September 30, 2008
A Childlike View of the World
David Gelernter knocks it out of the park with a piece in The Weekly Standard that will leave youngish yuppie liberal types seething.
His thesis is that the generation who grew up after the 60s Cultural Revolution know little about recent history, and most of what they do know is wrong. Recall Obama actually using the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit as a reason why he should meet with Ahmadinejad.
He calls them "gen-CR", and his indictment is stinging
We know what to expect of gen-CR. Unless they have grown up in regions or families with an unusually strong grasp of tradition, patriotism, and reality, gen-CR'ers tend to have a fuzzy view of history, an unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the "global community" or "the planet" or some other large, meaningless object. (Beyond a certain point, patriotic devotion spread too thin simply evaporates-which is a good way to get rid of it if you are, say, an English intellectual trusting to the European Union to eradicate this primitive emotion.)
Ouch.
To be sure, not everyone in a particular generation fits to type. After all, not all baby boomers burned their draft cards and protested the war in Vietnam. But there are certain general characteristics (dare we call them "stereotypes"?) of each generation.
On to some history:
His (Obama's) announcement that he would meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions shows exactly why a president must not merely know history but have a decently nuanced view. It was wrong for Chamberlain to meet Hitler and foolish for JFK to meet Khrushchev, but right for Begin to meet Sadat and for Churchill to make repeated long, dangerous journeys to meet Stalin.
We've all read leftie blogs gleefully point out that we were supposedly "allied" with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war, and how in 1983 Reagan-envoy Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad and shook hands with Saddam, and how these supposedly illegitimized our 2003 invasion.
Never mind that we weren't really "allied" with Iraq. For awhile I tried to point out that we were very much allied with Stalin's Soviet Union, and yet as soon as the war ended fought a Cold War against them for 40 years, so did our onetime alliance with them illegitimize that too? Eventually I grew weary and gave up. Too many on the left today lack the moral clarity to understand the difference.
But other than racism, sexism, or the new one, "homophobia", Hemingway points out that "Gen-CR recoils from the idea of enemies." Last night I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio say that when he spoke with Europeans they told him that what they didn't like about America was that we spoke about good and evil. Anecdotal to be sure, but it rings true.
Start with a given: An Obama administration might still bring about defeat in Iraq; speeded-up troop with-drawals might weaken this new democracy and bring on its collapse like a burnt-out log into a blaze of terrorist violence. But if it did-if the left's policies proved tragically mistaken-Obama's supporters would never know it. What would the collapse of America's noble project in Iraq look like in the funhouse mirrors of the New York Times, NBC, Time and Newsweek and NPR and the rest of the establishment media? "In the end, Bush policy plunged Iraq into chaos, but Obama was smart enough to pull out before more American lives were lost." And that's what Democrats would "know" about Iraq.
It would all just be another excuse to blame George W Bush and from which to seek political advantage, the better to put us all under the rule of the EPA.
Members of the CR generation who had mainstream, establishment educations have been trained like pet poodles to understand where romping is allowed and where it is forbidden. The permissible range of thought on such topics as protected minorities, protected species, protected psychosexual deviations, et al. is clearly spelled out from kindergarten onward.
Yup. I see more intolerance among the "tolerance" and "diversity" crowd than anywhere else. The push for gay marriage is about a lot of things, but marriage isn't one of them. Their real agenda is to force everyone to accept and approve of the gay lifestyle whether they want to or not. Anyone who deviates from correct thought will be severely punished.
You doubt me? Consider the fate of Harvard President Harry Summers, and before the incident that got him in trouble he was considered a right-thinking liberal:
To understand this generational shift in the making, consider the resignation of Harvard president Lawrence Summers in 2006, under attack for having said that, just possibly, the far greater number of male than of female scientists might have to do with innate differences between men and women-something that a large majority of working scientists (male and female) almost certainly take for granted (whether or not they are willing to say so). But Summers had expressed a forbidden thought, and (despite his abject confessions and apologies at the Harvard show trials) was duly banished. In the gen-CR age now approaching, such embarrassing accidents will no longer happen. Forbidden ideas simply won't occur to the Harvard presidents of the future.
The Obama generation in action.
Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 27, 2008
The Global Patriot Incident
On March 25, the American Forces Press Service issued the following:
A ship on short-term charter to the U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command fired warning shots at a small boat approaching the ship as it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal last night, military officials reported.There were no reports of casualties from the ship, the Global Patriot.
Officials said several boats approached the Global Patriot while it was preparing to transit the Suez Canal. The boats were hailed and warned by a native Arabic speaker on the Global Patriot to advise them to turn away. Other warning steps, including a signal flare, were used to caution the boats.
One small boat continued to approach the ship and received two sets of warning shots 20 to 30 meters in front of the boat's bow. All shots were accounted for as they entered the water, officials said.
Here's the same story with video
The initial report of no casualties, however, turned out to be wrong. The next day the AFPS issued this
U.S. 5th Fleet officials today expressed regret for the death of an Egyptian citizen who died the night of March 24, an apparent result of warning shots fired at a small boat approaching a ship chartered by the U.S. Navy."We express our deepest sympathies to the family of the deceased," Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, 5th Fleet commander. "We are greatly saddened by events that apparently resulted in this accidental death. This situation is tragic, and we will do our utmost to help take care of the family of the deceased."
The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet Command continues to work cooperatively with Egyptian authorities, including the Suez Canal Authority, through the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, officials said. A full investigation into the incident is under way....
Oh boy, I thought, here we go again. Will we get the same reaction from the left as we did in early January when several small Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats zoomed around 3 US Navy ships?
This blog doesn't get many comments, but I did get one on the post that I wrote about the incident from some leftist who wrote that "So, WHY was it that the Iranians threatened the US? Funny stuff, eh pal? Some jokester on the CB airwaves! The Pentagon once again has mud on its face." Over on his own blog he took great delight in mocking the administration. I heard much the same from commenter "anon" over at the most excellent DowneastBlog (I can't find the exact post).
The incident with the Global Patriot hasn't received the same coverage, but the Internet being what it is I felt sure that someone else was blogging about it. I checked the Daily Kos and Huffington Post to see if they had anything. To their credit, I have only been able to find straight-up news reports on those two blogs. So unless I'm missing something they're not engaged in any wackyness on this one. There is a long thread about it over at the Democrat Underground, but other than the usual talk about "mercenaries" not much of note.
You don't have to go far on Google, however, to find posts on "Global Patriot". This guy titles his post "Global Patriot Lied: Egyptian WAS Murdered", so you know where he's coming from. Another says that the incident proves that we're "ignoring sovereignty". His theory is that we're trying to paper over the affair because "It's just some Egyptian guy", but if it is was an Australian "the papers would go beserk!" There are more but these came up on page 1.
Now, I'm sure that many leftists are being responsible about this incident, as my search of the Daily Kos and Huffington Post showed. And no doubt the right has it's share of nutty bloggers as well.
I just rather thought I'd use this post to discuss this from a larger perspective. Because if the left isn't going nuts over the incident with the Global Patriot, the one in January with the Iranian speedboats showed that too many will rush to see anything as another Gulf of Tonkin Incident, just as every spike in violence in Iraq is seen as portending another Tet Offensive.
My friend (ok I've only met him once) Steve Schippert was writing the other day over at National Review's The Tank blog about an incident in Iraq, but his words apply here as well
There are things beyond our control in Iraq. And there are mistakes we make. But there are far more things that we simply are not aware of because we are not omniscient or omnipresent. Or, you can believe that we are a torturous, imperialistic force of bad actors and worse actions. Take your pick.
Anyone who has read this blog at all knows that I take the former position.
With regards to the Global Patriot, any one of a number of things may have happened. Our guys may have simply miscounted the rounds as the hit the water and not realized that one hit the Egyptian. Or the rounds may have skipped along the water (yes this really happens) and then hit the Egyptian. The contractors simply assumed that the rounds went into the water.
Another possibility is that Egyptians may really be members of a Jihadist organization like al Qaeda and killed their own guy to stage an incident (kind of like a suicide bombing but for purely propaganda purposes). It's also possible that the contractors lied about the incident.
Maybe we'll never know.
The question is, what is your initial reaction? If it's to give our side the benefit of the doubt then you possess moral clarity. Yes, let's pursue a vigorous investigation. But as with Schippert, it annoys me to no end that there are those who's first reaction is to assume that the American government is lying, misleading, racist, on and on.
And please, lets not have any tripe about how we all need to "question authority". That's not what this is about. It's about a knee-jerk leftism that lives in the past and wants every American military venture to become another Vietnam.
The bottom line is that bad things happen by accident. You can take every imaginable precaution and you will still have incidents of this sort. And it doesn't matter whether a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat is in the White House.
This said, we do need to be aware that incidents such as this one will be exploited by the anti-American and Jihadist media to their fullest extent. As I have written many times, we are engaged in a War of Ideas as much if not more than one involving bombs and bullets. We need to do all that we can to keep these incidents from happening. We also need to do all that we can to put our own media in place so that when they do we can get out our side of the story quickly and efficiently.
I think that the responsible position is to simply wait for the results of the investigation. If we don't think the investigation was honestly done, then let's say so. If the results of the investigation are such that we need to change our procedures, fine, let's do so. If we even need to prosecute people let's do so, though this seems unlikely. But it's at best irresponsible to judge before the facts are in.
In the meantime, though, can we please give our side the benefit of the doubt?
Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2007
The War Against al Qaeda is in Iraq: But the Left is Giving Encouragement to the Enemy
This post by W Thomas Smith Jr on The Corner is so right-on it's worth reprinting in it's entirety
At "The Corner," Victor Davis Hanson considers the fact that:
Although it is taboo to say so, it really is true that Afghan veteran terrorists like al-Masri and Zarqawi did flee from Afghanistan to Iraq where they often ended up dead.There is no question but that this is true. War is all about finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy; and that often means maneuvering around him, thrusting, feinting, luring, forcing him to turn, withdraw, or perhaps move to a position that he believes is the best ground from which to engage us. When in fact, we have — by virtue of our own positioning — forced the enemy to that ground he wrongly believes is best-suited for him. That is exactly what we have accomplished (among other things) by invading Iraq.
The Left says we are in a quagmire in Iraq. For Heaven's sake, Al Qaeda is in a quagmire. AQ is suffering huge losses in that country, and it is having an enormous impact on their ability to wage war against us elsewhere in the world.
Doesn't mean AQ isn't fighting us elsewhere in the world. They are. But their focus is on Iraq where we and the Iraqi security forces — which by the way are getting stronger all the time — are chewing them to pieces. AQ has to win in Iraq — which they won't — because losing in Iraq would be disastrous for them globally.
No thanks to the gutless, propagandizing Left in this country, who I've now grown beyond the stages of simple intellectual disagreement. I'm now truly angry at them because they've hurt the American military effort in Iraq. They've constantly condemned it: Said it was a "failure," a "disaster," and "lost," even as Anbar was turning around (and we now see the success of Anbar is spreading to other provinces). They've mercilessly ridiculed the commander-in-chief. Accused the senior commander on the ground in Iraq of "betrayal." And attempted to publicly convict the rank-and-file riflemen — of whom Jack Murtha said killed innocent civilians in "cold blood" — prior to any charges being leveled against those riflemen in a case that is still being argued.
In that sense, the Left has stiffened the backbone of the enemy. Made him fight harder than he should have. Made him believe there is hope for his own success at driving us out of Iraq, when the enemy should ALWAYS be made to feel there is no hope of defeating the United States anywhere on earth.
The left just doesn't understand that if we pull out of Iraq without finishing the job it will be seen around the world as a huge victory for al Qaeda and a huge loss for the United States. They'll use it to bolster their numbers, and no country will trust the United States to protect them from anyone.
But I don't think they really care.
Posted by Tom at 9:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 12, 2007
The Fascists of Code Pink
If you haven't seen it before, here is the video of two members of Code Pink getting thrown out of the Petreaus/Crocker hearing on Monday. The Pinko sitting in back taking videos with her cell phone might be Gael Murphy.
Let's get one thing straight right up front; this is not just some harmless protest that we can all laugh at and go on with our business. This is an attempt by a bunch of fascists to destroy American Democracy.
And good for Rep Ike Skelton for taking matters firmly in hand. The Pinkos have continued to disrupt the hearings, at periodic intervals one or more of their members would stand and scream some inanity.
What gets me is how they seem to think they have a right to disrupt the hearing. Unlike traditional civil rights activists who have engaged in civil disobedence, the Pinko in the video above actually fought with police as she was dragged from the room. She apparently thinks she has some sort of right to just stand there and be allowed to scream.
I've had my dealings with Code Pink outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center (and here), as well as at many Rallies and Protests in Washington DC (look under "Categories" at right). Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
A quick Youtube search turned up another instance in which Code Pink disrupted a committee hearing on the hill. In this video, dated May 10, 2007, Pinko Medea Benjamin is the one ejected from the room.
As usual, the New York Times gets it all wrong
For that matter, (the American people) deserve more than what was offered by Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. When protesters interrupted the hearing, Mr. Skelton ordered them removed from the room, which is understandable. But then he said that they would be prosecuted. That seemed like an unnecessarily authoritarian response to people who just wanted to be heard.
What utter nonsense. The members of Code Pink didn't just want to be heard, they wanted to disrupt a vital institution of our democracy. They have the same rights the rest of us have, and the same opportunity to be heard. They can start a newspaper or magazine, and can stand on streetcorners handing out literature. They can and have received many permits to hold demonstrations in Washington DC and elsewhere. It is right and proper that every group, no matter how offensive, be allowed their First Amendment rights.
But this does not mean that we have to listen. And just as one cannot cry "fire" in a theater if there isn't one, we simply have to have standards of decorum in parlimentary proceedures if democracy is to continue. Code Pink thinks that they can disrupt our representatives when they are conducting official business. They are wrong and must not be allowed to get away with it.
This is not at all to say they should be treated harshly. Far from it, I'm sure the Capitol Hill Police performed their duties professionally, and that whatever penalties the Pinkos receive will not be oppressive. This, too, is as it should be.
Note that in both videos above it was a Democrat who threw them out, so no one can claim partisanship. This is not, or should not, be a Republican-Democrat or Left-Right issue. Everyone is threatened by these sorts of tactics. I would be mortally embarrassed if someone claiming to be conservative did such a thing, and I would condemn them immediately.
Posted by Tom at 8:56 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus II
So far not a single Democrat Congressman or Senator has denounced the slanderous Moveon.org attack on General Petraeus. I checked the site of my own Democrat Senator, James Webb, and he is completely silent on the matter. He ran as a conservative Democrat. Let's see if that was just hot air or if he does the right thing.
Instead, once again Senator John McCain stands tall in a Congress full of Liliputians
"I remain deeply disappointed by the failure of leading Democrat presidential candidates to personally and publicly denounce the smear tactics used against General Petraeus by MoveOn.org. There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation. I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander. I hope they would reconsider their silence and not let this slander of an exceptional American stand."
Be sure to also read his opening statement before the Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.
Becuase of his stances on immigration and campaign finance I've never thought I could support him for president, but if he keeps this up I'll definately reconsider.
The Washington Times points out that
The Democrats who take MoveOn.org's money are the same ones who cry "my patriotism!" whenever someone observes how weak they are on national security. They're either silent or engage in Mr. Reid's tepid talk in defense of common decency. Democrats dismiss Gen. Petraeus as not being an "independent evaluator" — that's Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California — or accuse him of "carefully manipulating the statistics" — that's Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois. Others who cannot summon the boldness to say anything in public praise MoveOn.org's ability to do the dirty work.If these attacks are not smears on the patriotism of Gen. Petraeus, nothing could be. The left expects its "my patriotism!" indignation to be taken seriously, but and expect others to stand by as the smear is launched. It does not add up.
My response to any leftist who is upset that someone has questioned his patriotism is "fine, we'll stop questionin your patriotism, the moment you stop calling our President and military leaders liars".
And those Democrats who claim that Gen Petraeus has presented misleading information need to put their money where their mouth is. If they truely believe such things, they need to file perjury charges, or recommend that he be brought up on charges and tried in a courts-martial.
After reviewing several of the more offensive statements leading Democrats have made about Petraeus, the Wall Street Journal asks if
(This can) really be the new standard of political rhetoric across the Democratic Party? There was a time when the party's institutional elites, such as the Times, would have pulled it back from reducing politics to all or nothing. They would have blown the whistle on such accusations. Now they are leading the charge.Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy.
No doubt that in the 90s many on the right got carried away with their denunciations of President Clinton. I sometimes found myself half-believing in some of it. It's a strong temptation to believe the worst about your political enemies. But after all of the investigations, I was persuaded that yes, Vince Foster really did kill himself in Fort Marcy Park, and that no, the government did not intentially set fire to the Waco compound.
The next time there's a Democrat president I'll have to watch myself, that I don't automatically buy into every bad thing that's said about him...or her. Perhaps in that sense the 90s and today are good lessons for us all.
Previous
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus
Posted by Tom at 8:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 10, 2007
Moveon.org Slanders General Petraeus
Yes I know, half the conservative blogosphere is up in arms about this outrage, and I'm late in posting about it, but it deserves wide attention so here goes.
This ad by Moveon.org appeared today in the New York Times
What a disgrace. So much for "we support the troops but oppose the war", in case anyone ever believed that lie.
But it's Moveon.org that is lying. Take this one sentence from the ad:
"Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows t hat the surge strategy has failed."
Besides committing the logical fallacy of making a universal statement (in which case a single exception invalidates the premise), only someone on the loony left could believe such a thing. There are hundreds of independent reports by qualified individuals who say that the strategy is, in fact, working. I've linked to dozens on this site alone.
The "facts" on the Moveon.org webpage to support their assertion are laughable.
I used to wonder if I should question the patriotism of the Moveon.org people. No more.
Let me be clear here: No I am not saying that if you do not support the surge strategy, or think that it is working, you are unpatriotic. Nor am I saying that if you think that the invasion was a mistake and that the best thing to do is withdraw you are unpatriotic.
If you believe these things, make your case using facts and logic. But this ad is pure character assassination.
And this is what I meant by my above statement that up until now I wasn't quite sure where to place Moveon.org. Groups like International ANSWER, Code Pink (the nuts who got thrown out of today's hearing), United for Peace and Justice and any of the organizations that are members of it are not patriots. They are part of the hate-America left, and they are not patriots.
But I never wanted to make that group too broad. I didn't and don't want to get into the habit of saying that every group that opposes what I think is right to be anti-American or unpatriotic. As such, I wanted to be careful before I characterized Moveon.org
But I now conclude that they have joined the ranks of the hate-America left. Congratulations, idiots.
More
I can't do better than Michelle Malkin so be sure and visit her site for more on the Moveon.org outrage.
Byron York asks if Moveon.org has betrayed the Democrat Party by going too far in this ad. I listened to much of the hearings today, and when Republicans brought up the ad, Democrats seemed quick to distance themselves. Here's the money quote from York's piece
...the thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. It’s not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And it’s not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOn’s latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, America’s use of military power in its own defense.
Captain Ed also questions their patriotism. As do I.
Posted by Tom at 9:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 24, 2007
Fake Arguments against Democracy
The latest argument coming from the left is that by not supporting Hamas, the Bush Administration, and conservatives in general, do not respect Democracy.
Here's Jimmy Carter (h/t NRO)
The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."
Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Next up is a writer on the Daily Kos (h/t LGF)
The extreme contempt both Israel and the U.S. have for democracy means that, despite recent events in Gaza, the isolation and strangulation of Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza will likely continue. The probable Israeli response to Hamas’ assumption of power in Gaza will be to ease restrictions in the West Bank and engage in meaningless “peace talks” with Abbas, with the cynical aim of increasing his popularity relative to Hamas’. In the long-term, however, if Hamas remains resilient and does not submit to external pressures to relinquish power, we could very possibly witness a full-blown “‘Bay of Pigs’ type invasion of Gaza”, with Dahlan at its head.If what we want to see is a relatively stable Palestinian democracy with the capacity to engage in meaningful peace negotiations with Israel (and again I emphasise that these are not the objectives of the Israeli government), the policies we should follow are obvious, as they have been for months. The Hamas government should be recognised as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and should be engaged with in the form of meaningful final status negotiations.
Sorry, but I'm not buying this.
The whole issue raises interesting, and I don't think completely easy to answer, questions about the nature of democracy, and it's twin, liberty.
The short version of my answer is that there is a lot more to democracy than just the mechanics of voting. Carter I'm not so sure about, but I have to think that most liberals and even leftists know this full well. So when the folks at Kos berate conservatives for not accepting Hamas because they were elected, I have to think they're not being entirely serious in their criticism, because it's eithe that or they're outright apologists for terrorism. I have to think that most who spout this line are just blinded by their hatred of President Bush. In short, they've got Bush Derangement Syndrome.
After all, if the Ku Klux Klan started winning elections in the U.S., I can't imagine the left would accept their right to rule regardless of the fairness of the vote.
Likewise, the Nazi party won a plurality of the vote in the 1933 elections, coming in first with 43.9%, more than twice that of their nearest opponent. The election itself was relatively free and fair, but who today would say that it really represented "democracy"?
All of this brings to the forefront the central question of elections and their relationship to what we think of as "democracy": Is it just or acceptable for a non-democratic party to come to power through elections?
What is Democracy?
The US Department of State helpfully provides a longish definition. Here are some of the highlights
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom.
Several "Pillars of Democracy" are listed
# Sovereignty of the people. # Government based upon consent of the governed. # Majority rule. # Minority rights. # Guarantee of basic human rights. # Free and fair elections. # Equality before the law. # Due process of law. # Constitutional limits on government. # Social, economic, and political pluralism. # Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
Wikipedia says that
Liberal democracy is a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name liberal) of speech, assembly, religion, and property.
I think that most Westerners can agree that all of the above are pretty good definitions of democracy.
Back to the Palestinian Authority
Clearly, then, Hamas does not qualify as an institution committed to democracy. Neither, for that matter, does Fatah. Therefore, when the Kos author talks about "extreme contempt both Israel and the U.S. have for democracy" we can conclude that he either has no understanding of democracy, is just off on a political rant and is thus guilty of lazy thinking, or is just an apologist for terrorism. Or, as I mentioned above, he's got BDS.
As for ex-President Carter, I think he's just a bitter old man. He never reconciled himself to this 1980 defeat, and for a Christian seems not to have learned how to forgive. He's thrown in with the worst dictators, has become a virtual anti-Semite, and I believe will be judged harshly by history.
The Algerian Example
What if a situation develops whereby a political party promises to dismantle the institutions of democracy if it is elected? What if it actually wins a majority of the popular vote?
Such a situation has actually occured, not once but several times in the post-WWII era.
In 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front won the first round of Algeria's first multi-party elections. The ISF had promised to turn the country into an Islamic state and institute sharia law. After the voting, the military stepped in and annuled the elections. Western governments either applauded or remained silent. This led to a civil war, and some 160,000 people were killed over the next ten years. However, in the end the insurgents were defeated and a true democracy (republic, actually) is emerging.
What it Means
We in the West are good at the mechanics of voting. Through international agencies we can set up relatively free and fair votes most of the time.
But our record at installing actual democratic values has been rather hit-or-miss. We got it right in Germany and Japan. India has also turned out to be a stable democracy. We got it wrong in Zimbabwe and most other African states. El Salvadore seems to be doing well, but Nicaragua not so much.
Iraq somewhat parallels the Palestinian Authority. It was easy enough for us to set up voting, not so easy to convince people to respect each other's liberty.
In the end, then, we need to recognise that democracy is about more than voting. We need to think harder about what it takes to instill concepts of liberty in troubled regions, and not fixate on voting. This is a tough subject, and will require much thinking and trial and error in order to get it right in a place like Iraq. The first step, though, is to have moral clarity on the subject, and to recognize the true nature of democracy.
Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
May 15, 2007
Islamist-Left Alliance Meets in Cairo
"Where else can you sit down in a single evening and listen to senior people from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, people from the revolutionary left and the antiwar movement from around the globe?"— British Trotskyite John Rees at the Cairo Anti-War Conference, April 2007
Steven Stalinsky, writing in the New York Sun last week, reported on Rees and the "anti-war" conference he attended.
These meetings, Stalinsky says, are nothing new
Over the past year, multiple international conferences have featured leaders of the anti-global left and Islamist groups working together. Go to any anti-war or anti-globalization demonstration in the West and chances are you will see the flags of Hezbollah and Hamas waved by people wearing Che Guevara T-shirts. And at some of these meetings, members of such radical Islamist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah have enjoyed starring roles.The roster of Islamist-left alliances quietly grows every day: Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguistics professor Noam Chomsky praises Hamas and denounces America on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television. London Mayor Ken Livingstone invites a leading Islamist, Sheikh Yosef Al-Qaradawi, who is known for supporting suicide attacks, to visit his city. Iranian President Ahmadinejad calls for a world without America even as he plays host to a Tehran peace conference attended by American Mennonites, Quakers, Episcopalians, Methodists, and leaders of the National Council of Churches.
If you are a Christian, you might want to follow the link above to the NCC website to find out if your church is a member. I assure you that mine is not, because not a penny of my money is going to that organization.
What went on at the conference?
The key forum at this year's annual Cairo Anti-War Conference was titled "Bridge-building Between the Left and Islam," and focused on practical ways to increase cooperation. The aim of the conference sessions were described in one piece of literature as tackling "the challenges and prospects facing the international anti-war and pro-intifada movements" and planning "strategy and tactics for bridging the gap and uniting Islamist and leftist ranks in the face of U.S. imperialism and Zionism."
The cooperation is between leftist and Islamist groups.
Photographs and a more complete report can be found on the Arabist.net website.
David Horowitz reported on this alliance over two years ago in his book Unholy Alliance. Melanie Phillips documented the same nexus in the UK in her eye-opening book Londonistan.
On it's surface, one would think that the left would abhore radical Islam. Even Islam in it's moderate varieties opposes many of the causes that the left holds dear, such as gay marriage. Islam as practiced in many areas of the world is theocratic, misogynistic, and excuses violence.
The short answer as to why the left would ally itself with radical Islam is that they hate the West so much that anything seems preferable to it. America is unjust, therefore any wars she fights are unjust. There is little difference between Democrats and Republicans to the hard left.
The heyday of the Old Left was in the 1930s and 40s, and while the New Left (their terms, btw) made a brief splash in the 1960s and 70s, they were both on a downhill slide until 9-11. The War on Terror has increased their numbers, but despite their ability to influence policy remains limited.
The objective of this hard left is to destroy the West. They want to replace it with some variant of communism. Their problem is that in order to achieve the second goal they need to get past the first one, which remains elusive. They want to use the Islamists/jihadists to destroy the West.
The left believes that they can control the Islamists, just as the Islamists believe that they can manipulate the them. Unfortunately for the left, their numbers remain steady while the number of Muslims in the West and indeed around the world is increasing almost exponentially. It is the left that is being used, and if the jihadists ever do seize control of a Western country, it is the leftists that they'll kill first.
Posted by Tom at 8:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 17, 2006
Lenninist Lynne Gets Lucky
Here's how the AP story on the sentencing of Lynne Stewart, printed in the Washington Times, starts out
A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced yesterday to nearly 2? years in prison -- far less than the 30 years prosecutors wanted -- for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside.Lynne Stewart, 67, smiled, cried and hugged supporters after U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl pronounced the sentence of 28 months.
The judge said Stewart was guilty of smuggling messages between her client and his followers that could have "potentially lethal consequences." He called the crimes "extraordinarily severe criminal conduct."
But in departing from federal guidelines that called for 30 years behind bars, he cited Stewart's more than three decades of dedication to poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients.
"Ms. Stewart performed a public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation," Judge Koeltl said.
"firebrand civil rights lawyer"? dedication to "poor, disadvantaged and unpopular clients"? "performed a public service...to the nation"?
What are this AP reporter and judge smoking? Lynne Stewart is a communist and member of the hate-America crowd if there every was one. If you don't believe me read what she herself has said
"We have in Washington a poisonous government that spreads its venom to the body politic in all corners of the globe. We now resume...our quests...like David going forth to meet Goliath, like Beowulf the dragon slayer...like Sir Galahad seeking the holy grail. And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us 'At the risk of sounding ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.'"
How does she view "Muslim fundamentalists"?
"They are basically forces of national liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination....My own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements within their own countries...to liberate."
As for violence;
"I don't believe in anarchistic violence, but in directed violence. That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, and sexism, and the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions, and accompanied by popular support."
"Civil rights attorney" my foot. She's part of the New Fifth Columnists who take the side of our enemy that's all there is to it.
For Additional Reading
Much more about Stewart's background here.
Powerline dissects the sentencing and says "Not Enough Jail Time". I agree.
Captain Ed says that the light sentencing of Stewart "demonstrates the fecklessness of pursuing terrorists through the civil courts." Ditto that.
Michelle Malkin calls it a "travesty". So do I. She points to an article in the New York Times that is very sympathetic to Stewart. Unbelievable.
Andy McCarthy at NRO provides valuable legal insight. He relates how he spent some time on the phone with a New York Times reporter trying to explain how no, a long sentence would not have a chilling effect on lawyers who defend terrorists if she receives a long sentence.” The reporter didn't get it.
The Wall Street Journal also editoralizes that given her crime she got off light.
Lastly, be sure to check out Michelle Malkin's Hot Air, where she's got a "videoblog" entry about Lennist Lynne.
Posted by Tom at 8:17 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 2, 2006
The Hate America Code Pink Crowd Strikes Again
Code Pink is at it again, trying to undermining our efforts to bring democracy and hope to Iraq. However bad the current situation there is, we don't need their kind of help.
Ben Johnson of FrontPage Magazine has written a very well researched and thorough expose of their recent trip to Jordan to meet with some members of the Iraqi parliament (hat tip Andi's World)
Code Pink Women for Peace, if you don't know, is a radical pro-Fidel Castro group that sees the insurgent terrorists as a legitimate force, and has condoned the killing of US troops in Iraq. I've faced off against them dozens of times this past year outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Read all about it here. In particular, I and some other patriots had a confronation with Medea Benjamin and Gael Murphy this past July. You can read all about it here. Scroll about halfway down to read my "Case Against Code Pink". You'll find out how they support the insurgent terrorists in Iraq and think the killing of American troops justified.
Twelve people went on the trip, including Media Benjamin, fellow Pinkos Gael Murphy and Jodie Evans, as well as Tom Hayden, and the ever-present Cindy Sheehan.
Code Pink leader Media Benjamin let the trip, which left August 2. Their goal was, in her words, "“for the U.S. peace movement to meet directly with Iraqi parliamentarians working on a peace plan. We hope to return to the U.S. to build support for their plan.”
Uh huh. Let's be clear; Benjamin wants to go a lot farther than simply bring peace to Iraq. She wants to completely eliminate US influence in the world. Ben Johnson elaborates
In this, Medea is following the blueprint she laid out in her April 2003 Nation magazine essay “Toward a Global Movement,” in which she counseled left-wing “grassroots teams” to “link up with appropriate local and regional groups” in terrorist states to “channel the bursting anti-American sentiment overseas.” Then, “Working with local communities where U.S. troops are based, let's start a Bring All the Troops Home campaign to stop the expansion of U.S. bases and start dismantling some of the hundreds of existing bases overseas.” Al-Sadr’s enablers constituted one such “appropriate” group; terrorism’s elected cheerleaders comprised another. (As they were in the area during the Hezbollah-Israel War, they visited Syria and stopped by Lebanese refugee camps, as well.)
Who did they meet with?
This leftist motley crew met with Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi, a Baghdad-based cleric who “almost certainly is affiliated” with the Naziesque Muslim Brotherhood. He once declared:These young men who came here from other Muslim countries to defend Iraq are very brave. They left their homes and comfortable lives to protect fellow Muslims. That is the most important form of Jihad. These Mujahideen are guaranteed Paradise.In addition to echoing Cindy Sheehan’s views on this topic, the Sheikh had another commonality with his guests: his Association for Muslim Studies in Iraq also collected food and supplies for Fallujah’s terrorists. No slacker, Kubaysi is said to have given al-Sadr $50 million. Al-Sadr, in turn, offered to work with him. The AMS leadership explicitly condones armed “resistance” against U.S. forces as an Allah-given Iraqi right and has sanctioned the murder of civilian hostages as collaborators.
The leftists’s prime sponsor, however, was the Iraq National Dialogue Front, a coalition led by Saleh al-Mutlaq, the Sunni who led the charge against the Iraqi constitution when it guaranteed the Shi’ites an autonomous region.
...Like al-Kubaysi, the INDF leader condones armed “resistance,” has offered to join the “insurgency,” and regularly calls upon the United States to disarm itself in the face of terrorism.
So what did this lovely bunch decide?
For starters, a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. From the Code Pink's own report on the meeting
The common thread among this diverse group of Iraqis and Americans was a desire to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, ensure no permanent bases in Iraq, and secure a U.S. commitment to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Other issues that emerged in two-days of intensive talks include the need to dismantle militias, provide amnesty for prisoners and the various armed groups, compensate victims of the violence, revise the Constitution and preserve the unity of Iraq, and reverse US-imposed de-Baathification and economic policies. We left this historic meeting with a commitment to make sure that the voices of these Iraqi parliamentarians are heard here in the US, and we will bring a group of them to the U.S. in the Fall.
Note the bit about "reverse US-imposed de-Baathification". The Ba'ath Party in Iraq was Saddam's political party. It is somewhat similar to Hitler's Nazi Party of Mussolini's Fascist one. And they want to bring them back?
Another person who went on the trip was Jeeni Criscenzo, a DailyKos blogger and Democrat candidate for the 49th District in California. In an August 6 post on the DailyKos she wrote
It is important to distinguish between the militia, or death squads and the resistance, particularly when considering the amnesty aspects of the Reconciliation Plan crafted in Cairo last month. Over 95% of the Iraqi people oppose the presence of the U.S. troops in their country and consider the people the U.S. call "insurgents" to be patriotic freedom fighters -- no different that how we look at the people who fought in our Revolutionary War. Heroic titles go to the victors and if justice is to ever come to the people of Iraq, the people we call insurgents will have to be recognized as the ones who are actually defending their homeland. Emphasis added)
This woman is insane. She thinks that the insurgent terrorists - Al Qaeda in Iraq - are "patriotic freedom fighters". I question her patriotism. No, I'll say it outright; Jeeni Criscenzo and the rest of those people who went on this trio are not American patriots. They are traitors, to the United States, and to Iraq, for that matter.
There, now I've said it.
If Criscenzo is not bad enough for you, try Code Pink co-founder Jodi Evans. She thinks Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a great place
Let’s go back to the Iraq before we invaded, there was a good education and health care system, food for everyone. That system didn’t belong to Saddam it belonged to the Iraqi, it belonged to years of creating what a civilization needed. If your parents didn’t send you to school they could be put in jail.
Another insane woman.
Lasty there's Cindy Sheehan. She wrote about her experiences in an article posted on Code Pink's website. Besides the usual nuttyness, before leaving at the airport she met an "Iraqi gentleman" who told her just what she wanted to hear
He sadly informed me that the Americans are not stopping the sectarian violence, only encouraging it in his country, and he holds little hope for any future for the land that he was born in and loves.Oh yeah that makes sense. We're encouraging the sectarian violence so the American people will get fed up with the venture and elect Democrats this November who will demand a troop withdrawal. Another insane woman.
All in all, another day's work betraying their country by some prime members of the Hate America crowd.
All links above taken from Ben Johnson's excellent FrontPage Magazine article.
Posted by Tom at 7:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 8, 2006
Confrontation with Code Pink at Walter Reed
As readers of this blog know, every Friday night members of FreeRepublic.com and other patriots assemble outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in northwest Washington DC to wave patriotic signs and keep the leftists of Code Pink away from the hospital entrance.
Walter Reed is one of the main hospitals in the United States where our wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan go for rehabilitation. Most stay for months, and over the course of time I've come to meet and know many of them and their families. Dozens of times I and others have gone inside the hospital to meet with our troops and bring them what we can, from books and food treats to coloring books for their kids, you name it.
Last Friday marked the 64th straight week that we have held our rally at Walter Reed. I have attended since last August, so am almost at my one-year mark. Due to time and distance from my house I attend every other Friday. A complete history of our rallies and face-offs with Code Pink can be found on The Redhunter here.
Now that the Pinkos have lost their permit for the corners directly at the entrance they hold their "vigils" halfway down the street, where they are largely out of sight and out of mind. We don't pay much attention to them anymore, nor do the passing motorists. We spend out time waving pro-troops signs, banners, and flags. Lots of people honk their horns for us and/or wave. Our presence at the hospital entrance is to keep them away from the entrance and to provide a general show of true support for our troops.
Due to the holiday, I suppose, we had more people that usual show up on our side last night, maybe 30+ people. I estimate the pinkos had about 20+. Here's a photo of our largest banner. This corner is directly across the street from the entrance to the hospital.
Here's a photo of the corner caddycorner to the one above. The pinkos are a few hundred feet down the street from this corner. It's the one the pinko leaders were to visit (although I took this photo after the confrontation)
The Pinkos Visit
So last night Code Pink founders Medea Benjamin and Gael Murphy decided to pay a visit to one of our corners. I'm still not sure why they did it, although I heard vague reference to them wanting to have a "discussion" or some such matter.
At any rate, they were quickly surrounded by Freepers and the others on our side and a "vigorous" discussion ensued (in the ensuing melee I forgot to turn on the red-eye feature of my camera).
Here two of our people challenge Medea and Gael. Medea is the one in the pink shirt. Gael has the glasses on
Gael (at left) and Medea are engaged by our side in a forceful debate
The guy at right in this next photo is a solder back from Iraq who is at Walter Reed. Later he told me that although the pinkos may be deceived by anecdotal stories of soldiers who oppose the war, in his opinion the "vast majority" support our efforts and despise groups like Code Pink
I didn't hear much of what was said, as there were maybe 20 or 30 people engaged here, with much loud talking and carrying on. I did hear Gael say that they were just trying to "raise awareness" of the war. I shouted at her something like "oh please, everyone knows there's a war on, and how many American's have lost their lives" but so many people were confronting here that she didn't hear or respond to me.
A handful of Pinkos came up to join in the fray, but they were vastly outnumbered. One came up to me, and although I forget how the conversation started, I pretty quickly called her a communist sympathizer (or something pretty similar). "Why?" she asked. "Because you hang out with people who like Fidel Castro, and who supported the Sandinistas in the 1980s." "Why do you say communism is bad?" she asked. I mentioned Robert Conquest's books, and the Black Book of Communism, but she wasn't impressed. After a few minutes she went on her way and I resumed taking photographs.
This Pinko tried to shake hands with Kristinn Taylor, the president of the DC chapter of FreeRepublic.com, but Kristinn declined. Let's be clear; these are not liberal Democrats, Code Pink is a bunch of communist sympathizers who side with the insurgents in Iraq (at least their leaders do), and hate this country.
After about 10 or 15 minutes Medea and Gael decided enough was enough and beat a retreat, rejoining their comrades down the street. We chanted "swim ... to ... Cuba!" after them. Code Pink had planned on spending this past New Year's eve in Cuba, but cancelled the trip when the State Department sent them letters informing them that it was against the law to visit Cuba and threatening fines and penalties.
The Troops Arrive!
Sometime between 9:15 and 9:45 the troop bus arrives at the hospital entrance, carrying wounded warriors who have been treated to a gourmet meal at an upscale DC restaurant. The bus caught me by surprise last night and this was the best photo I got
As usual, the pinkos are gone by the time the troop bus arrives. Despite their claim that they are simply "supporting the troops" and "raising awareness of the war's costs", they show no sign of actually wanting to meet or interact with real soldiers and Marines. Some time ago, when Code Pink still had the corners directly at the hospital entrance, there was an incident in which troops on the bus gave the one-finger salute to the pinkos on the corner. From that evening on, the leaders made sure that they had disbanded their people before the bus arrived.
Who are Medea Benjamin and Gael Murphy?
As I mentioned, Medea and Gael are two of the founders of Code Pink, Women for Peace. Although Gael shows up occasionally at their Walter Reed "vigils", this is the first time any of us had seen Medea here. Perhaps it was Medea who wanted to come up and see for herself who we were.
Medea Benjamin's bio on the Code Pink website.
Gael Murphy's bio on the Code Pink website.
Medea Benjamin's bio on David Horowitz' DiscoverTheNetworks.org database site of leftist groups and people.
The Case Against Code Pink
According to the description of the group on DiscoverTheNetworks.org the term "code pink" was choosen to mock the Bush Administration's color-coded alert system.
Besides their general leftist wackiness there are by my count at least three main pieces of evidence against Code Pink:
"The World Tribunal"
On June 24, 25, and 26 of 2005, a group called Democracy Now! sponsored a "World Tribunal on Iraq" whereby the United States and President Bush were placed on trial for crimes against humanity. They were - surprise - found guilty. Code Pink is listed as one of the endorsers of the event.
Ok, that's weird enough, but if that's all there was to it we could write it off as another convention of moonbats.
However, the tribunal issued a "Declaration of Jury of Conscience" where in section I paragraph 11 you find this
11. There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom.(emphasis added)
In other words, it is ok to kill American troops. There's no other way to read that paragraph.
The "Beirut Communique"
Gael Murphy represented Code Pink at, and was asignatory to, the "Beirut Communique", which was arrived at during a strategy meeting anti-war and anti-globalization types in Beirut, Lebanon September 17-19 of 2004.
Here is a partial list of demands that the participants of the Communique drew up:
* We support the right of the people of Iraq and Palestine to resist the occupations.In another section, the express their "support for efforts by Iraqis to build a united national front against the occupation."* We call for the unconditional withdrawal and "coalition" forces from Iraq.
* We demand the end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine
* We demand the Right of Return be fulfilled....
* We ask for the release of all Palestinian and Iraqi political prisoners.
Although they claim that they "oppose war in all forms", there is not a single word in the communique condemning, or even mentioning, Palestinian, Iraqi, or al-Qaeda terrorism.
If all this is not a statement of support for the insurgent terrorists plaguing Iraq, then nothing is. And in case your not familiar, the "right of return" is a Palestinian plan to flood Israel with their people, so as to vote the nation out of existence in it's own elections.
Aid to Terrorists?
Perhaps the most damming allegation is that Medea Benjamin gave aid and money to the terrorists themselves. From DiscoverTheNetwork.org:
During the last week of December 2004, Medea Benjamin announced in Amman, Jordan that Code Pink, Global Exchange, and Families for Peace would be donating a combined $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the terrorist insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq.The news was first reported by Agence France Press, and stories were run by the Turkish Press and Space War. There is even a mention of the incident on the Code Pink website
We traveled to Amman, Jordan, with medical supplies, blankets, heaters and water purifiers for the refugees in the camps outside Falluja. Global Exchange received donations of medications from a large pharmaceutical company as well as small donations of supplies and cash valued at $600,000.Who is right? David Horowitz' site says that they gave the aid and money to the insurgent terrorists, Code Pink says that they gave it to refugees.
In the Turkish Press article cited above, Medea says that she gave aid to "...families of the 'other side'". At the very least, by "other side", she at least means families of those fighting our troops. If someone had given aid and comfort to German or Japanese families during World War II, they would have been guilty of treason.
Examining the matter in some detail in an article on FrontpageMag(also a David Horowitz site), Ben Johnson concludes that "Medea Benjamin has the motive, and her allies have actively comforted our enemies before. And some in her recent Iraqi caravan have personal ties to terrorism."
My guess is that they gave the aid to people who in turn gave some or most of it to the terrorists, or maybe they gave it to people who were terrorists themselves but represented themselves as "refugee workers". Either way, Medea knew the terrorists would get some, part, or most of the aid, and intended this to happen, but also wanted "plausible deniability".
Either way, Code Pink is a disgraceful outfit, and I figure it's the least I can do to help keep them away from the hospital entrance. If you're even in Washington DC over a weekend, stop by and give us a hand. I can't promise any confrontations with the leftists, but can promise lots of friendly waves and honks from motorists, and a lot of thankful troops.
Update
Check out PleaDeal's post on the face-off with Code Pink over at FreeRepublic.com. Notice the salute one of the peace-loving Pinkos gave to one of our soldiers currently being treated at Walter Reed.
Posted by Tom at 7:49 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
June 2, 2006
The Holy Grail of Haditha
Finally, they think they've found it. The anti-war left has hoped and prayed for this moment for a long time.
At first they thought they'd found it when we failed to find WMD in Iraq. Surely, they thought, the American people would turn against their president, apologize to the world, and bring our troops home.
Two years ago they thought that they'd found it in Abu Ghraib. But, despite the best efforts of much of the msm, it was not to be.
But now they're convinced that the Holy Grail is within their grasp, and they are determined not to be denied. Finally, we've got something that we can use to bring down President Bush and get the troops out of Iraq!
Calling All Civil Libertarians
The investigation into the the Haditha incident is ongoing. All of the facts are not known. Nothing against the press (here, anyway), but initial reports are notoriously unreliable.
Yet this has not kept many, like the editors of The Nation magazine, a "mainstream" left-liberal publication, not only from pronouncing the Marines guilty, but claiming that " the Marines institutionally covered up Haditha."
The Nation wants us to believe that the Marine Corps was going to sweep the whole thing under the rug "until Time magazine raised questions with the Corps suggests that the moral damage from the Iraq War is broader than a single debased unit. "
Please.
There are at least two problems here. One, this idea that we must immediately make all of our - even potentially - dirty laundry as public as possible as soon as possible. Now, if I though that liberals were making the honest argument that our government should be transparent, I would have no problem. But as so often with the left, the transparency argument is really just a smokescreen.
The left is embarassed by our nation and our history. They want us to engage in constant acts of self-flagellation. Further, they want to exploit this to further their political goals of getting us out of Iraq regardless of consequences. And the worse our country and our military look the better.
We Support the Troops, But
"Oh but we support the troops! We just oppose the war."
Uh huh. Their reaction to Haditha puts the lie to that line. It's more like this
We support the troops, but we say they work, bleed, and die for nothing (or for Big-Oil).We support the troops, but they terrorize women and children in the dark of the night.
We support the troops, but we only rally around a mother who attacks the troops and the mission (Mother Syndy).
We support the troops, but an anti-war based, misquoting-troops filled, film producer gets a prominent seat at out convention.
We support the troops, but we jump to judgment when a prison scandal is on the horizon.
We support the troops, but we accept a false Newsweek story (Koran flushing…).
We support the troops, but we do not wait for a military trial to determine the facts surrounding the killings of 24 innocent Iraqis.
We support the troops, but we smear all of them for the actions of merely a dozen people (in the prison scandal).
Where are our great supporters of the troops when you really need them?
They're out claiming that this is "endemic" to the troops.
Where are our great civil libertarians when you actually need them for something?
They're out looking for Christmas creches on public property.
The New My Lai
Jed Babbin , writing at at RealClearPolitics, nails it
The accelerating media feeding frenzy over the alleged killings of twenty-four Iraqi civilians in Haditha by US Marines last November is about to overwhelm American politics. Propelled by their most irresponsible war critics, the left will try use Haditha as it used My Lai thirty years ago: as a political tool to take apart America's support for the war and to shatter the legitimacy of our cause and the morale of our troops.
...No matter how quickly military investigators work, and no matter how firmly any crimes are punished, the anti-war left won't be satisfied unless Haditha becomes the lever that pushes President Bush to admit the war was wrong and set a time to withdraw from Iraq.
...The left will use every tool at their disposal to ensure that the Haditha incident becomes synonymous with the entire Iraq war. Abu Ghraib proved a propaganda bonanza for the terrorists and nations such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia that want us to withdraw from Iraq in defeat. Haditha - regardless of what the facts may turn out to be - will be used ceaselessly and purposefully to eliminate American support for the Iraq war and to demonize anyone who still supports it.
...
Be sure to read the whole thing.
An Iraq Syndrome?
Daniel Henninger, in an OpinionJournal piece, points out that this may be the beginning of an "Iraq Syndrome", and that while this may be welcomed by the left, it is something that should worry serious people.
The Vietnam Syndrome, a loss of confidence in the efficacy of American military engagement, was mainly a failure of U.S. elites. But it's different this time. This presidency has been steadfast in war. No matter. In a piece this week on the White House's efforts to rally the nation to the idea of defeating terrorism abroad to thwart another attack on the U.S., the AP's Nedra Pickler wrote: "But that hasn't kept the violence and unrest out of the headlines every day." This time the despondency looks to be penetrating the general population. And the issue isn't just body counts; it's more than that.The missions in Iraq and Afghanistan grew from the moral outrage of September 11. U.S. troops, the best this country has yet produced, went overseas to defend us against repeating that day. Now it isn't just that the war on terror has proven hard; the men and women fighting for us, the magnificent 99%, are being soiled in a repetitive, public way that is unbearable.
The greatest danger at this moment is that the American public will decide it wants to pull back because it has concluded that when the U.S. goes in, it always gets hung out to dry.
In other words, we might lack the willpower to stick it out. Strategy, technology, politics, propaganda, they all have their role, and we have to get all of them right. Not to pat myself on the back, but it's true that in the days after 9-11, once the shock had worn off, I realized that the core of this war was WILLPOWER. We were in for the long slog and it wasn't going to end in Afghanistan.
I'm thinking now that my piece on Lt. Col. John Nagl's book, Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam: Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, which I called Eating Soup with a Knife and the Question of Time , was more prescient than I realized.
It's all so depressing.
Not to worry about me, though, because I'll keep up my visits to the troops at Walter Reed, and my letter-writing campaign will continue unabaited.
And God help the person who slanders our troops within earshot of me.
Posted by Tom at 9:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 25, 2006
Useful Idiots
I wasn't going to write about this but I just can't take it anymore. Normally I try to provide what I hope are unique peerspectives on issues, and don't repeat the story-of-the-day that everyone else is talking about.
But this issue with the rescue of the Christian Peacemaker Teams hostages in Iraq has set me off.
Just to lay my cards on the table, I am a Christian, I go to church every Sunday and participate occasionally in mission programs. Currently I attend a non-denominational somewhat evangelical church. I used to go to a Presbyterian church, but changed when I moved to a different town. Over the years my reading had led me to conclude that the national leadership of the Presbyterian Church USA was hopelessly left-wing and so it seemed as good a time as any to sever that relationship.
That said, I do not believe nor would never insinuate that in order to be a Christian you have to be conservative. Far from it. One can certainly be liberal or even left-wing and still be a good Christian.
Nor do I question any one's personal relationship with God.
But what I will do is question people's public actions. And the actions of the Christian Peacemaker Teams(CPT) has been nothing short of reprehensible.
The Story
Some four months ago three members of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams were kidnapped in Iraq. The kidnapped men were Norman Kember, Jim Loney, and Harmeet Sooden. It is not entirely clear as to who the kidnappers are, but according to the BBC Mr Loney "described the kidnappers as a criminal gang, apparently motivated by money. The same story, however, tells of a split in the gang, with some motivated more by ideology.
In a daring raid this past Thursday, British, Canadian, and US troops rescued the three hostages. The raid was led by a British SAS unit, which is their equivalent of our Navy SEALs.
These same kidnappers had just two weeks ago murdered fellow CPT member Tom Fox. Mr Fox had been beaten before being murdered.
Ingrates
So you think they'd be grateful to their rescuers, and help in locating other hostages so that they might be rescued too, right?
Think again
The London Telegraph has the story
The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages.
Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.
But wait, it get's worse. Yesterday the CPT issued a statement which reads in part
Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.
The initial statement contained not a single word of thanks to their rescuers. This was noted by many people, who chastised them for it. Later that same day (Thursday March 23) they added this addendum
We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. So we offer these paragraphs as the first of several addenda:We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues. We are thankful to all the people who gave of themselves sacrificially to free Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom over the last four months, and those supporters who prayed and wept for our brothers in captivity, for their loved ones and for us, their co-workers.
We will continue to lift Jill Carroll up in our prayers for her safe return. In addition, we will continue to advocate for the human rights of Iraqi detainees and assert their right to due process in a just legal system.
So they just forgot, huh? If you believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
Contradictions
Richard Hernandez ("Wretchard") of The Belmont Club pointed to this ABC News story
Peggy Gish, a member of the Chicago-based group for which the former hostages worked in Baghdad, said the men were bound and their captors left the building "right before the intervention." ...Gish said the captives were not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly. The kidnappers provided medication for Kember, who had an undisclosed health problem. She said the three appeared physically fit despite their long captivity. "We do not know of any specific maladies, any particular illnesses, as a result," she said. "Even Norman (Kember) seemed fairly strong for what he had gone through."
Gish said the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were. "Our team has never received any direct communication with them," she said of the captors, adding that no ransom was demanded or paid.
Gish also said she did not know why Fox was killed. "He was the only American," Gish said. "I don't know if that's the reason."
He then asks some relevant questions
Why did James Loney characterize his captors as "criminals" or Norman Kemper call them "criminals rather than insurgents" whose "motive was believed to be money" if "the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were"? Although the captives were "not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly" they never learned a thing about why Tom Fox was killed. Did they bother to ask? Why would Fox be singled out as "the only American" if the captors were criminals interested only in money? Or are they now not sure?
Who Are the Christian Peacemaker Teams?
From the CPT website, their mission statement
Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) offers an organized, nonviolent alternative to war and other forms of lethal inter-group conflict. CPT provides organizational support to persons committed to faith-based nonviolent alternatives in situations where lethal conflict is an immediate reality or is supported by public policy. CPT seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war, and in the development of nonviolent institutions, skills and training for intervention in conflict situations. CPT projects connect intimately with the spiritual lives of constituent congregations. Gifts of prayer, money and time from these churches undergird CPT’s peacemaking ministries
Sounds innocuous enough. Lefty and naive, but noting special.
But then there's a photo of some of their protesters confronting some Israeli soldiers with the caption
CPTers "get in the way" of Israeli soldiers preparing to open fire on peaceful Palestinian protesters.
And then, regarding "Palestine"
A continuing presence in the Hebron District (West Bank) since June 1995. Team members stand with Palestinians and Israeli peace groups engaged in nonviolent opposition to Israeli military occupation, collective punishment, settler harassment, home demolitions and land confiscation.
Regarding Iraq
A Baghdad-based presence since October 2002. Team members accompanied the Iraqi people through the U.S.-led 2003 war and continue during the post-war occupation to expose abusive acts by U.S. Armed Forces and support Iraqis committed to nonviolent resistance.
And also
The primary focus of the team for eighteen months following the invasion was documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses and basic legal and human rights being denied them. Issues related to detainees remain but the current focus of the team has expanded to include efforts to end occupation and militarization of the country and to foster nonviolent and just alternatives for a free and independent Iraq.
Not one word about terrorism that I could find. Anywhere.
Just from reading the CPT site, one could be forgiven for believing that the Israeli and American armies had no enemies to fight at all. To the CPT, insurgents and terrorists simply do not exist.
If they want to say that they are Christian, that they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, I'll believe them. Their members might well spend other time participating in evangelism or other activities that are not political and more in line with Christians ought to be doing.
But there is little that is Christian about the Christian Peacemaker Teams organization itself. One searches in vain for any scripture or religions teachings on their site. Indeed, in their FAQ section they go to great pains to point out that they are not a missionary organization. Indeed, their actions seem to be entirely political.
They do say that "participants in CPT are Christians", that they "engage in regular spiritual reflection" and that "public and private prayer is emphasized". But that's about it. Nowhere is there a theological justification for their pacifism. There are a very few mentions of Jesus, but as far as I can tell there are no references to scripture anywhere on their website.
As always, David Horowitz has the scoop on the CPT at his database of the left Discover The Network. Here's part of it
Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the vast gap between CPT's claims to work for peace "through non-violent means," and its biased political agenda. CPT's strident advocacy is part of the NGO-led divestment campaign designed to promote demonization and isolation of Israel in the framework of the on-going political conflict.
They call themselves "peacemakers", I call them Useful Idiots.
Update
The Iraqi government is furious
Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phony pacifists" and "dupes" after the anti-war group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.In a statement obtained by the National Post, the Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.
"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.
"The statement shows they even share the rhetoric of the jihadists, even if they do it out of naivete. Despite their claimed affinity for 'non-violence,' this is false.
"Politically, they are on the other side of this war. Christian Peacemaker Teams are objectively on the side of the fascists, Saddam Hussein's loyalists and al-Qaida in Iraq."
It is abundantly clear that Christian Peacemaker Teams are opposed to and, in effect, at war with Iraqi democrats, Americans, the British, and the rest of the multi-national Coalition."
They don't mince words, do they? Can't say I disagree.
Posted by Tom at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 18, 2006
Code Pink at it Again
From their latest on-line petition
We, the women of the United States, Iraq and women worldwide, have had enough of the senseless war in Iraq and the cruel attacks on civilians around the world. We've buried too many of our loved ones. We've seen too many lives crippled forever by physical and mental wounds. We've watched in horror as our precious resources are poured into war while our families' basic needs of food, shelter, education and healthcare go unmet. We've had enough of living in constant fear of violence and seeing the growing cancer of hatred and intolerance seep into our homes and communities.
(If you want the root URL, start here and select "Sign the Call Now". Also hat tip to Freedom Watch for finding the petition)
Uh, wait a second. So their objection to the war in Iraq is financial? That we're spending money there that we oh-so-desperately need here at home in the world's richest nation?
"...our families' basic needs...go unmet"
Basic needs? The federal budget this year will be over 2 trillion dollars, with less than 400 billion of that on defense. This doesn't even count spending by states and localities. And we still can't meet our "basic needs"?
The reality, of course, is that OIF has cost much less than most American wars, once one adjusts for inflation.
Also, aren't liberals the ones who are always telling us that we need to spend more on foreign aid?
For the record, I'm in favor of foreign aid, if it is done right. If we can pull this off (and I think we can), then our investment in Iraq will pay dividends for decades if not centuries to come. Stay tuned for a coming post on this subject.
Christopher Hitchens had something to say about this during the last presidential campaign
A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right?
Afraid so, Hitch.
He continued
Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.
"Unconsionable" pretty much sums up Code Pink. You can read all about them on David Horowitz database of leftist groups here. I exposed them (again) here last week. And just click on "Rallys and Protests" at right to read all about their fake vigils in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC.
But Wait, There's More
What does Code Pink want? Here are their first three demands
- The withdrawal of all foreign troops and foreign fighters from Iraq;- Negotiations to reincorporate disenfranchised Iraqis into all aspects of Iraqi society;
- The full representation of women in the peacemaking process and a commitment to women's full equality in the post-war Iraq;
Oh, my head is spinning.
Do these useful idiots not realize that if they got their way on the first the second two would not take place? No, they don't. These people actually think that if we left Iraq the insurgency would die by itself, that the only thing that keeps it going is the presense of foreign troops.
This, however, is not the case. To be sure, the presence of American troops provide propaganda value for recruiting and a rally cry.
But as General John Abizaid, CENTCOM commander, said in his statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 14 2006, the enemy in Iraq is made up of three groups, each of which would continue to fight whether we were there or not
Iraqi insurgents are predominantly Sunni Arab and consist of three major elements: Iraqi rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists and foreign fighters. These groups operate primarily in four of Iraq’s eighteen provinces, where they receive varying levels of support from the Sunni population but are certainly not supported by all Sunni Arabs. Indeed, Sunni Arabs participate in all governmental activities and constitute a large number of Iraq’s security forces. These different insurgent groups have varying motivations but are unified in their opposition to U.S. and Coalition presence and their refusal to accept the authority of the legitimate, democratically-elected government of Iraq. While deadly and disruptive, the insurgency is also attractive to numbers of unemployed Iraqi young men and criminals.
The Iraqi rejectionists, mostly Sunni Arabs who want a return to their privileged status under Saddam, form the largest insurgent group. Their leadership is fragmented. They view themselves as an “honorable resistance” seeking to oust foreign occupation forces and unwilling to recognize the new-found power of groups previously excluded from political and economic life.
The Saddamists are mostly former senior officials from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Their numbers are smaller than the Iraqi rejectionists. They seek a return to power by trying to de-legitimize and undermine the new Iraqi government through a campaign of mass intimidation against the Sunni population. They also conduct stand-off attacks with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), rockets, and mortars against U.S. and Coalition forces, Iraqi security forces, and government officials in an attempt to demoralize these groups. They exploit criminal elements to assist them with these attacks. The Saddamists lack broad popular support, but they harbor long-term designs to try to infiltrate and subvert the newly-elected government from within.
The terrorists and foreign fighters are the smallest but most lethal group. The al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) network, led by the terrorist Zarqawi, is the dominant threat within this group. AQI’s objective is to create chaos in Iraq by inciting civil war between Sunni and Shia through terrorist acts such as the recent bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Such mayhem, they believe, will topple the elected government of Iraq and drive Coalition forces from the country. This could enable AQI to establish safe havens for Islamic extremism within Iraq from which to launch terrorist attacks against other moderate regimes in the region. Zarqawi has pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and the goals of AQI support bin Ladin’s broader objective of establishing a Caliphate throughout the Middle East.
One may make the argument that none of these groups would exist if we hadn't invaded. This is only partly true, as the first two would be running the country, and as we all know now were partially in league with last. We went into Iraq for sound reasons, but that's not the point of this post.
None of the above three groups would support either the reincorporation of "disenfranchised Iraqis into all aspects of Iraqi society" or women's equality.
Code Pink ends their petiton by calling on
...world leaders to join us in spreading the fundamental values of love for the human family and for our precious planet.
Doll at Freedom Watch says it best: "The only fundamental values these morons seem to be spreading is their hate of George Bush and the War on Terror."
Ditto that.
Posted by Tom at 3:25 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
March 7, 2006
Leftist Whacko Items You May Have Missed
Two topics in this post
1) Leftist groups that fund the terrorist insurgents in Iraq
2) Leftist groups that have given their approval to killing American and coalition troops in Iraq
Funding Terrorism
Guess what leftist organizations are funding the terrorists in Iraq?
Besides Code Pink, that is.
European leftists, that's who. I missed this when it first came out last June, but this US News and World Report story documents how leftists in Europe
Turns out that far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti. The groups are an odd collection, made up largely of Marxists and Maoists, sprinkled with an array of Arab emigres and aging, old-school fascists, according to Lorenzo Vidino, an analyst on European terrorism based at The Investigative Project in Washington, D.C. "It's the old anticapitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Israel crowd," says Vidino, who has been to their gatherings, where he saw activists from Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Italy. "The glue that binds them together is anti-Americanism." The groups are working on an October conference to further support "the Iraqi Resistance." A key goal is to expand backing for the insurgents from the fringe left to the broader antiwar and antiglobalization movements.
Don't think that these people are just buying "humanitarian supplies" either
Some funds may be buying more deadly stuff; one leader boasted to Vidino that the campaign will send "everything it takes" for the resistance to win, including weaponry. Neither Iraq Libero nor Campo Antiimperialista responded to questions from U.S. News about where their funds end up.
The article makes clear that these people probably haven't raised a lot of money, but of course that isn't the point. One penny it too much. As is often said of Christmas presents, "it's the thought that counts." And this time the thought is murderous.
Code Pink's Funding Operation
At the top of this post I mentioned a group called Code Pink. They are an American-based radical pro-Castro group who's full name is "Code Pink Women for Peace"
In December of 2004 they gave some $600,000 in cash and supplies to the terrorists in Fallujah. This was just before the US attack that freed the city from the insurgents. David Horowitz has the full story on this group on his DiscoverTheNetwork.org database website here.
If you don't believe Horowitz go to Code Pink's website, where they admit to doing it. It was also reported on TurkishPress.com
License to Kill
A "World Tribunal on Iraq" was held in Istanbul on June 24, 25, and 26 of 2005, Democracy Now! sponsored the A full list of endorsers can be found on the World Tribunal website. Here are some of the ones you've probably heard of
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee - NY Chapter
CODEPINK: Women for Peace
GreenPeace
International A.N.S.W.E.R
International Action Center
National Lawyers Guild - NYC chapter
Not in Our Name Project
The Greens/Green Party USA
Among their findings, taken directly from the World Tribunal website:
1. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is illegal. The reasons given by the US and UK governments for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 have proven to be false. Much evidence supports the conclusion that a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony.2. Blatant falsehoods about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a link between Al Qaeda terrorism and the Saddam Hussein régime were manufactured in order to create public support for a �preemptive� assault upon a sovereign independent nation.
All of this is standard leftist patter. This next one is a bit more interesting
8. The imposition of the UN sanctions in 1990 caused untold suffering and thousands of deaths. The situation has worsened after the occupation. At least 100,000 civilians have been killed; 60,000 are being held in US custody in inhumane conditions, without charges; thousands have disappeared; and torture has become routine
So...they're against both the war and the sanctions the preceded it? Would they have prefered that Saddam be given free reign to rebuild his WMD after the Gulf War of 1991? Apparently so, for they give no indication anywhere that they see Saddam's Iraq as a threat.
But it's this next one that you ought to read very carefully
11. There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular nation