October 06, 2005

James Lileks writes the consummate piece often enough to rate my fondness, devotion and admiration.
This one on the SCOTUS nomination of fellow Dallas, Texan Harriet Miers takes him to new heights:
Hyperventilating Over Harriet

Here's the best part but read it all--it's hilarious and right!

The decision to appoint a relative unknown -- or, given her proximity to the Bush inner circle, an unknown relative -- has caused many on the right to open a vein and let the despair flow out into the warm bath of misery, disappointment and overextended metaphors. Why didn't Bush clone Antonin Scalia in a dish and appoint him? Here, use some stem cells if you have to. Anyone but another David Souter!

That's the great fear on the right: Souterism. A mild-mannered cipher appointed by a Bush who dons the black robe and promptly starts to eat babies. Souter! How many times have you opened the door at Halloween and seen his face on a child's mask? How many times have you waited in the doctor's office, clammy with dread, waiting for him to slap the X-rays up on the wall and point to a grayish Souter-shaped mass?
[...]
These were the people who caught a whiff of Souterism in John Roberts' nomination, and wouldn't be happy unless a nominee announced his intention to back Souter into a corner in the cloakroom and give him a turbo-wedgie every day. Yes, the base would be happier if the Republicans acted like a party that had won all the elections, and pursued its agenda as unapologetically and brazenly as some accuse them of doing. But what does one expect? The operative word in that sentence is "Republicans," the party that dares not speak its own name.

Thank you, James! Loved it.
And Republicans and Conservatives, QUIT YOUR B*TCHING!
Ms. Miers is a fine lady or President Bush wouldn't have nominated her!
I'm sick to death of the whining, the p*ssing and the moaning over this nomination!
Lawsie, if I'd didn't know better, I'd think you were Democrats or that the President had nominated Eleanor Clift or something!
Notice the Dems can just stand back and relax and let Miers's own Right Wingnuts destroy her without breaking a sweat?
People, get a grip.
As a fellow Mustang (grad of Southern Methodist University with 3 degrees*), I look for Justice Miers to bring greater glory to our alma mater SMU, as our First Lady has.
How can we members of the VRWC expect the Senate Dems to respect President Bush's nominations when we don't, hmm?
"Advise and consent, eh?" Nowadays, everyone and their dog is a Right Wing pundit who feels compelled to share their (usually poor) opinion of Ms. Miers with all and sundry, all the time acting like little kids whom Santa didn't bring the right toy on Christmas!
Shaddup and give the legal lady some support and a chance to prove her stuff!

*I even attended S.M.U. Law School for a while before I decided that the Law wasn't for me.
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, we studied the same case law and used the same textbooks as students at Harvard and Yale Law Schools.
Just because we're down here in the Lone Star State doesn't mean it's inferior or that SMU Law School grads are inferior, so there--sticking out tongue!, you East Coast snobs!

Of course, CNN--the ClintoonNewsNetwork--as a loyal member of the Liberal Left MSM, has to put major speech in quotes.
The President considers it important, they think it's doubtful.
Here's the lowdown:
CNN.com - Bush plans 'major speech' on Iraq, terrorism - Oct 5, 2005

President Bush will deliver a "major speech" speech Thursday on the progress of the war in Iraq and the broader conflict against terrorism, the White House said Wednesday.
[Is it too much to hope that he'll finally name the enemy, to wit Islamofacist terrorists. and not just call them generic "terrorists," as if we all don't know who he's talking about!--Jen]
[...]

White House press secretary Scott McClellan characterized Bush's planned remarks Thursday morning as a "major speech" that will address the connection between Iraq and the broader war against the al Qaeda terrorist network "in greater detail than he has before."
"He will talk about how [al Qaeda] is a group of people that have a very clear strategy for driving us out of the Middle East, for creating a safe haven in the Middle East -- a safe haven from which they can plan and plot attacks on the rest of the civilized world and a safe haven from which they can seek to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East," McClellan said.
McClellan said the address "is not a speech on Iraq," but Bush "will talk about Iraq in the context of the broader war on terrorism."

CNN goes onto to yap about how public support for the war is waning...Thanks a lot, ChickenNoodleNews! Help the bad guys, why dontcha?
The only way we can lose this war is by letting the enemy and their unwitting supporters in the MSM win through propaganda like these "polls."
Then they repeat the Dhimmicrat whining in the Senate about an "exit strategy," as if anything but total victory would be acceptable!

The senator from Delaware [Joe "Hairplugs" Biden] urged Bush to convene a summit of Iraq's neighbors to hammer out a broader peace for the region, as the United States did in Afghanistan and during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

Gee, that's funny! Doesn't Biden know that our troops are still in the Balkans?
Clintoon said they'd be out by Christmas, he just didn't say which Christmas.
How about an exit strategy for Bosnia and Kosovo?

Then there's the good news about Iraq getting its act together as a free, Saddam-free country:

Registered Iraqi voters will head to the polls on October 15 to vote on whether to accept a new constitution.
[Get ready for the Purple Fingers of Freedom again next week!]
[...]
Petraeus said later that only one Iraqi battalion -- about 750 troops -- is capable of operating independent of coalition support.

But he said about 35 battalions are capable of taking the lead in operations with U.S. troops, and many of those second-tier units have assumed control over cities in southern Iraq and parts of Baghdad.

Even third-tier troops are capable of "thickening" the capabilities of coalition forces by manning checkpoints and serving as guides or interpreters for U.S. troops, Petraeus told reporters at the Pentagon after his meeting with Bush.

"The Iraqis are in this fight. They are fighting and dying for their country, and they are fighting incredibly well," Petraeus said.

Speech time 10:10 A.M. EDT
Be there or catch it on C-SPAN (but watch out for falling Libs over there).

October 05, 2005

This is a great wrapup of the Abu Ghraib "scandal" so read it all.
Here's the opening:
The 'Torture Narrative' Unravels


Pfc. Lynndie England is convicted, and the military's critics are proved wrong.

It's hardly a secret that Pfc. Lynndie England was sentenced last week for her role as "leash girl" in the infamous abuses photographed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in late 2003. But it was also noticeable that the denouement of this spectacular story was relegated to the innards of newspapers that had once given it weeks of front-page treatment.
[Guess Mr. Pollock doesn't dare to mention names, but I will--The New York Times.--Jen]
That's almost surely because the trial of the last of the Maryland Army Reservists to face justice--like those of the others that came before her--offered no evidence to support claims that the abuses were caused by a Bush administration that had "created the climate" or "set the tone" for "torture."

I said at the time that this would prove to be the case and it's nice to be right, but I feel even better that our military and its higher level Pentagon execs like SecDef Donald Rumsfeld have been exonerated.
The Left is so confused: Did you notice how they screamed for the military to help during Hurricane Katrina evacutions but refused to recognize that these were the same "torturers" of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo that they'd reviled in the past and the same "baby killers" they condemn at anti-war protests.
Of course, we watched the military live on TV doing compassionate rescue and medical treatment of men, women, children, the elderly and the infirm of all races, shapes and sizes, as well as most of their pets.

I said at the time (back in Spring 2003) that the military as a whole was "innocent" and I'm glad that I was proved right!
But I'm even happier that "the brass" at the Pentagon, particularly Sec. Def Rumsfeld, was exonerated;
the abuses at Abu Ghraib were exactly as the President stated: heinous acts by a few "rotten eggs" at the foot soldier level, not a sign of "systemic" brutality that ran up and down the chain of command, as the Left maintained.
Did you notice that the Liberals screamed for the military to rescue Katrina's victims, without acknowledging that these were the same "torturers" and "babykillers" they've been reviling since the war began.
To their credit, we saw on live TV that they were compassionate lifesavers, flying thousands of rescue missions and saving men, women, children, the elderly, the sick and even the obese (and most of their pets).
How could you not love the Pentagon, when they give us not only the divine Rummy, but that wonderful "John Wayne dude" Gen. Russell Honoré, who not only has lead the post-Katrina military operations with courage, clear-headedness and strength but who is a gem of a man who has forever given us some of his colorful expressions like "stuck on stupid."

Army takes control of Iran nukes

Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.
    
Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, a little-known former mayor of Tehran before his surprise election in July, is a former IRGC commander, as is new council Secretary-General Ali Larijani, who has taken the lead in negotiations about Iran's nuclear programs.
[...]
The personnel changes "make it less and less credible that Iran is pursuing nuclear programs for peaceful uses," he said.
    
The report, which also tracks Iran's extensive nuclear infrastructure and technical programs, charges that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei has turned to IRGC personnel in order to "eliminate all bureaucratic and political obstacles to obtaining nuclear weapons."
[...]
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahadeen, a secular Iranian bloc that broke violently with the Islamic leaders of the revolution shortly after the ouster of the U.S.-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
    
The opposition group has had a checkered and at times contradictory role. Branded a terrorist group by U.S. and European governments, it also has proven to be the single best intelligence source on Iran's clandestine nuclear programs, exposing in recent years massive research and testing sites inside Iran unknown to U.N. and Western monitors.
   
 But other analysts also have reported a wave of senior appointments for Iran's military, especially from within the more ideological forces under the direct control of the ruling Islamic clerics.

This is all very bad news, but then when has it been good coming out of Tehran for the last 25 years?
Of course, they have nukes and they don't plan to use nuclear power for power plants!
The big question is "What are we going to do about it?" and neither the Big EU 3 (France, Germany and the U.K.) nor the U.N. can handle it, so let's not kid ourselves about that.
Bless their hearts, the poor Israelis declared last week that if no one else would, they were prepared to take care of the problem.

Update: Look what else the Iranian revolutionary army (ICRG) has been up to:
Iran blamed for attacks on British troops

[...]
He said it was believed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had been responsible for supplying the explosives technology used in a series of deadly attacks on British troops over the summer.
"We think it has come from Lebanese Hizbollah via Iran," he said.
[...]
Although Iran is Shia Muslim, the official said it now appeared that elements in Tehran were in contact with Sunni Muslim insurgent groups across the border in Iraq.

So, here's the big picture: the Muslims can stop fighting amongst themselves if its to fight, conquer or kill the Jewish and Christian infidels.
It's amazing that our soldiers have had as few deaths as they have...they have bad guys coming at them from both sides of Iraq--Iran and Syria, plus Paleostine and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the assorted "Mujihadeen" from the four corners of the earth.
But to focus, one of these days real soon, we're going to have to deal with Iran and Syria.
Islamofacism delendo est.

Bali bombings and soft judges

In the wake of the Bali bombings, there's no question that terrorists form an implacable enemy. But it doesn't help anyone that they have a perfect environment in which to operate. Indonesia has been providing that to them, by taking a law-enforcement approach to fighting terrorism instead of a national-security approach.

Terrorists who've committed mass murder have been getting off on legal technicalities left and right for the past four years. As a result, Indonesia's national security problem is growing ever greater. That needs to stop and Indonesia needs to develop a truly credible response to terrorism. Investor's Business Daily has some thoughts about the long string of judicial travesties that preceded last weekend's terror attack here.

Spot on.
To a lesser extent, this has been happening in the USA, too, as well as throughout the EU.
Take note--because the terrorists have.
Many of our leading Dhimmicrats, like 2004 Presidential candidate John F'in Kerry, actually embrace this law-enforcement approach.
Bill Clinton tried it, too and looked what happened 8 months after he left office, not to mention the deadly bombings during his term.
Do read the IBD piece cited; it's quite good.
We need to fix this problem at home, then pressure the Indonesian to do the same.

October 02, 2005

'NY Times' Finally Runs Full Correction on Krugman Column, Announces New Policy
Unbelievable!
And what's sad (and killingly funny) is that not only did the NYSlimes have to admit they "erred" in their "fake but accurate" story about Geraldo shoving a rescue worker aside to be filmed helping a Katrina evacuee, but it seems Mr. Krugman can't live with the fact that President Bush won Election 2000!
You know you hear everyone say these days that the Liberal Left has became mentally unhinged, but it's not exaggerated--unlike the MSM's coverage of anything, assuming it's true to start with.
They really have become barking moonbats and we can only conclude that President Bush, his administration and his supporters (like Yours Truly) drove them to it...well don't thank us!
It's all part of the Compassionate Conservative service!