My lonely Protest Warrior action - scroll down for updates

This Saturday I got a call from one of my friends from our local San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior.  He told me about the impending so called "anti-war" demonstration on President's Day.  I prefer calling it anti-victory demonstration, but that is besides the point.

Jeeni Criscenzo, former candidate for Congress, has organized a protest called "Bring their buddies home".  The leftists dress in black and stand along a road, with names of US soldiers killed in Iraq pinned to their chests.  They call it "An Act of Art".  San Diego chapter of Protest Warrior decided to stage a little counter-protest.  This morning I went to the corner on Tamarack and Carlsbad Blvd. and started passing little 4"x6" American Flags.  You know, a general expectation is that a stereotypical leftist would hate to hold an American Flag.  As it turns out, it is not always the case.  In the beginning the leftists just thought that the flags were part of the whole thing, although a couple did refuse to take them outright.  After I passed around about a dozen or so flags, Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me.  She said that the flags are not part of the demonstration and asked me "to respect her artwork, because the flags are spoiling it" ( I am paraphrasing).  My argument that the flags add something good to her message did not persuade her.  She was polite and got me to say "OK".  After thinking a bit about what to do next, I just started walking with a bunch of flags in my hand in front of the protesters and giving them to those who asked.  Pretty soon I gave away all my flags (about 50).  Many protesters wanted to take the flags, but could not because they were too cold or covered with plastic because of the rain.  Some of the protesters refused to take the flags, especially after hearing me explain to KUSI that I represented an opposing point of view.  But many were happy to take the flags.  They were obviously more patriotic than the organizers of the demonstration.  I also talked to FOX6 News.  The KUSI reporter at least seemed neutral, but the FOX6 guy was likely biased in favor of the anti-victory people.  I told him that you can't cut reinforcements from the troops in battle.  I also told them both that I was originally from the former Soviet Union, and I appreciate this country very much, because I have something to compare it to.  The FOX6 guy asked me what I thought about WMD not found in Iraq, and I said that Saddam did have them.  So, the anti-victory people started shouting: "Where are they?!", to which I replied that that was a good question that needs to be answered, but Saddam did have them because he did use them.  Later I called Roger Hedgecock and told him about my morning because I did not trust the TV news to accurately report on my actions there.  Let's see what part of my 2 interviews will make a cut.

 

UPDATE at 6:25pm:

The 6 o'clock edition of KUSI news did not show my interview at all.  They did show me passing flags and people holding my flags, but it made it look like they were the ones who came up with flags.  I don't want them to hide their defeatist message behind my flags, so I am very disappointed at this time.  Let's see what happens at 10pm.

 

UPDATE on 2/20/07 at 11:25pm:

KUSI news at 10pm did not show the demonstration at all.  The 11pm edition was the same as the 6pm edition.  However, FOX6 News did show me passing the flags around and even a small portion of my interview.  Here it is.

Additionally, my fellow Protest Warriors pointed out to me one crucial detail that I told them over the phone, but forgot to mention in this post.  As I was returning back to my car, I passed by the people whom I gave the flags before Jeeni Criscenzo confronted me.  They did not have the flags any longer.  Jeeni must have taken the flags away from them or just told them to put the flags away.  After all, she could not allow American Flags to "spoil her artwork".  Besides, the flags would represent a dissent from her plan, and the Left can't tolerate that.

A little-known controversy that is slowly coming to light

Julia Gorin has written this article for the Front Page Magazine:

It is somewhat pathetic that even after 9/11, and even after a nearly four-year trial at the Hague disproving “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians in Kosovo (something the late reporter Daniel Pearl uncovered as early as 1999), the Jewish community still insists on being used to promote the agenda of the Albanian lobby that allied us with the al Qaeda-trained Kosovo Liberation Army in 1999.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Bosnia and Kosovo have been part of Islam’s current divide-and-conquer approach. Israeli Colonel Dr. Shaul Shay, author of Islamic Terror and the Balkans, explains the significance of the Kosovo, Albania and Bosnia region that Americans ignore: “In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century.”

The Balkans also have given Islam its long-sought gateway into Europe, as the Kosovo connection to the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London demonstrate. (According to Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily and German intelligence, the explosives used in both bombings came from Kosovo, and just last week the Greek Kathimerini news service reported that the missile fired on the U.S. embassy in Athens a few weeks ago appears to have come from Kosovo.)

Albanians argue that their fight for Kosovo is not an Islamic movement but a national one. (DioGuardi himself is Christian.) Palestinians, of course, make the same claim. But the big picture is the same: jihad. The day that Kosovo becomes “Kosova” (the Muslims’, nationalists’, dhimmis’ and Mr. DioGuardi’s invented pronunciation) is the day we’ve lost a key battle in the war on terror.

Read it all.  I suspected this all to some extent from other articles I read, but this time I also followed the links.  Do that too.  Then I went to Julia's blog where she just posted (at that time) her comments on the Salt Lake City shooter.  I followed the links there too: this very graphic link and this one.  And then I was horrified.  Horrified by the strong possibility that our country supported the wrong side in the Yugoslavian wars.  Do follow the links that I copied from Julia Gorin's blog.  And note the links provided there.  They are not from some cookie sites similar to those denying the Holocaust.  The sources referenced there are quite reputable.  Plus, there is another reason I tend to believe this new version of events.  Remember the Jenin Massacre?  The one that never happened?  The same people that created that big lie that was fortunately exposed in time are the people talking about the Serb atrocities.  Their credibility is clearly suspect.  So, how is it possible that we took the wrong side in those wars?  I see 3 reasons.  First is that the Left is always willing to support the side that is not seen as Western.  Thus, in the conflict between between Christian Serbs and Muslim Bosnians the Left automatically took the Bosnian side.  The same was true in Kosovo.  In the conflict between Serbs and Croats the Serbs were perceived as stronger side.  The Left always takes the weaker side, regardless of who is right.  Finally, there was a reason from the Right: the Serbs were traditionally supported by the Russians.  There must have been some Cold War inertia in play.  Plus, Milosevic was a former Communist and genuine thug (according to my former co-workers from Serbia).

But the evidence that we took the wrong side in both Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts is very strong.  And that is very tragic.  It is now well documented that Al Qaeda is active in both Bosnia and Kosovo.  They always insert themselves into conflicts were Muslims are one of the sides, even if the original reason for the conflict is very secular.  Just follow the links.

I always thought that Israel will play the role of both Poland and Czechoslovakia in the current world war.  It turns out that there is another candidate for the role of Czechoslovakia: Serbia.  You see, unlike us, Jews, the Serbs did not suffer the Holocaust.  They were being killed by the Nazis and their Bosnian and Croat helpers because they interfered with the extermination of the Jews.  You know, like hiding the Jews, fighting the Nazis along with the other Allies.  (Note that in the link that I provided the claims about Bosnian Muslims participating in the Holocaust are disputed.  Nevertheless, the Bosnian SS division was organized with the help of Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Arafat's uncle).  So, Serbs did not suffer through a methodical extermination campaign.  Thus, it is easier to demonize them.  And now many people would rather keep them demonized, because otherwise it might become necessary to admit an embarrassing and tragic mistake.

Is Hillary one of the few sane Democrats?

This is from NewsMax:

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., on Thursday called for a rejection of new Palestinian textbooks that portray a world without Israel, refer to Jews as "Zionist gangs" and rewrite the Holocaust to ignore atrocities committed against Jews.

"We must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are exposed," Clinton said in a news conference in Washington, D.C. "These children deserve an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence."

Clinton, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, called the conference to release a report by Palestinian Media Watch, a Jerusalem-based group that monitors Palestinian media for anti-Israel bias. She said the books "do not give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination."

Do read it all and form your own opinion. To me it seems that she is being very rational here. For the record, in no way does it mean that I want her to be President. But whenever a Democrat sounds rational, it gives me hope, even if they are rational for the wrong reasons. In case of Hillary, she might even believe what she is saying. But I don't think that is the reason why she is saying this. In the last elections 25% of American Jews did vote for Bush. She knows that someone like Giuliani, who is very supportive of Israel and very willing to stand up to Islamo-Fascists, can easily take a large enough percentage of Jewish voters away from the Democratic ticket, which will make it impossible for her to win the Presidency. The younger Jews especially likely to look away from the Democratic Party. Add to it the fact that on the average majority of Americans tend to support Israel, and it becomes understandable why Hillary has to sound sane on this issue. At this point there are 3 front runners on the Democratic side: consistently hard Left Obama, flip-flopping hard Left Edwards and Hillary. Hillary is the most sane of the three. She is a politician hungry for power. Thus, she can be influenced by public opinion. At the same time, she is not going to flip-flop a la Kerry or Edwards: the same public opinion hates that.
Will the next Truman or FDR ever appear on the Democratic side some time in the future?

Misinformation in the Mainstream Media

Well, I am not really breaking any news here. I just wanted to point out that the leftist bias and misinformation are present not only in the presentation of news, but also in entertainment. The case in point is last Tuesday episode of NBC's "Law and Order: SVU". The show itself is pretty good, and my wife and I like it. But in this particular episode the leftist bias of the show makers showed its ugly head. The title of the episode was "Loophole". The premise is that they discover that some evil chemical corporation is using some loophole in the EPA regulations and testing side effects of some pesticides on "poor people, because they don't matter". That premise is bad enough. But one of the witnesses/victims is a Hispanic single mother, who is illegal because her Green Card has expired. I have news flash for NBC and anybody who feels sorry for immigrants without understanding the immigration process: the Green Card never expires, unless you leave the country for more than a year or commit a crime! I should know: I had a Green Card for 5 years before applying for US Citizenship and then one more year while my application was being processed. I am very tired of feel-good leftists who feel sorry for immigrants and throw out BS like that. They institute stupid bi-lingual education programs (thankfully, abolished in California) that prevent normal assimilation. Their idiotic misinformation, like this story of expiring Green Card, prevents us from creating an immigration process that makes sense. At this point the borders (both) are wide open, while immigrating legally is very hard. How much sense does that make? And now politicians on both sides of the isle talk about temporary visas. What a stupid idea: creating a large chunk of population that by design is not supposed to become American. We are at war, which means that one of the requirements for living in this country should be loyalty to the good old USA. That should most definitely include immigrants. Thus, only those who intend to become Americans should be given Green Cards. They should also be required to apply for Citizenship after 5 years. Those, who don't, should be deported.

Old news that is nothing new

This is a couple of days old, but I just got time to blog:

WASHINGTON — Hezbollah is presently receiving a "constant stream of armaments" from Syria, Iran and other foreign sources, senior Israeli officials said Tuesday, and the terror group is "preparing for violence" in an increasingly radicalized Middle East.

"They are getting all kinds of rockets, advanced anti-tank missiles, command-and-control systems, training, finance," an Israeli official said. Asked if the group has fully reconstituted back to where it was before the war in terms of military capability, the official said: "They are certainly on their way."

The official, a top-ranked officer in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and an accompanying aide briefed a handful of reporters on the condition the officials' names not be used.

While Hezbollah has been unable to return to, or rebuild, bunkers and other fortifications it was using before the start of last summer's Israeli-Hezbollah war, the Israeli official said the group maintains an "operational" presence along the Lebanese-Israeli border, and cited as evidence the IDF's discovery Monday of a "cluster of explosives" near the border on the Lebanese side.

Enabling Hezbollah's rearmament, the official said, is the "open border" Lebanon shares with Syria, and the lack of "real teeth for enforcement" in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1718, which established a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hezbollah war last August.

At the same time, and in a similar way, the Israeli military officer said, foreign sources are providing Hamas with anti-tank missiles, high-trajectory rockets and missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and their launchers, explosive devices and automatic rifles.

…………………………………………………………………………….

The official and the aide claimed the IDF has had "no operational activity whatsoever" in Gaza for the last three months, since an informal ceasefire was established between the Palestinians and the Israelis in that area, but that in the same time Hamas fighters have launched more than 100 Qassam rockets across the border aimed at Israeli civilian targets.

As further evidence of the problems originating in Gaza and its porous border with Egypt, the official pointed to the deadly homicide bombing on January 29 in Eilat, the first ever in the southern Israeli resort town, and said IDF officials "know for sure" the bomber came from Gaza.

The official was skeptical about Western plans to shore up the Fatah security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen.

"Every meeting we have on this subject always ends in the conclusion, 'Bolster Abu Mazen, bolster Abu Mazen' as if that will solve all the problems," the IDF official said. "He was in power two years ago [before Hamas came to power], wasn't he?" the official asked. "What did he do then?"

Well, I am glad that a relatively main stream news organization like Fox published this report. But there is nothing new here, at least for me. After all, what else would you expect? The world is asleep once again, while the new Nazis are arming themselves to the teeth. Eventually they will strike, and the world will once again say: "If only we paid attention, if only we stopped them before it was too late".
I am sorry, I can't shake this feeling of an impending doom.

Here is why Jews voting for Democrats are suicidal:

This is almost third post in a row on this subject. But this is just so rich, I could not help but post on it (via Little Green Footballs):

The convocation for the Democratic National Committee’s winter meeting was delivered today by Shi’ite Imam Husham Al-Husainy, of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center in Dearborn, Michigan, and it’s amazing what this spiritual leader managed to get away with saying, in front of America’s Democrat leadership:

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.

LGF also links to the video of this. So, what could be wrong with some imam leading a prayer at the DNC meeting? Aren't we tolerant and respectful of all religions? Well, the problem is that this is not some imam. For the information on this particular imam we go to Debbie Schlussel (also linked to by LGF):

Meet Husham Al-Husainy. In Iraq, he was an aircraft engineer. But in America, he's an extremist cleric and disciple of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who enjoys huge mainstream support.

…………………………………………………………………………….

This past summer, Al-Husainy seemed very happy leading almost-daily protests of thousands of Hezbollah supporters on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit, swarming with swastikas and anti-Semitic, anti-American signs.

Later, I watched him very much enjoy himself at an anti-Semitic rally of 3,000 Hezbollah supporters at Dearborn's Bint Jebail Cultural Center. He was among several who delivered hate-filled, anti-American rhetoric. I watched him cheer others on when they called for the hastened destruction of the Jews and when they said Americans are "diseased."

…………………………………………………………………………….

Imam Husainy was also in great spirits when he led a number of pro-HAMAS and pro-Arafat rallies in the area. Yes, Shi'ites who hate Sunnis to death in Iraq, love Sunnis in Israel when they're killing the Jews. In late 2004, he seemed thrilled to lead a rally on the streets of Dearborn, commemorating Arafat's death. He and his followers held signs featuring enlarged photos of Khomeini at the rally.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Imam Al-Husainy and other Shi'ite leaders in Dearborn are not just followers of Khomeini, they are supporters of Moqtada Al-Sadr and proteges of his late uncle, Imam Mohammed Bakr Al-Sadr--who was murdered by Saddam Hussein. Every year, the Al-Sadr Foundation holds a fundraising banquet in Dearborn. Does any Foundation money go to fund the Mehdi Army?

…………………………………………………………………………….

America's Shi'ite enemies are not just in Sadr City or Central Beirut and Southern Lebanon. They are in America's own Little Sadr City--East Dearborn, where they danced on the streets after Saddam Hussein's execution.

Proving the old adage wrong. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Sometimes, he's just our enemy. And, unfortunately, he's living on American soil with permanent citizenship. And a lot of easily-incited followers.

I just have to say this: Debbie Schlussel reminds me of my Canadian cousin: a smart and very opinionated blond Jewish girl (Luba, in case you are reading this, yes, I am talking about you). Just like my cousin, Debbie Schlussel sometimes gets a little too passionate when expressing her opinions. And just like in case of my cousin, Debbie's opinions have very well thought out rational foundation.
But back to my main point. If this kind of guy gets support from the Democrats, to keep voting for the party that puts this guy forward is clearly suicidal. By the way, this applies not only to Jews, but also to gays and women who want to wear mini-skirts.

How to fight the real war

I am not going to claim that it hasn't been said already, but Newt Gingrich has given this testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 23, 2007:

...America is faced with two very hard paths forward in Iraq.

We can accept defeat and try to rebuild our position in the region while accommodating the painful possibility that these enemies of freedom in Iraq -- evil men, vicious murderers, and sadistic inflictors of atrocities will have defeated both the millions of Iraqis who voted for legal self government and the American people and their government.

Alternatively we can insist on defeating the enemies of America and the enemies of the Iraqi people and can develop the strategies and the implementation mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and the interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies.

Both these paths are hard. Both involve great risk. Both have unknowable difficulties and will produce surprise events.

Both will be complicated.

Yet either is preferable to continuing to accept an ineffective American implementation system while relying on the hope that the Iraqi system can be made to work in the next six months.

There are three fundamental weaknesses in the current strategy.

First, the strategy relies on the Iraqis somehow magically improving their performance in a very short time period. Yet the argument for staying in Iraq is that it is a vital AMERICAN interest. If we are seeking victory in Iraq because it is vital to America then we need a strategy which will win even if our Iraqi allies are inadequate. We did not rely on the Free French to defeat Nazi Germany. We did not rely on the South Koreans to stop North Korea and China during the Korean War. When it mattered to American vital interests we accepted all the help we could get but we made sure we had enough strength to win on our own if need be.

President Bush has asserted that Iraq is a vital American interest. In January 2007 alone he has said the following things:

But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.

[F]ailure in one part of the world could lead to disaster here at home. It's important for our citizens to understand that as tempting as it might be, to understand the consequences of leaving before the job is done, radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength. They would be emboldened. It would make it easier to recruit for their cause. They would be in a position to do that which they have said they want to do, which is to topple moderate governments, to spread their radical vision across an important region of the world.

If we were to leave before the job is done, if we were to fail in Iraq, Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have safe havens from which to launch attacks. People would look back at this moment in history and say, what happened to them in America? How come they couldn't see the threats to a future generation?

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Iraq is a central component of defeating the extremists who want to establish safe haven in the Middle East, extremists who would use their safe haven from which to attack the United States, extremists and radicals who have stated that they want to topple moderate governments in order to be able to achieve assets necessary to effect their dream of spreading their totalitarian ideology as far and wide as possible.

This is really the calling of our time, that is, to defeat these extremists and radicals, and Iraq is a component part, an important part of laying the foundation for peace.

The inherent contradiction in the administration strategy is simple. If Iraq matters as much as the President says it does (and here I agree with the President on the supreme importance of victory) then the United States must not design and rely on a strategy which relies on the Iraqis to win.

On the other hand if the war is so unimportant that the fate of Iraq can be allowed to rest with the efforts of a new, weak, untested and inexperienced government then why are we risking American lives.

Both propositions cannot be true.

I accept the President’s analysis of the importance of winning in Iraq and therefore I am compelled to propose that his recently announced strategy is inadequate.

The second weakness is that the current strategy debate once again focuses too much on the military and too little on everything that has not been working. The one instrument that has been reasonably competent is the combat element of American military power. That is a very narrow definition and should not be expanded to include the non combat elements of the Department of Defense which also have a lot of difficulties in performing adequately.

…………………………………………………………………………….

The third weakness in the current strategy is its inability to impose war time decision making and accountability in Washington.

The interagency process is hopelessly broken.

Gingrich then lists key steps for victory. I think that they all are important, but I particularly like these:

…………………………………………………………………………….
5. Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally and his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation should prepare the agenda for the weekly review and meeting.

6. Establish three plans: one for achieving victory with the help of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory with the passive acquiescence of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory even if the current Iraqi government is unhappy. The third plan may involve very significant shifts in troops and resources away from Baghdad and a process of allowing the Iraqi central government to fend for itself if it refuses to cooperate.

7. Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures.

8. Pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.

9. Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities.

Read the whole thing. There is some hope.

More on suicidal Jews

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs doesn't know me. I only know her blog, not her personally. But we share more than just political beliefs. We both cannot understand how our fellow Jews can take the side of those who would kill them at the first opportunity. They are like those assimilated German Jews of 1930s that kept insisting that they were really Germans until it was too late. This time Pamela links to this article:

Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor
By PATRICIA COHEN

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

Let me stop for a second and note that American Jewish Committee is hardly conservative. But let's continue:

...In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”

The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.

The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld’s article. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said, “I’m almost in a state of shock” at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.

On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”

Let me again stop for a second. In this last quote this guy essentially says that desire to defend ourselves fosters anti-Semitism. But let's read some more:

Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld’s indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews.”

Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject as “Jewish anti-Semitism,” Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is called, he said, “I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they’re thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause.”

Finally someone in the MSM said what needs to be said. Read it all. And here is the essay itself. It's in PDF, so in order to read it you have to have the Acrobat Reader.

Heil Chavez!

Two days ago I read this story:

CARACAS, Venezuela — Hugo Chavez has just about everything a president could want: popular support, a marginalized opposition, congress firmly on his side and a booming economy as he starts his new six-year term.

Now, he's about to become even more powerful _ the all-Chavista National Assembly is poised to approve a "mother law" as early as Wednesday enabling him to remake society by presidential decree. In its latest draft, the law would allow Chavez to dictate measures for 18 months in 11 broad areas, from the "economic and social sphere" to the "transformation of state institutions."

Chavez calls it a new era of "maximum revolution," setting the tone for months of upheaval as he plans to nationalize companies, impose new taxes on the rich and reorient schools to teach socialist values. With near-religious fervor and plenty of oil wealth, Chavez is mobilizing millions of Venezuelans, intent on creating a more egalitarian society.

Already, profound changes can be seen throughout Venezuela. Those who felt left out of the old system are thrilled at the prospect of having a voice in politics. Others are horrified, predicting that doors will close on their personal freedoms under one-man rule, although exactly what Chavez will do with his power remains unclear.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Outside the Spanish Embassy, dozens line up with documents in hand. Many plan trips for tourism or study, but Henry Krakower is thinking darker thoughts. He wants a passport for his 10-year-old son in case they need to leave for good.

"I don't really know what all the coming changes are, but I don't think it's the best idea to give all the power to a single person for him to decide on my behalf," says Krakower, the son of a Polish concentration camp survivor who found a haven in Venezuela after World War II.

Government officials insist there will be total freedom of religion and speech and that private property will be safe, but the Krakowers aren't so sure. Listening for clues to what lies ahead, they worry about economic restrictions and ideology in education. At their son's private Jewish school, some parents are talking about how and when to leave the country.

"I think the president is going to do what he wants to do, because he will have all the power to decide on all things," Krakower says. "I think we're headed toward totalitarianism."

…………………………………………………………………………….

How much say the public will have in how Chavez uses the "enabling law" remains unclear, but lawmakers have been holding assemblies to gather public input.

"If there is no popular participation, there will be no socialism," lawmaker Dario Vivas said at one meeting. "Socialism is, definitively, giving power to the people."

I did not have time to post on it two days ago, but now it has happened:

CARACAS, Venezuela — A congress wholly loyal to President Hugo Chavez approved a law Wednesday granting the Venezuelan leader authority to enact sweeping measures by presidential decree.

Meeting at a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously approved all four articles of the law by a show of hands.

"Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!" said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the law approved. "Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!"

Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Chavez, a former paratroop commander who easily won re-election in December, has said he will use the law to decree nationalizations of Venezuela's largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector, slap new taxes on the rich and impose greater state control over the oil and natural gas industries.

The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."

Now, let's compare:

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

…………………………………………………………………………….

While there had been previous enabling acts in the earliest years of the Weimar Republic, this one was more far reaching since Article 2 allowed for deviations from the constitution. The law therefore formally required a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag.


Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself; as Joseph Goebbels wrote shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act:

The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.

Formal cabinet meetings were rare during the whole Third Reich and non-existent during World War II.

It is indicative of the care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality that the Enabling Act was formally extended twice by the Reichstag (by then a puppet of Hitler) beyond its original 1937 expiration date.

The passage of the Enabling Act reduced the Reichstag to a mere stage for Hitler's speeches. The opposition parties were suppressed or banned, and eventually even the parties making up Hitler's coalition yielded to government pressure and dissolved themselves. On July 14, 1933 the government decreed a law eliminating political parties other than the Nazi Party. By this, Hitler had fulfilled what he had promised in earlier campaign speeches: "I set for myself one aim ... to sweep these thirty parties out of Germany!".

Also, here:

...[P]resident Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). Thereby Hitler also became supreme commander of the military, which then swore their military oath not to the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally. In a mid-August plebiscite, these acts found the approval of 84.6% of the electorate. Combining the highest offices in state, military and party in his hand, Hitler had attained supreme rule that could no longer be legally challenged.

So, what is the Spanish for "Führer"? While the crazy American Left screams at the Bush administration and compares the President to Hitler, their new darling Hugo Chavez quite literally follows Hitler's rise to power.
I think I've said it before: current combat in Iraq in Afghanistan will be compared to the war that is coming like American involvement in Nicaragua in the late 1920s - early 1930s can be compared to World War 2. And this coming war we might actually have to fight on our soil. Not just in Aleutians, but actually in the continental US.

Suicidal Jews

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs writes about suicidal American Jews:

The dishonor of America Jewry

Caroline Glick takes on jewicidal American Jews - self loathing, "enlightened" and reminiscent of the German Jew before the "extermination." It's open season on the Jews and the Islamists here in America can smell blood, as evidenced here.
Glick ran it in the Jewish Press. One can only hope that those Jewish schmucks that vote Democrat (87% of Jews vote Democratic!) read it and think. JEWS PAY ATTENTION TO THIS.

The link to Caroline Glick's article follows:

It would seem that American Jewry has lost its sense of honor. In early 1984, as he sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson made a major misstep. In a conversation with African-American Washington Post reporter Milton Coleman, Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies,” and to New York City as “Hymietown.”

When the remarks were reported, a storm of protest erupted. Jewish leaders and organizations issued uniform demands that Jackson publicly apologize for his remarks. Jackson accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. Appearing on a radio broadcast with the notorious anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Jackson was silent as Farrakhan threatened Coleman and then issued a public warning to Jews: “If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm.”

Yet the Jews of America did not relent. And the U.S. media also did not relent. In February 1984, Jackson belatedly issued a public apology to Jews in a synagogue in New Hampshire. But his electoral prospects had dried up by that point. When he ran again for president four years later, then-New York mayor Ed Koch said ahead of the New York Democratic primary, “Jews and supporters of Israel who are not Jewish would be crazy to vote for him.” Jackson lost big in New York and shortly thereafter retreated from the race.

Compare the properly angry and unforgiving response of American Jewry in 1984 to the American Jewish response earlier in the month when General Wesley Clark made a similar anti-Semitic slur in remarks to the press. Clark, who ran in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2004 and has made noises about another run in 2008, expressed his anger to popular left-wing blogger Arianna Huffington over reports that the Bush administration may order preemptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear installations.

When asked why he felt that the administration is heading in that direction, Clark responded, “You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

Clark’s anti-Semitic attack received precious little attention in the mainstream media. Jewish organizations have uttered no significant outcries against him. Clark put the remark behind him by writing an abject letter to Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman, but the ADL’s website makes no mention of the incident.

From the perspective of the American Jewish leadership, apparently, Clark’s obscene attack on Jews was a non-incident.

Unfortunately, Clark’s attack was anything but unique. Indeed, it fits into a larger trend in which politicians and public figures feel an unacceptable level of comfort in attacking Jews and accusing both Israel and its American Jewish supporters of nefariously subverting America’s national interest in order to advance Israel’s security interests.

Read it all. When will my fellow Jews in this country finally realize who their friends are? As for Clark's controversy, the irony of it is that Clark is himself essentially half-Jewish. Among anti-Semites, those with the hint of Jewish blood are often the worst. It's like they want to prove to themselves and everybody else their anti-Semitic bona fides. For example, the ruthless inquisitor Torquemada had Jewish roots. Another example is Karl Marx, who promoted the anti-Semitic stereotypes of the worst kind.

An opposing view worthy of front page discussion

Two days ago I passed another milestone as a blogger: somebody left a comment in disagreement with my post on this blog, but smart, articulate and definitely worthy of debate. Since that post is rather old, I decided to reply to that comment on the front page.
To re-cap, the post was about an article by Vladimir Bukovsky on the subject of torture. Acknowledging some good points Bukovsky was making in his article, I commented that, unlike Stalin's "interrogators", our counter-terrorism operatives are trying to get some useful information, rather than false "confessions". Thus, they probably know that real physical torture is counter-productive for the most part. So, here is the comment by Anonymous:

Then how can you explain extraordinary rendition? Your argument is that we can trust "our" guys to be given free reign in interrogation. The problem is, once we take free reign, so will everyone else, and exonerate themselves with a finger pointed directly at us.

I truly don't understand why that person would not sign this comment. But, aside from that, here is my answer:
First of all, why would you think that it matters to our enemies what we do? Do you really think that whoever they capture would treated humanly, if we treat terrorists humanly? There is only one reason to treat those in our captivity humanly: for our own sanity.
Second, nobody is given a "free reign": those not employing productive methods of interrogation will not get results. Thus, useless torture will be and is punished.
Finally, please provide some evidence of those "extraordinary renditions". I've heard a lot of talk about it, but so far I don't know of any detainee transfered to someone like Jordanians or Egyptians, just so that they could do the dirty work for us. Those captured by us, but wanted in Jordan or Egypt, if there are any, don't count: why would you not extradite those wanted people to the countries they are wanted in?
the rumors of those renditions persist because of 3 reasons:
1. They might be true;
2. They are invention of the Left;
3. They are (the rumors) a useful interrogation tool. Why? Because mind games are probably much more productive than physical torture.
For example, let's say our guys captured 2 terrorists. One is very hard core, very strong personality. He won't talk, no matter what our guys do. The second is weaker. So, our guys determine which is not likely to talk, and in front of the weaker guy announce that the guy that is not talking is being transfer to Jordanians, for example. They will make him talk. And then he led away. At this point it is not necessary to actually transfer the stronger guy to Jordanians: the threat of such transfer will make the other guy talk. But in order for this threat to be convincing, you and I also have to believe that such transfers are practiced. The Left has to scream about it. Otherwise nobody would believe it.
The bottom line, an Al Qaeda terrorist will never all of a sudden see the error of his ways and spill the beans. You have to trick him into doing that. The mind games, including the threat of torture and bad hard rock music, are necessary for that.

There is some good news already!

I heard Jack Kelly on Dennis Prager Show and later found this article of his on Jewish World Review:

Three interesting things have happened since President Bush announced plans to "surge" U.S. troops.


First, al Qaida appears to be retreating from Baghdad. A military intelligence officer has confirmed to Richard Miniter, editor of Pajamas Media, a report in the Iraqi newspaper al Sabah that Abu Ayyub al Masri, the head of al Qaida in Iraq, has ordered a withdrawal to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad.


Mr. al Masri's evacuation order said that remaining in Baghdad is a no-win situation for al Qaida, because the Fallujah campaign demonstrating the Americans have learned how to prevail in house to house fighting, Mr. Miniter said.


"In more than 10 years of reading al Qaida intercepts, I've never seen (pessimistic) language like this," he quoted his intelligence officer source as saying.


Second, the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr, whose Iranian-subsidized militia, the Mahdi army, is responsible for most of the assaults on Sunni civilians in Iraq, is cooling his rhetoric and lowering his profile.


"Mahdi army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements," wrote Leila Fadel and Zaineb Obeid of the McClatchy Newspapers Jan. 13.


Third, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is putting more distance between himself and al Sadr, upon whose bloc of votes in parliament he had relied for political support.


Last Friday al Sadr ordered the 30 lawmakers and six cabinet ministers he controls to end the boycott of the government he ordered two months ago. AP writer Steven Hurst described this Monday as "a desperate bid to fend off an all out American offensive."


Despite this, Mr. Maliki consented to the arrest that same day of Abdul Hadi al Durraji, al Sadr's media director in Baghdad. Mr. Sadr said Saturday some 400 of his supporters have been arrested in recent days.
…………………………………………………………………………….

So success hinges on the attitude of the Iraqi government.

…………………………………………………………………………….

"Al Maliki realized he couldn't keep defending the Mahdi army because of the information and evidence that the armed group was taking part in the killings, displacing people and violating the state's sovereignty," Mr. Hurst quoted one of those officials as saying.


But Mr. Maliki would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to have recognized from the get go that the Mahdi army is one gigantic death squad. I suspect Mr. Maliki is only seeing the light now because President Bush finally is applying some heat. Mr. Maliki has tried to walk a line between the Scylla of the Americans and the Charybdis of the Iranians, but the steps he's taking now will be difficult to retrace.


"He knows that his personal risk increases with each Shiite militia commander he arrests, and eventually he will pass through a door through which he cannot return," said the Web logger Tigerhawk.


Though they may turn out to be fleeting, the troop surge, though barely begun, already is producing beneficial results. Efforts to write it off in advance as a "failure" are, at best, premature.

Read it all. Hopefully pretty soon Al Sadr will join Saddam at a little campfire in Hell. Of course, what is being done now should have been done at least 2 years ago, but better later than never. This is Bush's (and ours) last chance to get some victory before the Democrats force the pullout.

Another Democrat displaying some left-over sanity?

I found this story a couple of days ago:

WASHINGTON — In a revealing new book on politics, Sen. Charles Schumer comes out with guns blazing — not at President Bush, but at his own Democratic Party.

Schumer, one of the most powerful figures in Washington, rips his party for being in the clutches of special-interest groups for too long and for losing touch with the middle class.

"Washington Democrats too often took their cues from interest groups without considering the needs of the average person," he writes in "Positively American," which is due to hit stores next week.

"Group identities around the country were less important, but those claiming to represent group interests in Washington were stronger than ever," Schumer wrote. "Democrats had lost touch with their base — the middle class."

Some people might ask why I would be interested in anything Schumer has to say, since I usually vote Republican. The main reasons are that I like a serious opposition in order to get the best ideas out, and the country does not go downhill in case my side loses.
Schumer is usually considered pretty left-wing. However I am not aware of him being too critical of the war effort. He seems genuinely concerned about security: his pet issue was security of our sea ports ever since 9/11, which is a real issue. So, whenever a Democrat displays some sanity, it gives me hope that not everything is lost, even when Democrats win.
I also keep thinking: the sanity among Democrats: is it a Jewish thing? Ah, forget it: Senators Feingold and Boxer are Jewish too, and they are crazy moonbats. Although, Boxer did display some sanity recently. So, maybe there is something to it. You know, thinking back to those cattle cars and gas chambers tends to get your attention.

Hillary's gloves came off...

...and this might be good news. Here is an interesting article from Insight Magazine (if this link requires subscription, use this Google search result):

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

"He was a Muslim, but he concealed it," the source said. "His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign."

When contacted by Insight, Mr. Obama’s press secretary said he would consult with “his boss” and call back. He did not.

Hillary is of course a right-winger in comparison to Obama. She is also much more likely to prosecute the war as necessary, if she deems it politically beneficial for her. As for Obama, his Muslim connection might be nothing. He truly might be no longer Muslim. Furthermore, there are many American Muslims who are loyal Americans. I even personally know a couple. There are also organizations like Free Muslims Coalition and American Islamic Forum for Democracy which are very pro-American. In fact, pro-American is probably the wrong word: they are American to the core.
However, during the time of war this particular detail about Obama does not engender trust, especially considering the fact that he avoids the subject. Because if there really is nothing to it, then he should say something like: "So, I went to some Islamic school as a kid in Indonesia. So, what? It was the closest to my house." As of now, his behavior reminds me of the infiltration described in the book "Prayers for the Assassin" by Robert Ferrigno.
Anyway, Obama is so far left, I will be rooting for Hillary in the Democratic primaries.

Political correctness run amok

My college friend directed me to this story:

Negev rancher Shai Dromi is now charged with murder after having fired at four men who trespassed on his property, poisoned his guard dog (not the first such occurrence) and broke his sheep-pen locks. They were about to get away with his entire herd, in which everything he had was invested. The loss of the herd would have meant ruin.

Dromi had been robbed of his livestock in the past, and barely managed to rehabilitate his small agricultural enterprise. The fear of repeated thefts was so tangible that he had taken to spending the bitterly cold desert nights with the sheep in their pen to prevent rustlers from destroying his livelihood and life's work.

He isn't the only one. No Negev farmer is exempt from the reign of terror imposed by Bedouin gangs. The police do little, and rarely arrive even when summoned. Insurance companies will have nothing to do with the beleaguered farmers. Their only alternative is to pay exorbitant "protection" money to Bedouin "guards" to prevent them from absconding with equipment, livestock and produce. This situation, as The Jerusalem Post warned in these very columns last week, is plainly untenable.

Dromi's case was a disaster waiting to happen, as noted in that same prescient editorial on January 10 - several days before the incident at Dromi's ranch. We titled that article "The Wild South" - the prevalent appellation for the lawless Negev, where no entrepreneur, homeowner or driver is safe from Bedouin gangs.

Dromi is clearly not criminal material. He attempted to warn the rustlers away but then feared that if discovered, they'd murder him. He didn't shoot to kill, aiming at their feet. His misfortune was that one of his bullets hit Khaled al-Atrash's leg artery. Dromi desperately attempted to resuscitate Atrash, who had just been released from a four-year prison stretch for farm thefts.

Here is another article on the subject:

Shai Dromi says he regrets killing Khaled al-Atrash, 31, when he and three other Bedouin tried to rob his northern Negev farm on Saturday morning, but insists he acted in self-defense.

Dromi critically wounded a second alleged burglar, and police are searching for the other two. On Sunday, the Beersheba District Court extended his remand for four days.

"I apologize for the loss of human life, and I send my condolences to the man's family," Dromi told reporters in the courtroom. However, he insisted that he had acted to protect himself, firing at the legs of the thieves after he caught them in the middle of the latest theft of equipment and animals at the Shai ranch in the northern Negev's Yatir forest.

Dromi reportedly told police that four men arrived at his farm, poisoned a guard dog, and broke a lock on one of the sheep pens.

Dromi was distraught during his initial questioning, a detective said. Wire cutters and a snapped locked were found on the property.

Police said they were considering charging Dromi with murder, firing a weapon in a residential area, and using a rifle without a license.

This story has nothing to do with the current war against Islamist terrorism. But it has everything to do with self-defense against a good old robbery attempt. The Left and the Islamists took over this case just because the guy killed was a Muslim and an Arab. The irony of it is that he was a Bedouin. Israeli Bedouins are loyal Israeli citizens and serve in IDF. This particular guy was just a thug. What is interesting about this story is that it is indicative of political correctness run amok. Transplanted on American soil, it becomes the story of Border Patrol agents sent to jail for shooting a drug smuggler - essentially doing their job of ...protecting the border.
If we do lose this war, it will be because of stupid political correctness.

The Few

I found this story via Old War Dogs and Blackfive:

Royal Marines carried out a dramatic rescue attempt of their comrade, Lance Corporal Mathew Ford, in Afghanistan on Monday 13 January 2007. It was with great sadness that they later discovered he had been killed in action.

Lance Corporal Ford, from 45 Commando Royal Marines, died when his UK Task Force attacked a major Taliban fort in southern Helmand Province.

The attack began at dawn on Monday 15 January 2007, on the Taliban base of Jugroom Fort, south of Garmsir. Z Company 45 Commando, mounted in Vikings and supported by C Squadron, Light Dragoons, crossed the Helmand river to the south west of the fort.
…………………………………………………………………………….

The UKTF met ferocious Taliban fire from all sides. As planned, Z Company then withdrew back to the far side of the Helmand river having successfully completed their objective. The engagement lasted for approximately five hours.

It is believed a number of Taliban targets were killed but it is not possible to say how many.

Having fought for a period, the Marines regrouped. When they discovered Lance Corporal Ford was missing they flew back, strapped to Apaches, to find their fallen comrade in a unique rescue mission attempt.

An initial plan was hatched to use Viking vehicles but they eventually concluded that the Apache WAH-64 attack helicopters would provide a quicker and safer means to get him out and back to safety.

And so four troops were strapped to the small side 'wings' of two Apaches, two to each helicopter. A third Apache provided aerial cover, and further units laid down a mass of covering fire while the other two Apaches landed.

All four men got off, as well as some of the aircrew, to provide additional firepower and to assist with the recovery of Lance Corporal Ford.

UK Task Force spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rory Bruce, said:

"It was a leap into the unknown. This is believed to be the first time UK forces have ever tried this type of rescue mission.

"It was an extraordinary tale of heroism and bravery of our airmen, soldiers and marines who were all prepared to put themselves back into the line of fire to rescue a fallen comrade."

This story stands in history next to the exploits of the RAF during the Battle of Britain as well as British commando raid on the docks at St. Nazaire, the capture of Pegasus Bridge and the heroic fighting of the British paratroopers at Arnhem Bridge during unsuccessful Operation Market Garden. So, as I've been doing a lot lately, let me yet again quote my favorite statesman:

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

That, by the way, applies to our Armed Forces as well.

My rite of passage: the leftist attack

Today is the day of my rite of passage as a blogger: the mirror site of this blog experienced the first leftist attack. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Some leftist signing as JOHN FREEMAN posted a derogatory comment on the page where I explain the title of this blog and argue that the classical dictionary definition of liberalism today applies to those who are right-of-center. JOHN FREEMAN apparently disagreed with what I wrote and demonstrated his debating skills thus:

I THINK YOUR INSANE AND NEED TO STOP CALLIN YOURSELF A TRUE LIBERAL YOU F-ING MEATBALL

I kept his spelling, except for the f-word. Although, that one was also misspelled: it was missing a "c". Maybe he did that on purpose, in order to get around of language filters that some people have on their sites. As for the rest of it, maybe he was so angry that he could not help himself.
Anyway, JOHN FREEMAN, if you are reading this (I hope you are), here is the deal:
If you can present a fact-based argument in opposition to my article, please do so. Otherwise, don't come here insulting me with your foul language. Let's see if your debating skills go beyond personal insults.
Since my blog states in the comment section that commenters' e-mails will not be published, I will not post JOHN FREEMAN's e-mail here. But I will e-mail him this post. Let's see what he will do.

Update:
JOHN FREEMAN did not enter his real working e-mail in his comment. So, unless he visits this blog, we really will have to assume that his debating skills indeed do not go beyond personal insults.

On "Exit Strategy"

J. D. Pendry of Old War Dogs posted this on Old War Dogs and on his site:

“In war, there are two exit strategies. One is called victory. The other is called defeat.” – Senator Joe Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman is a liberal. He and I would not agree on much. The difference between him and many of his political colleagues, liberal and conservative, is that he gets it. He understands that the outcome in Iraq, our pivotal battle in a global conflict, affects the security of the United States and will further define us in the eyes of our enemies for decades to come. How we leave this fight will brand us as a nation that pursues it enemies to the end or one that lacks the will to sustain tough battles. Our political failure and loss of national will in Vietnam three decades ago stand as evidence of that.

Read it all. J. D. Pendry is, of course, correct in his assessment. He might be mistaken on one issue: I suspect that he and Joe Lieberman might agree on a bunch of things, the war effort being the most important of them. That is because Senator Lieberman is the last member of the Democratic Party to whom the classical definition of liberalism still applies. You know, the classical liberalism that is mostly found on the Right nowadays. Oh, wait! Senator Lieberman is no longer a member of the Democratic Party. He was kicked out! Well, I guess, there are no more real liberals in the Democratic Party.
But back to the quote. I found it in full:

"In war, there are two exit strategies. One is called victory. The other is called defeat and America has too much on the line in Iraq to accept defeat."

Kind of explains the essence of the exit strategy, doesn't it? But just to reiterate, let me again quote good old Winston Churchill, whom I consider one the greatest statesmen of all times:

...You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

There. How is that for the "exit strategy"?

Iranian Nazis are a global threat

I got this in the e-mail from HonestReporting.com:

Iran: A Threat to Israel and the World

The world can no longer ignore the threat posed by Iran.

Although most of the world press has done an admirable job reporting on the developments of the Iranian nuclear program, the threat to both Israel and the world that Iran presents cannot be understated. This special report has been produced as a resource to use when discussing the Iran threat. It is currently unclear what actions, diplomatic or military, will eventually be used to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Nonetheless, everyone should be aware of the threat and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.

IRANIAN POLICY -- NO MORE ISRAEL

Time and time again, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel should not exist. Moreover, he has done so with no significant domestic dissent. When the leader of a sovereign nation makes unequivocal statements without domestic opposition, those statements serve as the basis of national policy. It is critical to note that Ahmadinejad's statements go beyond opposition to Israeli policies, he is speaking of Israel's very existence.
…………………………………………………………………………….

IRAN'S POLICY -- DEVELOPMENT OF LONG RANGE MISSILES

Years before the current controversy involving Iran's attempts to develop nuclear power and (according to almost all experts) nuclear weapons, Iran invested heavily in the acquisition of long range missile systems. When coupled with nuclear warheads, these missiles would give Iran the ability to threaten countries far from its borders.

The Iranian Shahab 3 missile (domestically produced within Iran) can threaten either Tel Aviv or Riyadh from the same launch point. The newer Shahab 3ER, with its 2,000 km range, can reach Ankara in Turkey, Alexandria in Egypt, or Sanaa in Yemen from one single launch point deep within Iran. Thus, Iran does not have to move its launchers to project power, making its missile arsenal more survivable.
…………………………………………………………………………….

IRAN POLICY -- DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR POWER/WEAPONS

Iran's efforts are clearly aimed at the production of nuclear weapons. Iran's declarations that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes lacks any credibility. In August of 2004, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton testified that:

Cover stories put forward by Iran for the development of a nuclear fuel cycle and for individual facilities are simply not credible. For example, Iran is making an enormous investment in facilities to mine, process, and enrich uranium, and says it needs to make its own reactor fuel because it cannot count on foreign supplies. But for at least the next decade Iran will have at most a single nuclear power reactor. In addition, Iran does not have enough indigenous uranium resources to fuel even one power-generating reactor over its lifetime -- though it has quite enough uranium to make several nuclear bombs. We are being asked to believe that Iran is building uranium enrichment capacity to make fuel for reactors that do not exist from uranium Iran does not have.

THINKING THE UNTHINKABLE

While even the "smallest" nuclear attack anywhere is an unimaginable horror, because of its size and population, it would be almost impossible for the country of Israel to survive a single nuclear attack.
…………………………………………………………………………….

IRAN -- A THREAT TO ISRAEL AND THE WORLD

The destruction of Israel is a stated goal of the government of Iran. In light of Iran's relentless drive to acquire nuclear weapons, it is clear that action must be taken to avert the threat. Since ensuring survival is the prime obligation of a sovereign state towards its own citizens, diplomatic or other actions against Iran should be considered legitimate acts of self-defense and supported by the world community.

Do read the whole thing. I am afraid the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan will be in the future compared to the big one that's coming like the American involvement in Nicaragua in the 1920s and 1930s can be compared to World War 2.

Newt might endorse Giuliani?

I found this through a friend's e-mail:

In perhaps the surest sign that conservative favorite Newt Gingrinch may not throw his hat in the ‘08 ring, the former speaker (and according to most polls, third place contender in the early GOP primary states) links arms with co-frontrunner Rudy Giuliani in a Wall Street Journal editorial endorsing a new strategy for Iraq.
…………………………………………………………………………….
Has Gingrich already made a decision on who he’s backing? Regardless whether he has or not, such an article will do little other than ignite rumors that Gingrich views Giuliani as the best vehicle in the GOP primary to carry his concepts of conservative reform - an odd choice to say the least given the Right’s suspicion of Hizzoner’s socially liberal views. But Gingrich has never been known as a prominent social conservative any may understand better than he lets on that the best chance for him to enact change is through someone else.

I personally like Newt and think he would make an excellent President. But he will have no chance in the general elections: he was demonized too much by the Left, and a lot of it stuck to him. On the other hand, the prosecution of the war is the most important issue for many years to come, and for that Giuliani's views on abortion and gay marriage are irrelevant. In regard to the current global conflict against Islamism, he is a proven leader and a fighter. Giuliani also has the best chance to win in the general elections. Thus, at this point I prefer him to anybody else.