor with Palestinians for totaltarian rule, or even their devotion to the elimination of Israel. Instead Hamas got the vote because of their nanny welfare programs to impoverished and war ransacked Palestinians. In essence, Palestinians are leaning Marxist/socialist in their governing views.

Then we have the militant clerics... those that demand Islamic law, and seek to implement it via violence and fear. This is "the enemy", as cleverly UN'defined by the current administration and talking heads. Their desires are clear, and most lately evoked in Zawahiri's Open Forum Part One Q&A session. They seek to not only turn all (what they consider) Arab lands into a Muslim Caliphate, but to eliminate all influences of the west. This could include everything from Embassies to corner Starbuck coffee stores.

And now we come to Rubin's analysis... likening the global jihad movement to an oppressive Spanish Inquisition. Clerics fear that with democracy and elections come an increasing irrelevance of themselves and the Islam they teach.

Those who think the problem stems from a need to make Western policy more palatable, showing enough empathy or appeasement, have no idea of the historical processes in play. Consider an interview by Munajid on Al-Majd television on March 30.

Focusing on the threat within Islam, Munajid warns (translation by MEMRI) that advocates of change are heretics engaged in "a very dangerous conspiracy." Why? Because rather than depending on clerics, they claim the right to interpret Islam, are reopening the gates of ijtihad - closed among Muslims for almost 1,000 years - and applying reason to religious doctrine. "This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people... fools or heretics."

Of course, Islamists as well as liberal reformers threaten the mainstream (conservative) clerics' monopoly over Islam. Many Islamists are not qualified theologians.

But moderates are more dangerous, in the mainstream view, since they may loosen religion's hold altogether. Thus, mainstream clerics are more sympathetic to radical Islamists - a key factor in the reformers' weakness and the Islamists' strength. To paraphrase an old Cold War slogan, they say: "Better green than dead."

To allow an Islamic state under jihad is to allow the enemy to completely suppress all forms of modernization and technology. For these allow an open window into the western temptation.

...Munajid and others know something past Europeans didn't: how far secularism can go. As a result, Muslims are extraordinarily insecure. Munajid warns that reformers "want to open up everything for debate," so that "anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem...."

Today, new interpretations; tomorrow, rampant alcoholism, short skirts, empty houses of worship, and punk rock. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.

An excellent example of this thought in action comes from an article just today from AP's writer, Ali Akbar Dareini - "Iranian official warns against importing Barbie dolls".

Now how much harm can come from a little Iranian girl, clutching a Barbie doll, you say? To Muslim clerics, irreparable harm.

"The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi said in his letter, a copy of which was made available to The Associated Press.

snip

While importing the toys is not necessarily illegal, it is discouraged by a government that made its name on preserving Iran from Western cultural influences.

In Monday's letter, Najafabadi said the increasing visibility of Western dolls was raising the alarm among authorities who were considering intervening.

"The displays of personalities such as Barbie, Batman, Spiderman and Harry Potter ... as well as the irregular importation of unsanctioned computer games and movies are all warning bells to the officials in the cultural arena," the letter said.

snip

"Undoubtedly, the personality and identity of the new generation and our children, as a result of unrestricted importation of toys, has been put at risk and caused irreparable damages," he said.

Iran has gone so far as to create competition for Barbie... twins Dara and Sara, with modest clothing and more befitting the Muslim cultural rules of no make up, head scarves, etc. Needless to say, they have been a flop. And go no... Iran is the 3rd largest importer of toys. Clerics are obviously desperate to shelter their Muslim youth from western culture, and this becomes more and more difficult in this Info Age world with satellite TV, cell phones and the Internet.

But it's not only western toys or clothing under assault. The League of Arab States recently voted in satellite broadcast restrictions to the Cairo Charter. This charter, agreed upon by 22 of the members (including Iraq and Pakistan), allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules. i.e. broadcasting anything considered "un Islamic". It is the US "Fairness Doctrine", Arab style.

What may be the most ironic is that the jihad movement themselves are masters and ardent users of the very technology they seek to ban for the rest of their fellow Muslims. But then, that is what oppressors do.... deprive others while they live in relative comfort.

Rubin's article is a fabulous read, and right on point about the desperation of Muslim clerics - likening it to a desperate Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition. However Christianity has grown, and been forced to reconcile man's progress as part of it's religious teachings. Islam, however, can not.

Though Rubin's presentation is thorough of the past, it does not go far enough, IMHO. Just what does the future with a massive Muslim Caliphate mean to the world?

Part of the difficulty of this war is the western ignorance of the enemy and their goals. Too many live in a bubble and believe that what happens in the ME and Europe has nothing to do with the US. Perhaps in Colonial days, that was true. But in this world of global trade and relationships, isolation of their desired Caliphate - from the Andulusians (Spain) to China - under political and oppressive Islamic law would have catastrophic effects on our shores as well.

A jihad victory and Caliphate affects the world economy. Trade and products from west to Arab lands would no longer be possible. And that would include from Arab lands to the west. Can any of you say "beg for oil"? How about the beautiful artifacts and rugs? Other cultural beauties would become taboo.

Banking institutions would probably separate as well. In short, the entire flow of currency, products and international trade would be slashed severely... affecting jobs and prosperity not only here at home, but world wide.

You can expect third world conditions to increase in Arab lands as they shun technology. These conditions breed poverty, disease and food shortages - all the things the US battles even now by trying to help developing countries.

Like it or not, technology,communications and transportation has linked our world together. And what happens enmasse elsewhere can have great effect on America.

Hillary - on how to win friends and influence people

I'm just beside myself with laughter today. It was just Mar 26th when I posted on "Just who is beating the drums of war in Iran?", noting that while the Bush admin has been constantly saying dealing with Iran was taking the diplomatic path, every liberal/progressive blog, DNC Congress elitist and left wing media was warning that Bush would be invading Iran before his term was up.

Now we have Hillary promising military attack on Iran if they attack Israel. (H/T to Flopping Aces)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Well, this is about as smart of posturing as Obama's "cowboy policy" promise to go into Pakistan, sans their blessings, upon "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's whereabouts.

Needless to say Hillary has now joined Obama with lessons on how *not* to improve our image in the int'l community. Their ideas on how to win friends and influence people leave much to be desired.

It was, of course, only a matter of time before Tehran spoke up in retort.

“We will cut off the hand of invaders with the slightest attack on the country,” Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi told a graduation ceremony of military cadets here on Monday.

snip

“Now, we are in a situation that the enemy has occupied neighboring countries (of Iraq and Afghanistan) and have surrounded us. It planned to wipe out the Islamic country of Iran by targeting mock enemies such as Taliban and Saddam but it could not.

It's interesting that Tehran has noticed a US success that the US electorate, nor the DNC, has not. That with Bush's Iraq maneuver to depose Saddam, he left us a US friendly ally in the region that's parked right in the middle of Iran and Syria. Not such a dumb strategy afterall... providing, of course, we don't abandon Iraq to militants, jihadists, and Islamic law.

But more than ever, it's the height of irony and chutpah to accuse the GOP and Bush WH for warmongering when, in fact, it is the media and DNC candidates themselves who "walk the walk" for the winds of war, and announce that Iran is in their crosshairs.

Future not so rosy for biofuels UNFOA sez unfair to women

Let me put a disclosure right up front... I never saw ethanol as "the future", didn't think it wise but in small local quantities at best. There were many reasons for it.

First, it costs more power to create the dang thing than it yields. If you're trying to "conserve", where does that get us?

Second, there was no way it wouldn't affect food prices, or alter the supply/demand ratio.

Third, I'm no professional farmer, but even I know that you deplete ground nutrients and natural resources with repetitive crops. That's why smart farmers always do crop rotations... to replace nutrients.

To add to all the latest "piling on" negative press ethanol and biofuels have been getting lately, comes the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. And they've added the "unfair to women" handle with their latest study, "Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production".

It's important to understand that this is not focused on US biofuel production, but also developing nations. This lends more understanding to their cry of foul for women.... that they may have less access to the land ownership.

The study notes that large-scale plantations for the production of liquid biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel require an intensive use of resources and inputs to which small farmers, particularly women, traditionally have limited access. These resources include land and water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

“Unless policies are adopted in developing countries to strengthen the participation of small farmers, especially women in biofuel production by increasing their access to land, capital and technology - gender inequalities are likely to become more marked and women’s vulnerability to hunger and poverty further exacerbated,” said Yianna Lambrou, co-author of the paper entitled Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production – Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities. “Biofuel production certainly offers opportunities for farmers – but they will only trickle down to the farm level, especially to women, if pro-poor policies are put in place that also empower women.”

The report also goes to the extent that if the biofuel crop is competitive with say firewood and food crops, it can shrink the latter's resources and cause women (who are traditionally responsible for gathering the firewood and food) have to trek further. sigh.... obviously not a US issue. We just hop in our SUV's and "gather" at the local supermart while the cord of firewood is delivered to our doorstep.

The FOA gender'ists also worry about the female managerial work impact as well... as women hold agromanagement positions, and crop rotation can be all but eliminated. So who needs their knowledge when they just plan on repeating the same crop year after year, despite soil repercussions?

What the study did not factor in was a possible creation of jobs and product... i.e. the need for nutrient replenishment and it's production, sale and distribution. But let's not nitpick about their lack of vision here.

Then, of course, they bring up the low-skilled jobs created, and the unequal wages/benefits between men and women working the biofuel crop fields.

Hey.... I'm not making this stuff up, as "out there" as it sounds. But the upshot of the attachment of the gender "foul" label just could sound the death knell of biofuels in a very PC-driven international community.

And, ya know, while I'm LMAO at the study itself, I won't necessarily be unhappy to see the biofuel industry take the hit. In fact this whole ethanol roller-coaster ride that the Bush WH (and it's more than willing accomplice, Congress), has taken us on really just proves once again a simple reality. That no matter what man can think up to slow supposed man-made global warming, it generally causes as many, or more, problems as it solves.

But I sure feel for all those who've already spent big bucks, banking on it's future.

Code Pink hits the trail Avoids face off with biker Marines

Code Pinko cowards have much in common with other criminals. They only like to assail easy targets. Once they had notice that the Marines Biker Club was paying a visit to Code Pink's headquarters in Albany, the lily livered cowards left only a sign as their welcome wagon.

"Sorry we missed you boys."

Sure they are... Club member, George Newkirk, hit the nail on the head.

"Yeah, I look at that as the enemy always runs when the marines have landed."

You make me proud, boys. And remember, the rubber side goes down.

Collision course with Pakistan still imminent for next POTUS

I've said this many times... most recently in my March 31st 2008 post, "Pakistan Update: Trouble on the Horizon?". Prior to that, I lambasted the fools who bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the media demonization of Musharraf in "Hating Musharraf. Those chickens comin' home to roost" on Mar 25th.

During the run up to Pakistan's elections, there were few to no western media voices that credited Musharraf for his risky and bold stand, aiding the US against many Pakistan political power houses. The US electorate, dutiful little sheeple they tend to be, bought into the notion that Benazir's PPP party win would magically produce a more cooperative ally - ignoring the history of the party leaders and ministers (as well as Sharif's own sketchy past).

It's almost a month later, and it's becoming even more abundantly clear that the US media and electorate is now getting exactly what they asked for. And for that misplaced faith in the PPP, aided by a relentless piling-on of Musharraf, we're another step closer to the future collision course with the complacent PPP led Pakistani government and a weakened Musharraf. They just do not demonstrate the heart to do much more than talk... An approach that has yielded nothing but a trail of broken truces in the past.

From today's NYTs, "U.S. Commanders Seeking to Widen Pakistan Attacks " by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, comes reports of a wisely cautious WH, bent on not riling the new Pakistani govt while simultaneously trying to dance around cleaning out the wasp nests of AQ and neo Taliban that have entrenched themselves in the tribal regions of that country.

American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan has given it's tacit nod to remote Predator drone strikes, but have made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate US boots on the ground, nor unsanctioned air strikes. Yet the US lives in a rock/hard place of facts. The areas with the highest threats are the very places the US is most restricted in actions by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan insists on plodding thru with negotiating with their tribal militant factions... the very same who provide unmitigated aid to AQ and other Islamic jihad movements, as well as murdering the more peaceful tribal elders who do not cooperate.

The WH, however, knows the delicate line it walks. It has no choice but to let Pakistan learn it's lessons... one more time... the hard way.

Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.

“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”

This last line is one Cowboy Obama needs to remember, given his previous statements about Pakistan.

Back in August [2007], I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory," the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

Obama's military swagger.. whether for show or for real... did not set with with the Pakistani's then. And it's unlikely it will go over any better with the new PPP led Parliament and PM Gilani in this post election era.

On the flip side, a GOP President McCain is in the same position as GWB. Without cooperation from the Pakistanis, and with Musharraf on the ropes, his hands are equally tied.

Either way, the next POTUS faces an uphill battle with the "kinder and gentler" approach the new Pak government has elected to take. Obama will either lose us an ally in the region with his unilaterial proposition, or McCain will find himself looking for incentives to use on Pakistan to get them more motivated in battling the jihad/militant elements.

One undeniable fact - Musharraf's maverick actions with the Pakistan army will be sorely missed.

Nanny state mentality vs economic realities

Australia had a meeting of the health minds... and left to their own devices, they concocted a plan for their utopian future for Australians' future generations...

i.e...

1: anyone born after 2008 would be banned from buying cigarettes

2: junk food would be taxed

3: everyone in the nation would be mandated to take a fitness test by 2020

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said one idea put forward in a submission was an annual national fitness test where citizens would receive a financial incentive if they pass.

Health stream participants in the 2020 summit also discussed increasing public education about how death can be a "positive experience" to avoid patients panicking when they reach hospital emergency departments.

Health participant, Meredith Sheil, a former Westmead Children's Hospital pediatrician, said many participants had suggested a ban on cigarette sales by 2020.

"A lot of the health submissions suggested a ban on smoking by 2020," she said.

"You would say, 'OK, from now on everybody born after 2008, you are not allowed to sell cigarettes (to)'."

The brillant minds figured that they can make healthy food cheaper by taxing junk food. Might I point out that increasing one food substance over another with higher taxes is NOT not reducing prices of "healthy" food. It's just makes one yet more expensive. It's all relative by comparison.

But right when you think it can't get worse for intrustive Aussie government legislation, it does. They also talked of "sharing patient medical records nationally, to allow a hospital in a regional area to effectively treat an inner-city patient."

Uh... has anyone noted the increased hackers' abilities of late?? That's what we'd all like... putting a database of health records online to invite hackers. Uh huh...

So why would we care about what some nanny wackos in Australia think? Well, there's few socialists that have a lick of originality in their blood. So if one nation goes that route, another nation - most especially a generation of Obamabots - might also eye the same path. Needless to say, the American smoker has been a national pariah for some time now. And we're in the midst of an election where the leading DNC candidates are jumping all over themselves to promise universal health care. That funding has to come from somewhere.

But what about the economic realities of this utopian world of non-smokers?

In a simple word... disasterous. But only until they can find another group of Americans to transfer the tax loss to.

Let's start with just how much individual states rake in from those they so love to demonize. A quick glance at this Jan 2008 chart with the amount of tax cents PER PACK of cigarettes gives you a sober reality check. Mind you... this doesn't include the local county or city taxes that can also be added.

The 51st lowest (they count DC as an add'l district/state in the stats) is South Carolina at 7 cents per pack. They are followed by the lowest tax rate by Missouri and Mississippi at 17 and 18 cents per pack respectively. Kentucky and Virginia are tied at 30 cents a pack. Followed by Florida at 33.9 cents per pack. Seven states in all with 34 cents per pack or under in state taxes.

By contrast, the big three are New Jersey (257.5 cents per pack), Rhode island at 246 cents per pack, and Washington State with 202.5 cents per pack.

In all 51 state/DC districts, 25 have at least $1 per pack tax rates. Six more range between 80 to 99 cents per pack.

When you combine the highest state/local tax combination, look no further than Obama's home town, Chicago... a whopping $3.66 per pack total.

Facts are, according to Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: via CNS News:

43 states and the District of Columbia have increased cigarette taxes since January 1, 2002, more than doubling the average state cigarette tax from 43.4 cents to $1.073 a pack

Yes folks... targeting the despicable smoker in the nation is big and easy business. No one cares if they raise taxes on smokers, save those low life smokers themselves. Afterall, they're subhumans that care little for their bodies.

The point? There's unbelievably big bucks in each state's budget that's absconded only from smokers. And if you eliminate them, just what do you think the state legislators are going to do? Cut back on their budgets?

If you do, there's most definitely a bridge to nowhere that's just awaiting your offer to purchase.

Fact is there's a rush by many states to fund socialized health care using tobacco funds. They increase the taxes per packs (even more than now), and put the extra cash against the state funds for the program. There's a similar analogy to high gas prices and taxes. But let's not confuse the issue on just who is actually raking in the cash on high fuel prices...

But back to tobacco. The devil in the details behind SCHIPs legislation had much to do with tobacco tax revenue. And according to the Heritage Foundation, states were facing a budget loss of at least $1 million annually, with 17 states facing over $10 mil in tax revenue. It was worse under the Senate version... $1.4 mil annually, with half the states losing over $10 mil annually. California, Ohio and Pennsylvania would lose over $50 mil.

Increasing the tax to support new and ever more expensive programs, combined with the peer pressure to stop smoking, is a recipe for economic disaster. One increases demands for revenue while the other results in less smokers to provide that newly needed revenue. So much for that socialized health program funding. Now where do they turn? DOH! There's no hiding from the money grubbing elected official.

But it doesn't end there. What about that dreaded "big tobacco" industry itself - almost as much a demon as "big oil" in today's society? Those tobacco companies not only employ 100s of thousands of Americans, but they also are frequently backers for state bonds. What happens to all those newly unemployed for a non-smoking world? Let's not forget the farmers now out of a marketable crop. Thus you will notice most of the low tax per pack states tend to be states that have vast tobacco farms.

Last but not least, what happens to the bonds when the sources backing them are no longer in business?

But let's not just stop there. How about our trade deficit? A real "hot button" in today's 2008 prez campaign.

According to a 1997 report from the Friends of Tobacco... a name I'm sure most will find not so endearing:

The output of cigarettes from U.S. factories was 725.6 billion. Of the total, 11.5 billion cigarettes were shipped to overseas forces, including Puerto Rico and other U.S. possessions and 220 billion to other countries.

From 1993 to the 1997 report, there was a $2.9 billion decline in tobacco purchases. We're already losing cash from the smoking subhuman.... how much more can we do without it affecting all the healthy denizens in their wallets?

Yet the US is only #2 in the tobacco producing world. The first? China, of course... producing 2.3 times more than the US. I doubt they will be prodded into feel good health legislation anytime soon.

Too few think of the repercussions of legislation on economics. And that includes those entrusted with writing and passing that legislation - Congress. They won't be reducing their spending any time soon - regardless of which side of the aisle they occupy. So when the money dries up, they merely look for new and more inventive ways to make up the difference on everyone.

The lesson to be learned is... love your fellow neighbor smoker. And don't forget to say thank you! He/she is keeping the US economic merry-go-round fueled, and keeping the taxes of the non-smoker low. The day you force them to adhere to your health standards is a day your pocketbook will rue forever.

Is the "Dumbing down of America" successful?

Fascinating article by Bradley Gitz from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that echoes some of my fears that the dumbing down of America may be successful.

Several political stories congealed in recent weeks with the cumulative effect of saying something troubling about the intelligence of the American electorate, or at least the intelligence of the American electorate as reflected in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For one, Clinton erred in making claims about touching down in Bosnia under sniper fire. Because there was no doubt about the discrepancy between what actually happened and what she said had happened, the word “lie” was beneficially reintroduced to our political vocabulary. Second, Obama gave an eloquent speech seeking to explain the views of his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and to provide an explanation for his failure to disassociate himself from those views. Third, John McCain came under attack for allegedly having said that America will be fighting in Iraq decades after he, everyone he knows and the rest of us are all pushing up daisies.

snip

Per Gitz, Clinton thought we were all dumb enough to blindly accept she put herself in bodily harm to demonstrate her courage on our behalf. BHO sought to extract himself from the Wright association by claiming "everyone has racial baggage and, in the case of Wright, such baggage is understandable in light of our nation’s sorry history of racial discrimination."

In the case of McCain, Gitz points out that "anyone who read the full transcripts of his remarks would readily grasp that he did not remotely mean what his critics, among whose ranks are included Clinton and Obama, say he meant."

Certainly it takes a "dumbed down America" to buy into Clinton's repeated tale of her dangerous Bosnian visit. An America who lazily prefers to believe media headlines, and ignore facts not so readily provided until push comes to shove.

I can only add that a "dumb America", if you read the media reports, also chose to buy into Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech as perfectly logical, and managed to ignore the not-so-subtle promise of a more socialized American and increased affirmative action'esque policies under his WH admin. Even Americans craving socialism reject preferential treatment under affirmative action. So why they choose to miss this little tidbit boggles the mind.

For McCain, he didn't have much of a fighting chance - being the nominee of the party so many want to hate. Truth of statements would get in the way of that pure emotionalism.

Gitz considers the media slam on McCain as the worst of the three... with both DNC candidates and the media assuming that Americans would be too ignorant to read McCain's actual full statement, and realize that we may very well be in Iraq a century from now... just as we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea a half century plus after those wars were fought. Both the media and DNC assume we - dumbed down America - can not discern the difference between foreign base deploment, and an active fighting force.

Clinton's behavior he passes off very briefly - a sign of her and Bill's desperate ambition to reclaim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave again as their mailing address.

Obama - in the forefront of repeating the McCain's "100 year Iraq war" mischaracterization - proves himself hypocritical... passing himself off as a new and more honest politician while demonstrating just the opposite by perpetuating such insulting mistruths to rally supporters.

Gitz's last sentence?

The cumulative effect of it all was to convey a low regard for the intelligence of the American people. And also to create the nagging hunch that such low regard is perhaps justified.

And herein lies perhaps an ugly truth. The American electorate has been dumbed down enough to be dangerous. We are, in overwhelming numbers, willing to place our political and current events education in the hands of an politically driven media with an agenda. We allow our public schools to utilize textbooks with revisionist history, striking any language considered un-PC in today's hypersensitive world.

Even worse, we are anxious to elect a POTUS and Congress who will put in massive safety nets that provide government care and money from cradle to grave because we are too lazy, lack the ambition, or find it just too hard to take care of ourselves. And to achieve that false sense of security under government control, we're willing to believe anything. It is only when it is too late that the reality of what we lost for that safety net will come home to roost.

Which brings up the tacit notion that Democrats constantly infer by their political policy suggestions. That the majority of American citizens are incapable of making a wise decision for their own welfare, so the government must do that for them. They place government in the position of a doting Mom or Dad, constantly bailing the foolish teenager out of trouble. Tough love is not a position of the liberal progressives.

It's taken decades and generations of public education to indoctrinate our youth into adults who feel their future in the US - with all it's advantages and opportunities - is "hopeless". BHO and HRC both play on this "victimized class" for voters, with BHO actually having the audacity to use the label "hope" prominently in his campaign slogans. It's no surprise, and certainly no scandal that the man states in his speeches that Americans are "bitter". It is wholly in keeping of his view of dumbed down America... again incapable of rising to the changing business climate and world of global trade that costs the US high paying, union industrial jobs.

As for the GOP'ers. There are still a few of us - adamant holdouts for control of our own lives, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. But judging by Congressional membership voted in (when one of them actually decides to quit or dies....), and the GOP choice for POTUS this year (very liberal in domestic policies) even that segment of America is dying off.

So it may be that the long, hard task of dumbing down of America is, indeed, successful after all.

The latest in DNC hypocrisy Changing the rules to thwart Bush

House queen, Pelosi, has decided to change the rules of the game to thwart a vote on the Columbia trade agreement. (NOTE SEE UPDATE BELOW....)

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

"The president took his action. I will take mine tomorrow," Pelosi said.

This is the same group, whining about the Iraqi Assembly's lack of political resolve and legislation. Can you say "irony"?

I'm not a huge fan of the NAFTA/GATT/CAFTA agreements. Then again, I'm not quite sure of another way to deal with trade in this global world that is equitable to US companies. Afterall, they are slammed financially with OSHA requirements, environmental requirements, union wages and corporate/payroll taxes... all making it nigh on impossible to compete with foreign manufacturers not subject to the same, heavy handed government mandates.

Then again, the DNC changing the rules of the game to suit their whims isn't anything new. Nor is it the last hole they themslves dug - holes in which they are about to trip into. Just keep the eyes peeled on seating (or not seating) Florida and Michigan delegates. A primary election that is bogus to the core either because of candidates' not appearing on the ticket.

For a group that preaches no more "divisions", no "racial or gender" bias, and the unfairness of it all to "disenfranchise voters", they've pretty much succeeded in proving they are *all* about race and gender, they'll change Congressional rules to keep "divides" in legislation alive and well, and they have no problem disenfranchising voters because that's how they set up their rules.... rules they'll change to harrass Bush, but not to rescue their own voter blocks.

_________________________________________

UPDATE APRIL 10TH, 2008: One day later, the WSJ has a top notch op-ed about the DNC's defection from reality.

snip

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

snip

With the DNC, it's always something. But there is no doubt this has everything to do with politics. Most especially on the heels of both BHO and HRC slamming NAFTA publicly. It would just not do to have the Dem led Congress to pass something they've planning on doing so, proving they are again lying thru their teeth to their fan base.

However, as the WSJ op-ed points out, for a group whining about the US "image" in the world, they are doing more than their fair share of keeping that image in the toilet.

Even if the free trade agreement is somehow removed from cold storage, Ms. Pelosi's cheating is a first-order strategic blunder. Colombia is one of America's closest friends in a hostile region menaced by Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. For all the talk of repairing the U.S. "image" in the world, the Democrats don't really mind harming that image if it pleases the AFL-CIO.

Amen to that one. It's gonna be a fun four years coming up....

Cautious optimism presented to Sen Foreign Relations Committee

Before Petraeus and Crocker arrive this week to face the political wrath and wrangling of our Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a media/unheralded slide thru by CFR's Dr. Stephen Biddle on April 2nd. I'm quite sure it was ignored in the media because they found it difficult to find cherry picked phrases in his analysis, "Stablizing Iraq from the Bottom Up", that are absolutes in support of their quest for withdrawal.

The above link to Biddle's paper on Iraq is a H/T to Greg Grant at Tribal Wars. Since someone at Floppping Aces turned me on to Grant's blog, I've been visiting regularly, and taking time to read his past posts. I can tell that Grant and I have some base disagreements. But from his blog presentation, I suspect this is actually a man I could disagree with without it degenerating into venomous personal assaults. And, admirably, he does indeed place a great deal of emphasis on wanting to see our military properly equipped... a place where he and I live harmoniously.

But back to Biddle and his report to the Senate Foreign Relations Commmittee. It's a surprisingly a'political analysis. There's some calling on the carpet for the doubters of Surge success, and those who opposed and preemptively called the Surge a failure. There is also the same for those that supported the Iraq deposition of Saddam, and documented mistakes. All criticism of both sides, however, is done in retrospect, with extremely good taste.

After dancing around not hurting all the politicos' partisan feelings, we are left with an insightful analysis of not only the past years of development/failures in Iraq, but where their future might possibly lie. And what appears to be surprising Biddle the most is the unexpected "bottom up" path for Iraqis to gaining long term stability.

Biddle sees a fragile and workable peace founded on their their provincial localities and local ceasefires. To him, the weakness lies with the national central government which, if it takes too much control, can have the country fall like a house of cards.

But there is a way he sees to ceasefires exising long term... with some sort of a US or UN peacekeeping force in place. Needed at least, perhaps, until younger Iraqi's, not "scarred by the experience of sectarian bloodletting, rises to leadership age in Iraq." Again, our futures like in a youthful generation, not bombarded with ancient history of hate.

This is a 15 page statement, and is worthy of your entire read. But let's see if I can summarize his future projections... leaving his Monday morning quarterback analysis of Iraq's recent past to your own reading.

From the "Conclusions and Implications" section on pg 15 of the PDF:

Iraq’s system of local ceasefires may thus offer an opportunity to stabilize the country and avert the downside risks of failure for the region and for US interests. To realize this opportunity will not be cheap or easy. And it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003. A country stabilized via the means described above would hardly be a strong, internally unified, Jeffersonian democracy that could serve as a beacon of democracy in the region. Iraq would be a patchwork quilt of uneasy local ceasefires, with Sunni CLCs, Shiite CLCs, and Shiite militia governance adjoining one another in small, irregularly shaped districts; with most essential services provided locally by trusted co-religionists rather than by a weak central government whose functions could be limited to the distribution of oil revenue; and with a continuing need for outside peacekeepers to police the terms of the ceasefires, ensure against the resumption of mass violence, and deter interference from neighbors in a weak Iraqi state for many years to come.

So far his vision of Iraq doesn't sound much different than Pakistan, or any Muslim government seeking to find a balance and liveable peace between more modern Muslims, a thriving capitalistic economy, and those that desire Sharia law.

But if you will, allow me to interject my own main bone of contention with Biddle's entire paper. He suggests somewhat of an overall failure because Irag will not turn out to be, as he puts it, another "Germany or Japan".

Or, as he says above... "it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003."

Bush warned against this notion as far back as a Nov 2003 speech at the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy: Quoted from speech:

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

Thus the only ones who could be surprised at the Iraqis' finding a "bottom up" alternative solution more appropriate to their needs are the media... the same who assumed and propagated the popular myth that Bush was trying to "westernize" and not "democratize".

For the rest of us who had a more realistic view of a Muslim democracy, and never believed Iraq would be another Germany or Japan, it was only a matter of time.... wondering when Iraq would find it's own way to relative stability.

Now that we have the only major disagreement out of the way, more from Biddle's conclusions. He suggests that the inevitible peacekeeping force must be "international" or accepted. This is, of course, a fatal flaw in al Qaeda and al Jihad Groups' Zawahiri's eyes. Per his recent interview, his organization affords the UN no higher status than he does any western force on Arab lands. But we'll leave that as an aside for now.

There are no guarantees in Iraq. And given the costs and the risks of pursuing stability, a case can still be made for cutting our losses now and withdrawing all US forces as soon as it is logistically practical.

But none of the options are cost or risk-free in Iraq, including withdrawal. A US departure from an unstable Iraq risks an escalation in violence, the prospect of regional intervention, and a much wider war engulfing the heart of the Mideast’s oil production – any responsible proposal for troop withdrawals in Iraq must contend with their risks, which are substantial. All US options in Iraq thus remain unattractive.2 But we must choose one all the same.

Biddle is quite practical. There's no guarantees... and all choices carry risk. Duh wuh! The the following paragraph.. the last one to wrap up the conclusion, I might add, drives the reality home for a cowardly leadership in a political driven liberal Congress in election year.

And the case for cutting our losses in Iraq is weaker today than it was a year ago. The rapid spread of negotiated ceasefires and the associated decline in violence since then has improved the case for remaining in Iraq and paying the price needed to maximize our odds of stability. It will not be cheap, and it is hardly risk-free. But in exchange for these costs and risks we now have a better chance for stability – not a guarantee, but a better chance – than we have seen for a long time.

Yup... hard to cherry pick this one. And I suspect when Petraeus/Crocker come up and present the same future vision, it will be a fact that is hard to ignore.

Hard to ignore unless, of course, the media deliberately avoids the link between this report, and tomorrow's Petraeus/Crocker report.

Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?