Is the troop surge in Iraq REALLY working?

If you listen only the the MSM, you would think not. The recent suicide bombing in the green zone, killing three Iraqi Members of parliament, and severely wounding a fourth, is very disheartening news. Yet if you want to understand what's really happening, you have to look at the whole, larger picture. One set back is not the whole story. Charles Krauthammer reminds us there is more:

Surge Results are Visible

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy.

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad. [...]

Krauthammmer then goes into some detail about the real changes in those areas, with new cooperation from the Sunnis, who were previously resistant. Stability is increasing, and the surge hasn't even entered full swing yet:

[...] How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The Democrats are always saying Give Peace a Chance. But the mere absence of war is not peace. Sometimes the only way way to achieve a real and lasting peace is through the exercise of strength against tyranny. How about giving General Petraeus a chance to do just that, like the Democrats agreed to?


How about giving this woman, and many just like her, a chance? A chance to live in peace and prosperity, instead of abandoning them to a certain bloodbath?


Related Link:

Give Surge a Chance: Our moral obligation
This is the text Senator John McCain's speech at the Virginia Military Institute, as prepared for delivery. An excerpt:

[...] I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. We, who are willing to support this new strategy, and give General Petraeus the time and support he needs, have chosen a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election. This is an historic choice, with ramifications for Americans not even born yet. Let’s put aside for a moment the small politics of the day. The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) McCain doesn't downplay the pain of this war, yet he also understands the long term consequences of losing it.

Hat tip to Born again Redneck Yogi for the link.
     

Qube: the conservative alternative to YouTube

A new video service similar to YouTube is now open for business, at www.qubetv.tv. But this new service is different; it encourages posting by conservatives, instead of arbitrarily banning them.

From Wendy Cook at Accuracy in Media:
Qube TV: The Conservative YouTube

If you're not already familiar with Qube TV... you should be! This "conservative YouTube," if you will, is trailblazing the way for conservative New Media. The vision of the three-week-old venture is to be a communal place for conservatives to gather without the fear of censorship or the concern that their news, ideas or videos will be suppressed or flagged as hate speech and deleted into thin air.

"I look at Qube TV as, if you will, a Home Depot for the videos, still pictures, social networking and blogging of the conservative movement," said Qube TV creator Jeff Lord in an exclusive interview with Accuracy in Academia. "Anyone who wants their own blog, their own website, will have it."

Not just another political site, Qube TV will offer many topics such as: sports, entertainment, video games, books, music and religion. "If some young conservative guy wants to pour out his soul about finding a young conservative girl—we want him to come and set up his own space and pour out his rightward heart!" explained Lord. "There are as many topics of interest as there are conservatives—which is to say a lot!" [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The rest of the interview by Wendy is about the inspiration for the project, how they set it up, how it will be different from YouTube, and what they hope to accomplish. It's not a long interview, but is very informative.

I'm very glad to see this. YouTube is brilliant, but their biased censorship has been very disappointing. An alternative like Qube is very much needed.


Related Link:

Izimi.com
Izimi is another alternative for people who wish to host their content on there own PC.
     

Iran, under the surface... is it crumbling?

I've been reading a lot in the past few months about the internal and external pressures Iran is facing. Could it be that all the aggression and bravado that we are seeing is actually a sign of weakness? Iran has been evolving ever since it's 1979 revolution, and created plenty of problems for itself along the way.

They've run their economy into the ground, they have high unemployment, over half the population are under the age of 25, with few job prospects. There are rampant illegal drug use problems. The government isn't in complete control of everything, nor are they in complete agreement among themselves. And now they have their President Ahmadinejad, acting like a mad chimp. What's it all about?

A recent post by James Lewis at the American Thinker blog has a look at Ahmadinejad's behavior, and posits that it might be more about insecurity than strength. Some excerpts:

Display of Aggressiveness (Who is Mahmoud's Target?)

[...] Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, has been hopping around like a male chimp performing a threat display --- pant-hooting, baring his big canine teeth, and tearing off branches to impress the hell out of all the other apes. He's obviously trying to get a rise out of us.

[...]

So who is Ahmadi-nejad trying to impress?

It's a puzzle. The serious players in the world probably have a reasonable idea of real Iranian nuclear technology. They are not going to be affected by all the pant-hooting hullaballoo. His internal enemies are not going to be affected either, except maybe getting scared of being evaporated in a nuclear Armageddon ad majorem dei gloriam --- for the greater glory of Allah. That's not their style. They want nukes, but they think it's idiotic to make a big public fuss about it.

So what's the answer? My guess is that, like the pant-hooting chimp, Ahmadi-nejad is trying to control his own anxiety. Here's a man who preaches over and over again that he wants to conquer the world for Allah --- if necessary, by martyring himself and the people of Iran in a nuclear exchange with Israel and America. But his whole life experience is of cultural inferiority. The mullahs are reactionary throw-backs living in the 21st century, and live with an incredible of cognitive dissonance. They know their actual level of incapability. How do you cope? Well, you can only try to bluff and steal their toys.

Nuclear weapons are supposed to be the great equalizer, of course, which will make up for all those feelings of inferiority. But nukes are much more likely to end up as the great vaporizer of the regime itself. Ahmadi-nejad is a little man trying to act like a big man, and using displays of fearful power to succeed --- as he always has, in his tiny, closed world of ayatollahs and their fantasies. According to the MK (Marxist) rebels against Tehran, Ahmadi-nejad started as a prison interrogator and executioner for Khomeini. He has dealt with helpless opponents all his life.

Inspiring terror has always worked for him.

Ahmadi-nejad is quite ignorant about the larger world. On his recent visit to Saudi Arabia he was unable to talk directly with the King because he does not even speak Arabic --- the sacred language of the Koran. Apparently he left Saudi Arabia in a huff because the King told him what kind of danger he was creating for his own people. The Saudis must view him as a dangerous ignoramus. By comparison, many of the surrounding rulers, like King Abdullah of Jordan, are worldly and sophisticated. Even Bashar Assad went to school in France and Britain.

[...]

One hypothesis is that Ahmadi-nejad is engaging in a grand provokatsya, trying to trigger an emotional reaction from the West --- either retreat, or an unsustainable attack. Now that's not going to work with Bush and Cheney, who are pretty good poker players. It's not going to work with Tony Blair, in spite of the depressing recent performance of the Royal Navy. It's not going to work with Israel, which will fight all out, but only when it absolutely must. Oddly enough, these chimp displays only work to scare the Western public, especially on the Left, which may be slowly emerging out of its state of denial by seeing Ahmadi-nejad doing his nuclear song and dance.

Strategically, any action against this hair-raising regime must occur at a time and place of our choosing.

If and when we go for regime change in Tehran, it must be fast, clean, and evoked by clear and present danger.

Well, Ahmadi-nejad is helping to set the stage. Already 52 percent of Europeans, not famous for thinking clearly about rogue regimes, believe that violence may be justified to overthrow the Khomeinist regime. That's a couple of years after most of them threw screaming fits about the overthrow of Saddam. Ahmadi-nejad's chimp display seems to be having the opposite effect he intended. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I think this chimp theory does explain a lot. And it's not hard to see how Ahmadinejad's terror techniques as interrogator would not play well on the world stage, and could even backfire.

I remember the Soviet Union being quite full of bravado, right up until it's collapse. Could we be witnessing something similar with Iran? Many people also believe that Iran exaggerates it's technological prowess and progress, but that is debatable. Because they are so secretive, it's difficult to know exactly how far they have advanced. Yet even the Soviet Union, which already had nuclear bombs and technology, crumbled none the less. Weapons and technology couldn't save them from their self-created internal problems.

Iran is still a very real potential danger, but will it continue in it's current form long enough to bring Ahmadinejad's plans to fruition? James Lewis looks in detail at the dynamics at work in and around Iran, and the pressures bearing on them. The West may indeed have good reasons for not using military force just yet. I recommend reading the whole article.


Related Links:

What can we do with a country like Iran? LOTS.
We have many, many non-military options for dealing with Iran.

Amadinejad supports Pop Islam, Iranian nationalism, to serve the goal of Martydom
In the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini crushed Iranian nationalism in order to bring about a completely Muslim State. But now Iranian President Ahmadinejad is trying to revive Iranian Nationalism, to advance his nuclear program and to rally the Iranian people for war and Martyrdom. Will it work?

Iraq in the Balance
Iran and Iraq have the largest populations of Shia Muslims. Shia Islam is a strong dynamic at work in both countries, and however we deal with one country will affect the other. Shia domination of Iraq is inevitable. What will that mean for Iraq, Iran, the Middle East, and the rest of the world?

Cockroach cartoon triggers protests in Iran
Rare photos of large protests in Iran. Links to more information about internal unrest in Iran.
     

President Pelosi continues to over-reach...

Not content with stumbling in Syria, it seems "President" Pelosi is considering posturing in Iran, too:

Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

Someone needs to explain to this woman that she is second in command to the President and Vice President, not the Second President.


What's her excuse? Posturing, of course. It's the Democrats specialty nowadays.


Related links:

Democrats promote their own foreign policy

Pelosi over-reaches, makes many mistakes

Pelosi does Syria; no legal consequences
     

An alternative to Wikipedia: Citizendium

There was a fascinating article in last Sunday's Register-Guard newspaper, about an alternative to Wikipedia, created by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger. Here are some excerpts from the article By Brian Bergstein:

Wikipedia, with names

[...] Sanger recently took the wraps off a Wikipedia alternative, Citizendium. His goal is to capture Wikipedia's bustle but this time, avoid the vandalism and inconsistency that are its pitfalls.

Like Wikipedia, Citizendium is a nonprofit, devoid of ads and free to read and edit. Unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium's volunteer contributors are expected to provide their real names. Experts in given fields are asked to check articles for accuracy.

''If there's going to be a free encyclopedia, I'd like there to be a better free encyclopedia,'' says Sanger, 38, who has a doctorate in philosophy and speaks slowly, as if cautiously choosing every word.

''It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing in this way, and yet the project itself has little chance of radically improving.''

[...]

Stephen Ewen, an adult-education instructor in Jupiter, Fla., who quit contributing to Wikipedia and plans to work on Citizendium, believes the quality of Wikipedia entries often degrades over time because someone inevitably comes along to express a counterproductive viewpoint.

Contributors are free to hash out such changes on the discussion pages that accompany every article. But Ewen believes that Wikipedia's anonymity reduces the accountability that stimulates healthy exchanges. To some dissidents, Wikipedia seems an inscrutable world unto itself - not unlike the devotion-inspiring virtual environs of role-playing games.

''When you put everybody in a system that is flat, where everybody can say yes or no, without any sense of authority, what you get is tribalism,'' Ewen says. ''What has gone into the article creation is very often the result of this dysfunctional system. It presents itself with this aura of authority, whereas what goes on behind the scenes is anything but.'' [...]

(bold emphasis mine) I like Wikipedia and use it a lot. Yet I share some of the concerns brought up in this article. Because the information on Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, I've been reluctant to use it as an exclusive source. There are stories of abuse, about uninformed people editing information incorrectly to advance agendas of their own.

Citizendium would seem to take steps to avoid this, by avoiding anonymity and acknowledging authoritative sources for verification. The project is still in beta stage, while they build up their articles and data base. The article has more about that, as well as counter arguments from Wikipedia's de facto leader, Jimmy Wales. It makes for interesting reading.

I think with the two sites competing, there will be more striving for accuracy, and thus we will all win. Welcome, Citizendium!


Related Link:

Collectivism, the internet and the "hive"
     

Pelosi does Syria; no legal consequences

There has been a lot of talk on conservative blogs about Pelosi violating the Logan Act by her visit to Syria. They say she broke the law.

But did she? In an previous post, I maintained that Pelosi is a hippy and a socialist at heart, and that means she will do whatever she likes, flouting any laws and traditions, as long as she could get away with it. In this instance, clearly she can do just that. How can that be?

Michael Dorf has an excellent post, outlining four reason as to why, legally, Pelosi will get away with it:

Did Speaker Pelosi Violate the Logan Act?

Prosectuing the Speaker for this would be very tricky, and highly unlikely. Surely she knows this too. There may indeed be consequences to Pelosi for her actions, but they won't be legal ones.



However if Pelosi and the Democrats continue pursuing a separate foreign policy, there will indeed be consequences for us all.




Related Link:

Pelosi over-reaches, makes many mistakes
     

Duckling feeds Koi... or Koi steals lunch?

Well it LOOKS like the baby duck is feeding the Koi, but it's hard to say for sure. Ducks like to eat their food with water. The Koi are always on the look out for food in the water. Maybe they are just eating the crumbs that fall out of the duckling's beak; ducks are messy eaters. Then again, the fish are so big, maybe they are sucking the food right out of the ducky's mouth while it's trying to eat, like thugs stealing a school kid's lunch!

Whatever is really happening, it's still cute to watch. You just hope the Koi don't think the ducky looks tasty. They're so much bigger than he is!

Come to think of it, don't most ducklings have siblings? Where's the other little duckies? Uh oh...

Source link: baby duck feed the carp (Nishiki-Goi, Koi)
     

Iran learns again the benefits of hostage taking

(You can read related commentary and links here.)

Despite denials that a deal was made for the release of the 15 British hostages, it looks like concessions were made:

From Charles Krauthammer: Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's

[...] You would think maintaining international order means, at a minimum, challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet capitulation.

The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat'' who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released. Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian "consular officials'' -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the U.S. had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is that what got this unstuck was American action. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Yep, we bailed the Brits out. And what have we got in return? More dirty work to do as Britain suspends operations in the Gulf. I guess we have to pick up the slack?
     

Pelosi over-reaches, makes many mistakes

Nancy Pelosi, the good little dhimmi
I was surprised when Pelosi wore a headscarf. Yes, she didn't wear it when meeting with Assad, yet as a foreign dignitary she wasn't required to wear it at all. I guess it shows how far she was willing to go to suck up to the Syrians. But from a feminist viewpoint, it was a shameful step backward.

From Tammy Bruce:
The Result of the American "Feminist" Movement

In other words, not feminist at all, but quintessentially leftist: that pit where the dignity of women is sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. Pelosi's visit to Syria did more than encourage a murderous dictator, her wearing the hijab legitimizes and honors the world's most entrenched oppression of women--the Islamic man's insistence (in the name of 'religion') that women are too dangerous, too dirty, too ungodly, to be allowed to be seen in their entirety in public.

Great work Nance. Now if you would just come over to my house and do my dishes, make the bed, and wash my feet, we'll be batting 1000. [...]

Tammy, an authentic feminist, has more to say on the matter. But in the larger picture, what other mistakes has Pelosi made here? Quite a few, it seems. Nancy really was in over her head, misinformed about what she was dealing with, and misunderstanding all she saw along the way.


From Fred Barnes at The Daily Standard:
Pelosi Abroad: The new speaker stumbles in Syria.

[...] Pelosi's visit to Damascus for talks with Syrian president Bashir Assad showed her ill-equipped to deal with the longstanding conflict between Israel and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East. She made three serious mistakes.

Pelosi got off on the wrong foot by stating beforehand her belief that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Not true. In the struggle between Israelis and Arabs, the road to Damascus has not been a path to peace--quite the contrary. In fact, Assad and his father, who preceded him as president, have never made more than a minimal effort to reach a peace settlement with Israel.

Pelosi seemed to think it would be easy to get the Israelis and Syrians together at the bargaining table. It's not and never has been. The complicated nature of diplomacy in the Middle East eluded her. She was in way over her head. She didn't understand what she was dealing with. This was her first big mistake. [...]

And there are several others too, I can't repeat them all here, but it's worth reading the whole thing.

When Pelosi was up for nomination as House Speaker, there were doubts by some Democrats that Nancy was the best choice, because they felt she would be a loose canon. Perhaps they were right, and this is just the beginning.


Related Links:

Syrian President Too Busy for Pelosi During Turkish PM's Visit

Democrats promote their own foreign policy

The Pelosi Doctrine?!
     

Redneck Women & Deadly Handsom Men

No doubt many of you have already seen the "Redneck Women" video...

But have you seen the male equivalent, "Deadly Handsome Men"?

Hat tip to Nealz Nuze for the links:
Redneck Women, Deadly Handsome Men.

Daisy, the silly, loveable Canadian Goose

Here is a link to a video about a Goose called Daisy. I got a copy of this video in my email, and I found a link to it from it's source: Daisy the Goose

A description by Ken Speake, who did the video for KARE 11, Minnesota:

I heard a story about a goose that was friends with a dog, and both seemed to think they were human.

I heard that the goose flew in formation with a guy's boat, and when it was tired, rode on the boat, right next to the dog.

I don't think I'd ever heard anything more unlikely... a goose, friends with a dog... weird!

But intriguing.

I figured we'd go do the story. [...]

Click on the video link on the page to see the video (It has a short commercial at the begining, then the video, which is just over 2 minutes long.)

I've often said that keeping fowls is like owning your own Jurassic Park; they're a bit like small dinosaurs with feathers. I've come to understand what people mean by the term "bird brain". They have their own logic, their own way of understanding things, which isn't always smart by human understanding.

They do have an emotional nature of sorts, too. It seems to be a little more highly evolved in ducks than chickens. And in geese, it may be even more advanced still, from what I've read. They also do that imprinting thing, more so than ducks. This video is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Ducks aren't especially cuddly or even particularly friendly, but it's funny how they can pull your heartstrings. I think I would like to own geese one day, but I'm not ready to rush into it, as it's a big commitment; they have long life spans, and could even outlive me. Yikes! And because they imprint on you when you raise them from little goslings, I don't think it would be easy to just get rid of them (or eat them!) if for some reason you couldn't keep them.
     

Amadinejad supports Pop Islam, Iranian nationalism, to serve the goal of Martydom

When ayatollah Khomeini brought his Islamic Revolution to Iran in 1979, it was very austere, like the man himself. Traditional nationalism was suppressed; Khomeini wanted Iranians to be Muslims first, Iranians 2nd. In an effort to create a state where Islam permeated every aspect of life, a sort of Islamic pop culture evolved.

Iranian.com has an interesting article by Anna Mahjar Barducci, called "Pop Islam", which looks at how Iran's Islamist and pop cultures seem to mingle and loose themselves into each other, and how Iran's president Amadinejad is trying to tap into that pop culture to increase his popularity and further his goals - nuclear and other ambitions which he cannot push through without appealing to a strong national identity.

Here are some excerpts (with spelling corrections; I suspect English is not her first language):

[...] The revolution overwhelmed the Iranian reality, without being able anymore to cleave the profane from the holy. In this way, the appearance of the Iranian republic has been changed to transform everything into a product of the ayatollahs' regimes. However, this evolutionary process gave birth to a new pop-Islamic revolution, which influences religious ceremonies too.

In the markets of Tehran, old men sell CDs of shi’a religious rituals. In one of them, young people start shouting the name of the prophet ’Ali, increasing the rhythm until the sounds become similar to pop-disco music. All in a sudden, as if they were in a rave party, they get undressed, while continuing to repeat the name of ’Ali. In this revolution, the Islamist and pop culture seems therefore to mingle, by loosing themselves into each other.

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Amhadinejad, finds himself at ease in this new modern revolution.

[...]

In one of his latest events, he brought men dressed up with coloured local robes, enphasizing the national element. Many Iranians asked themselves what was going on. Khomeini tried to destroy the national identity, by imposing the religious-Islamic one. He wanted his population to feel first Muslim and then Iranians.

Male dancers on Iranian TV, appearing in traditional Iranian ethnic costumes, holding up capsules of uranium hexaflouride (you can read more HERE.)

Ahmadinejad changed again the rules. He brought up the national and the religious identity at the same level, adding a new element to the Iranian revolution. Ahmadinejad – provocatively called by the opposition in the country Ahmaqi-nejad, the race of the stupids – understood that to have his own population backing the nuclear project, a pop-Islamic revolution was not enough. He needed a pop-and most of all national-Islamic revolution.

Actually, the stregthening of the Iranian army and the acceleration of the nuclear plan can only be possible if the feeling of belonging to the Iranian nation is restored. [...]

The article goes on to explain how this restoration of national identity is being used to further Amadinejad's goals by preparing his countrymen for martyrdom in a war with unbeleivers. It also explains why Iran's nuclear program is a key element in paving the way for the return of the Mahdi, as believed by the Hojjatiyeh, a religious sect despised and banned in 1983 by Khomeini for being too radical.n Members of that sect include Amadinejad and his spiritual and ideological mentor, the Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, a powerful political and religious figure, who a few months ago praised martyrdom operations.

The Hojjatiyeh sect believes the Mahdi will return only after massive chaos, war and bloodshed. Many observers believe that Iran is cultivating it's nuclear option to that end; to bring about the return of the Mahdi sooner.

Martyrdom is a popular theme in Iran these days, making the regime more radical than it's predecessors. It's taught in schools, preached on TV, and even extended to youth throughout the Middle East via Hezbollah's Mahdi Scouts, which trains youths by the thousands for combat and martyrdom.

People who doubt Amadinejads Martyrdom plans for the Iranian people have not been paying attention. I have to give the man credit, he doesn't hide it. A speech he made recently made it quite clear:

Ahmadinejad: Glory, Honor Await the Continuation of the Path of Martyrdom (Shehada); God Has Appointed the Hidden Imam to Support Us

In a speech on Saturday, March 31, 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised martyrdom (shehada) and said that nothing but victory awaited the followers of this path:

"Any nation that can educate hundreds of thousands of people to be willing to martyr themselves [shehada] and to attain the height of martyrdom is invincible... Anyone who is willing to [set] martyrdom in the path of [his] ideals is always the victor. Being on the path is victory [in itself], and defeat on this path does not exist... The willingness to carry out shehada is an invincible weapon, that nothing can overcome.

"You saw last summer how the Zionist regime, armed to the teeth, was defeated in the face of the young faithful of Hizbullah... God has not left us defenseless in the face of the front of arrogance [i.e. the West, led by the U.S.]. Our revolution and our state have an owner; God has set the Hidden Imam to support us... Martyrdom [shehada] is the shortest path to attain the height of human perfection. Those who have carried out martyrdom [i.e. the fallen shahids] are today looking at our behavior and illuminating the path of our nation like a floodlight..."

Source: IRNA, Fars, ISNA news agencies, Iran, April 1, 2007

(bold emphasis mine) This does not bode well for us. Especially since Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, many Democrats and even some Republicans, aren't paying attention to the obvious.
     

Democrats promote their own foreign policy

(You can read Cox & Forkum's related commentary and links HERE.)

Pelosi goes to Syria, setting a new presedent for the worse.

From Thomas Sowell:
Democrats Playing With Fire

[...] Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home. [...]

None of this is really surprising to me. Hippies and socialists disregard laws and traditions whenever it suits them, if they think they can get away with it. Nancy Pelosi is both a hippy and a socialist at heart, no matter how many strings of pearls she wears. She and her constituents also don't believe we are at war, and are acting accordingly. 9-11 was just a law enforcement problem, you see, even if the Jihadists themselves call it a war. Sowell continues:

[...] But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society.

Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.

That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists. [...]

It seems 9-11 just wasn't enough. Will it take something bigger? Iran will oblige us there, but if we wait till then it really will be too late.

Thomas Sowell sums it up nicely, it's worth reading the whole thing.
     

German Anti-Americanism; what you believe is more important than what you know?

Bush-bashing; a national sport in Germany?

The Anti-American sentiments of socialist Western Europe are well known. A recent survey in Germany says 48 percent of Germans think the United States is more dangerous than Iran, with only 31 percent believing the opposite.

The following are excerpts from a German magazine article, that examines the way Germans see both the USA and Iran (I enjoyed it, as some of the commentary is rather scathing):

By Claus Christian Malzahn at Der Spiegel:
Evil Americans, Poor Mullahs

[...] There are some Germans who will never forgive the Americans for VE Day, when they defeated Hitler. After all, Nazism was just an accident, whereas Americans are inherently evil. Just look at President Bush, the man who, as some of SPIEGEL ONLINE's readers steadfastly believe, "is worse than Hitler." Now that gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone. If Bush is the new Hitler, then we Germans have finally unloaded the Führer on to someone else. In fact, we won't even have to posthumously revoke his German citizenship, as politicians in Lower Saxony recently proposed. No one can hold a candle to our talent for symbolism!

Anti-Americanism is the wonder drug of German politics. If no one believes what you're saying, take a swing at the Yanks and you'll be shooting your way back up to the top of the opinion polls in no time. And on the practical side, you can be the head of the Social Democratic Party and endear yourself to the party's hardcore with a load of anti-American nonsense, and still get invited back to Washington -- just look at Gerhard Schröder. In fact, you could, like leading German politicians in the debate over the planned American missile shield in Europe, be accused of having "an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge" by a former NATO general, and even that wouldn't matter. It's all about what you believe, not what you know.

Anti-Americanism is hypocrisy at its finest. You can spend your evening catching the latest episode of "24" and then complain about Guantanamo the next morning. You can claim that the Americans have themselves to blame for terrorism, while at the same time calling for tougher restrictions on Muslim immigration to Germany. You can call the American president a mass murderer and book a flight to New York the next day. You can lament the average American's supposed lack of culture and savvy and meanwhile send off for the documents for the Green Card lottery.

Not a day passes in Germany when someone isn't making the wildest claims, hurling the vilest insults or spreading the most outlandish conspiracy theories about the United States. But there's no risk involved and it all serves mainly to boost the German feeling of self-righteousness. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) But what about Iran? How do Germans feel about Iran? Apparently it's not so safe to be Anti-Iranian. 20 years ago, a Dutch entertainer produced a short TV sketch portraying Ayatollah Khomeini dressed in women's underwear, and... well, I can't reprint the whole thing here, but DO read the whole article. Treat yourself! I didn't even excerpt all the scathing bits here! :-)


Related Links:

From George Handlery at the Brussels Journal:
Replace the USA?

Also from the Brussels Journal, by Elaib Harvey:
The B Vocabulary of the EU: Brussels Bans Jihad
They aren't talking about banning Jihad the concept; they are talking about banning the use of the word in the media. The "B Vocabulary" refers to a concept used by George Orwell... see the article for the explanation. Yikes.
     

Sunday Funnies 04/01/07

Ms. Goodling is probably terrified that if she can't remember something, she'll be thrown in prison for 25 years like Scooter Libby. The witch hunt continues.

Justice is supposed to be blind and let the scales do the judging, but lately it seems she peeks a lot, making the scales a bit wonky:





What's wrong with Portland? Have a look here, here and here.





I expect that boycotting Fox News is going to become a permanent tactic for those Democrats who fear scrutiny and only want softball questions from sympathetic media. What can you expect from people who's arguments are so flimsy, that they can't even debate their way out of a wet paper bag?

Debunking Rosie O'Donnell's Stupidity

“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
- Rosie O'Donnell, from "The View"

Once again we are subjected to the half-baked opinions of an actress, presented as unassailable facts. How does this arrogant, ignorant woman even get time in front of a camera anymore? The facts do not support her. Do the facts even matter anymore? I think so, and fortunately I'm not the only one.

Some good news for us, from Tammy Bruce:

Popular Mechanics Responds to Rosie's 9/11 Conspiracy Meltdown

On Tammy Radio today I commented on Rosie O'Donnell's delusions about September 11th and her assertions that it was an American government conspiracy. This after her similar paranoid/conspiracy rant about the Iranian hostage taking of the British sailors either being faked or arranged by us, the British, or maybe Martians. All she knows is someone is setting up the gentle, compassionate and 'ethical' Iranians.

Other than the mental health issues in question, the bizarre claims of conspiracy surrounding 9-11 have been addressed over the years by a number of respected scientists, researchers and engineers, including the editors of Popular Mechanics. They now respond to Rosie's delusions on their blog, and deconstruct her wild accusations, one by one.

Tammy also goes on to tell us about the book Published by Popular Mechanics, called:

"Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts".

See the rest of Tammy's post for more about the book, and a link to an article about the Conspiracy Industry, by one of the editors at Popular Mechanics.


As for Rosie's claim about melting steel, she's right! The steel did not melt, the fire would not have done so. Unfortunately, she stopped there. What she failed to understand was that it didn't have to melt for a collapse to occur.



Some excerpts from the Popular Mechanics Rosie Rebuttal article:

[...] Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here [see article for hyper-links] offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor [...]

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse. [...]

(Bold emphasis mine) Tower 7 sustained severe damage to it's lowest 10 floors. Add to that fire, fed by ruptured pressurized fuel lines, which WEAKENED the stress capacity of the already over-burdened remaining support beams ... it isn't hard to understand. But it does require actually reading something other than just conspiracy theory. Rosie ought to try it sometime.

The article is filled with lots of details, and also examines and debunks the clandestine demolition theory too. It's easy to understand and should be of great interest to anyone who actually cares about FACTS.



I worked in high-rise security for 12 years. I participated in annual Life Safety seminars, where scenarios like the impact of a plane were examined. Depending on the size of the plane, it's speed, it's fuel load and where it impacted the building, it could precipitate the collapse of a building. ANY massive damage to a large building, in the right location, combined with a raging fire, could do the same thing. This kind of knowledge has been around since long before 9-11. In fact the 9-11 hijacker's tapped that knowledge and decided to deliberately use it as a weapon.

To have to hear an ignoramus like Rosie spouting off at length on national TV about her conspiracy theory nonsense, when the information that proves her wrong is so abundantly and easily available, is appalling and beyond excuse. Barbara Walters, who is supposed to be a journalist, should be ashamed of herself for allowing it to go unchallenged. What's going to be next on The View... Holocaust denial? Sheesh!


Related Links:

LMC's The Anti-View
(has video link, also has contact information for sending complaints to ABC).

Highrise Security and our post 9-11 reality
What I understand about 9-11, based on my own experience in high-rise security.
     

Weak response only invites more of same...

(You can read Cox & Forkum's related commentary and links here.)

The U.N. has once again shown that they are good for nothing.

From Neal Boortz:
THE U.N. CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT

The worthless United Nations continues to be useless. Iran goes into Iraqi waters and kidnaps 15 British sailors, one of them a woman, and the best they can do is to express "grave concern." Oh wow! Grave concern! I'm sure that really curled some beards in Iran. The U.N. originally intended to "deplore" the hostage-taking, but Russia objected. And here we thought that Putin was mad at Iran for not paying its bills! I guess not.

Face it. The U.N.'s response to this naked aggression shows that the organization serves no practical purpose and should be downgraded to a Sunday afternoon tea society. [...]

Neal is just warming up... it's worth reading the whole thing.


In another article, the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran may
only be a few days away from making weapons grade uranium:

[...] The IAEA also is waiting for Iran to respond to its requests to install remote cameras at key locations at Iran's underground enrichment plant at Natanz.

No enrichment is yet taking place at Natanz, but diplomats accredited to the IAEA said Friday it may start within days. If so, those cameras are crucial for IAEA experts in their efforts to monitor possible attempts to reconfigure machinery there into making weapons grade uranium — used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads. [...]

So far, there hasn't been much in the way of serious consequences for Iran, so it continues to do as it likes. The lack of response by the U.N. and the Western powers emboldens them further... where is it all going to end?
     

Sewer pipes in Gaza used for rockets instead; resulting sewage flood kills six

To find out how this cartoon is literally true, read Cox & Forkum's related commentary and links HERE.

Six people dead in a flood of raw sewage, because some Palestinians thought it was more important to use the sewer pipes to make rockets to kill Jews, than to drain away their own feces. As a result, they are literally swamped by their own sh*t when a retaining wall for an overburdened cesspool collapsed.

They had been warned about the danger of the sewage flood for TWO YEARS. But they had more important things to do with those pipes.

It's hard to feel sorry for people with priorities like that.

Tiger adopts little pork chops as her own

I got the following email with attached photos:

Subject: Fw: Mother of the Year!
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:37 AM
> Subject: Mother of the Year!
>
>
> > I guess this tiger lost her new baby cubs and was so upset about it that they gave her some piglets to raise...dressed as tiger cubs...you have to wonder if one day she'll think her cubs smell very similar to pork chops...
> >
> >[END]

It seems these pics have been circulating around the internet with various versions of a story.



The story goes something like, a Tiger in a California Zoo miscarries a litter, and becomes so depressed, the Zoo gives her piglets dressed up as tigers and she adopts them.



But the truth about the photos is actually more interesting. From About.com:

Tiger Nurses Piglets

[...] Comments:  The photos are genuine, but there's more to this story than meets the eye.

To begin with, the snapshots were taken at the Sriracha Tiger Zoo in Chonburi, Thailand (near Bangkok), not some nameless zoo in California. Moreover, it would appear that the sad tale of the tigress falling into a deep depression after losing a litter of cubs was fabricated, as was the claim that the piglets were substituted for the deceased cubs by zookeepers in order to console the "mourning mother."

As it happens, this sort of intermingling of species is not at all unusual at the Sriracha Tiger Zoo, where "creating successful relationships with animals of different species" is something of a guiding principle. The facility, more accurately described as part zoo and part circus, boasts offbeat attractions like basketball-playing elephants, "lady crocodile wrestlers," and a petting zoo where customers can bottle-feed baby tigers with their own bare hands. Visitors have reported seeing tigers, pigs, and dogs all housed together within the same enclosure, with sows nursing tiger cubs and tigresses nursing piglets "adorned in tiger-print costumes."

The costumes are strictly for show, by the way. The mother tiger pictured above, who has been photographed on other occasions suckling piglets au naturel, was herself nursed by a pig in infancy and apparently regards the other species as family, not prey. [...]

Snopes.com also gives further details:

Tiger and Piglets

While the zoo in Thailand has intermingled species successfully, it has had some other legal and health related problems.

Check out the "photographed" link in the quote above, for more pics of tigers and piggies.
     

Iran's kidnapping drama continues...

The kidnapping of British Soldiers by Iran is reported on Iranian TV

It's difficult to know what Iran is up to. Perhaps they are looking for a prisoner swap? Perhaps they have over-reached more than they intended?

Internally, Iran is having lots of problems. The economy is tanking, and the U.N. sanctions against Iran promise to make things worse. The Iranian government is clamping down on dissidents and opposition groups, and stepping up censorship of foreign media and cultural influences.

There are divisions in the Iranian leadership; not all the mullah's like what Amadinejad is doing, believing he is creating unnecessary problems. Pressures continue to mount as Iran tries to move forward with it's nuclear program.

As I noted in a previous post, we still have many non-military options we can use in dealing with Iran.

Here are some of the latest articles on the situation today:

From Tammy Bruce:
Iran's British Marine Hostage Drama Deepens

From Jack Kelly:
Britain Must Respond Firmly to Iran's Provocations

[...]Why would Iran engage in such a provocation now?

First, taking hostages is what the mullahs do. When the Islamists first took control of Iran, they seized the American embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. (They were released on the day Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. He'd made it clear during the campaign that he lacked Jimmy Carter's forbearance toward the Islamist regime, and the mullahs didn't want to risk testing his resolve.) In 2004, they seized eight British sailors on a similar maritime inspection mission. (The sailors were released after three days, but not before being paraded blindfolded on Iranian tv.)

Second, the Iranians need somebody to trade. The mullahs have been embarrassed by the apparent defection of two high ranking officers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, and U.S. and U.K. forces have arrested five Iranian intelligence officers within Iraq since the surge began. (The CIA apparently warned the British the mullahs were planning reprisals.)

Third, the mullahs need to distract an increasingly restive Iranian public from a deteriorating economy, and the high likelihood that the economic sanctions imposed by the UN last weekend will make things worse. Tyrants frequently beat war drums in such circumstances. [...]

From the Memri Blog:
From the MEMRI Archives: Elements in Revolutionary Guards Threaten to Abduct U.S. Troops

From CNN:
Iran: Inquiry first, contact second

[...]In an interview on GMTV on Tuesday Blair said: "I hope we manage to get them (the Iranian government) to realize they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase."

Asked what that meant, Blair said: "Well, we will just have to see, but what they should understand is that we cannot have a situation where our servicemen and women are seized when actually they are in Iraqi waters under a U.N. mandate, patrolling perfectly rightly and in accordance with that mandate, and then effectively captured and taken to Iran."

Blair's spokesman said later the prime minister did not mean Iranian diplomats would be expelled or military action was likely.

[...]

Britain insists the group was in Iraqi waters, a claim Iraq supports; Iran insists it was in Iranian waters.

Competing claims on the waterway, which provides Iraq's only outlet to the Gulf, was one of the causes of the 1980-88 war between Iran and Iraq. (Read about the contested waterway) [...]

update 03/28/07: I've added some excerpts to some of the links, I didn't have time to do it yesterday.


Related Link:

Iranian Hostage Situation Escalates
This post by LMC also has some good links. Check it out to see Newt Gingrich's interesting suggestion for dealing with the hostage crisis.