Is Joe Biden a Republican?

It seems the Democrats cannot stop shooting themselves in the foot. Joe Biden has suggested Iraq should be broken into three autonomous regions. This is the reaction from Iraqi parliamentarians, from Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and from the Republican appointed American Embassy in Iraq.

And we thought the Republicans were the imperialists, didn't we, BDS sufferers.

Saddam Hussein Was No Longer Contained

Over at Iraq Pundit there is a discussion about the El Pais article. Iraq Pundit himself, of course, immediately zeros in on the point about WDM, unlike our friends the BDS sufferers. In the comments there is a statement by Muggins which pretty much sums up the justification for the Iraq war.

"Iraq had chemical manufacturing plants. Iraq could produce WMDs easily. What the U.S. didn't want is cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Both of them were in competition for dominance in the Middle East, but both had in common the U.S., that they wanted out of the Middle East. And they had reciprical resources:

Iraq had chemical technology, real estate, and money, while al Qaeda had terror cells and Kamikazees. With the asymmetrical warfare demonstrated on 9/11, Saddam
realized that he didn't need his tanks and air force to attack the U.S.. He was no longer contained."

We know there had been contact between al Qaeda and Iraq from a letter discovered by Canadian journalist Mitch Potter, shortly after the Hussein Regime fell. We know Saddam Hussein funded and supported terrorism. So why should this be such a difficult thing for BDS sufferers to grasp?

There are other cogent comments on the whole fiasco in the Iraq Pundit comments as well. I highly recommend you check it out.

Oh my, oh my, oh my. Do we have another lefty meltdown!

The blogosphere is abuzz with shouting matches about the publication of a discussion between Bush and then Spanish Prime Minister Asnar in the final hours before the invasion of Iraq. Lefties, who appear not to have read either the original Spanish version or the English translation, are hooting and hissing about what their masters in the MSM have told them the conversation implies.

A good place to start is at Pajamas Media, where the rout begins and then follow the links. As usual, the comments section at many of the linked pages is where the lunatics on the left get their best comeuppance. Once again the blogosphere provides the best and most efficient way of proving how stuck on stupid the left really is. Thanks to Barcepundit, a Spanish blogger who is a contributor to Pajamas Media, we now have an English translation of the original story which appeared in the Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Jules Crittenden's blog is a good example. As an added perk, a commenter on Jules Crittenden's blog named Rich Casebolt nails the case for war, too, in the sharpest, most succinct analysis I have yet to read.

And remember the leftards rallying cry about Bush's statement: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Well guess what. Those words are actually precisely what Hillary Clinton said. Here's an audio file in which you can hear her saying it. Scroll down to the phrase "Clinton pay price" and click on it. That's right, she says "Every nation has to be either with or against us. Those who harbor terrorists or finance them are going to pay a price."

Bush's statement, which is only a bit different, but in an important way, was in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People on September 20, 2001. His precise words were "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists", which I take to mean you are enabling and encouraging the terrorists.

IMHO this includes not just nations, but most of the rabid leftards whose Bush Deranged Syndome continues to progress to advanced stages. "BDS sufferers" is just another way of describing the type that Lenin's referred as useful fools. These fools also remind me of Baghdad Bob, completely oblivious to the elephant in the room.

You can read and listen to the speech yourself at the link, but for those too lazy, or who have reached the advanced stages of BDS, this is the context in which the phrase "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists." was made:

"Our response (to 9/11) involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

I've added a little emphasis in bold for BDS sufferers who have fixated on only what they see on the soundbites delivered via their television sets. I wonder if BDS is a terminal illness. If it is, it may in due course be terminal for many more people than just those with the affliction. Perhaps those who suffer from it, like the alcoholic, recognize that withdrawal and recovery can be a horrific struggle which, if successful, means they have to develop a new way of reacting to the world. That new way includes giving up their fairytale beliefs that outside of the Republican party, there is no greater evil.

To the leftards out there, please, for your own sake, and for the sake of others who you will drag down with you, read or listen to the entire speech. Learn and recover.

Good News and Encouraging Views Roundup

I usually spend two or three hours on the net every day, some in the evening and some early in the morning. This evening has been an exceptionally good day for discovering good news pieces. I thought I'd share some.

First comes this excellent article, from the British newspaper The Times, about the war in Iraq, which an Iraq the Model fan posted in the comments to that great blog.

Real Leadership: An Iraqi example of courage that puts the antiwar industry to shame

Taken from that article, this:

American opinion polls show that more than 60 per cent trust the US military to handle Iraq better than either Congress or the Bush Administration. Passionately as most Americans want an end to their engagement in Iraq, fewer than a quarter want to “get out now and damn the consequences”

is encouraging news.

Even more encouraging is the argument the author makes about the rapid spread of the movement that began with the Anbar Awakening Council in what is primarily Sunni territory. But I especially like what the author does to the foolish folks in the antiwar movement, including many prominent Democrats. Referring to the recently assassinated Sheikh Abdul Sittar Bezea al-Rishawi, whose assassination appears to have inspired the rapid spread of the movement, the author says:

This is a political transformation of the first order, bigger than the man himself, and its significance is well understood in Baghdad. Outside Iraq, an antiwar industry has sprung up that cites the suffering of Iraqis to justify abandoning them. The man who became known as “the Flower of the Desert” died fighting that cynical false logic. His courage, and that of thousands of his followers, puts the Iraq debate in its proper perspective.

Next, is this news: Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric meets Sunni leader.

Could this mean that Iraq has just taken a giant leap forward toward stability and freedom? I've always felt that Iraq would make it and that democracy would take root. So far, it's been a long hard slog with many discouraging twists along the road, caused primarily by the enemies of democracy in Iraq. But I'm becoming more and more confident that the Surge (a long overdue change in the Rules of Engagement governing American forces in Iraq) is going to make the difference. These two events are signs that the conditions necessary for reconciliation are not only possible but, perhaps, very, very near.

On a different pet topic, comes this article on the topic of CO2 and global warming. Carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age If nothing else, it shows what I have come to believe, namely that the science about global warming is far from settled and the question of whether or not human activity causes warming is anything but a signed, sealed and delivered guilty verdict.

Lefties given to hysteria about these issues won't like any of this news, of course, but do I give a shit? Of course not.

My Heros

I've been reading and listening to debates about the Nut Job and his appearance at Columbia University. Perhaps the most impassioned and insightful response was from Hugh Hewitt radio broadcast at Townhall.com. He lambastes Columbian faculty for their self-indulgent duplicity, willingly being duped, allowing Nut Job to use them to manufacture propaganda points for the media run by Middle Eastern dictatorships.

This debate has reminded me of real heroes of mine, men (mostly) that I hold in high esteem. These are people who have spoken out, some of them piercing the lunacy of prevailing leftist narratives. Others led movements to overthrow oppressive regimes and preached non-violence as a method to accomplish it.

Adam Michnik is one of them. He is a man who endured the communist regime in Poland and became one of the leading voices of the Solidarnos movement. His essay in support of Bush and the war on terror has been translated into several languages and remains the singular most clearly stated summation of the fiasco that currently informs the left.

Read the essay and you'll know exactly what my position is and why I think the fools at Columbia have been had.

I am a Nut Job Scores at Prestigious Columbia University

So did anyone come out smelling like roses yesterday? I noticed that the Nut Job's remarks about homosexuals are getting a lot of coverage, although I would have to say that his assertion that Iran has no homosexuals is probably correct. The regime murders them all.

I haven't seen much reaction on the "progressive" bloggers front yet to that little gem. Strange that, since defending gays is one of their strong suits. They must be terribly conflicted. However, it's early yet, so we'll have to wait and see.

I also noticed that some commenters on some blogs are praising Columbia's President Lee Bollinger for accusing Nut Job of being a wretched slime bucket. Well, good for President Bollinger, but I'm sorry to say I do not agree. Columbia does not deserve praise for giving this monster a platform and the institution has been sorely stained for having allowed it.

The Jerusalem Post, quite naturally, has a lengthy article about the event, from which come these pertinent passages (emphasis is mine):

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after quoting from the Koran said Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience." He accused Bollinger of giving in to the media and politicians.

[snip]

The dean of Columbia Law School, David Schizer, has been expressing opposition to the decision to invite Ahmadinejad.

On Sunday, Schizer joined Jewish groups and others in criticizing the invitation.

"Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards," Schizer said in a statement. "A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true."

The best comment I have read to date, though, comes from The Belmont Club blog comments. None other than Wretchard himself sums it up quite nicely.

"The principle here is very simple. Ahmadinejad is a thug like Al Capone. Columbia is, whatever else you may think it, a well-regarded institution of higher learning; a place which has generated it's fair share of Nobel Prize winners, etc.

When Al Capone speaks at Columbia, Al Capone always wins. Capone can provide no prestige for Columbia that Columbia doesn't already have. But Capone's association with Columbia, however slight, will always benefit Capone.

This is why, for example, Presidents shouldn't associate with known criminals, except in a diplomatic capacity. The former confers a legitimacy on the latter. It doesn't do the cause of virtue any good to say "the president of Columbia debated Al Capone". But Al Capone can always claim to his advantage, "I wunze debated the Presdunt of Columbine, you know that fancy school in New York?"

What a shame that the people back in Iran will likely never hear a word about what actually happened on this platform at Columbia University. If they do hear anything, it will no doubt be in the same vein as Nut Job's Holocaust denial screeds.

I Am a Nut Job to visit Columbia University

Okay, what's with America's old universities and their loathsome faculty? First it was Khatami at Harvard, and now this: Ahmadinejad to Speak on Campus. Is this supposed to enlighten us?

Update:

Any chance they could keep Mr. Nut Job in the USA while this plan is executed? Maybe they could hold him for 444 days.

John Murney's Blog: The Alternative Comments Page

Okay, it's time to fire up this blog again and start shooting my mouth off about various and sundry things.

This time it will be about a blog where I have recently become a frequent commenter.

John Murney's Blog is a pretty decent blog. He deals primarily with issues pertaining to politics in Saskatchewan and Canada, an occasionally with international issues. He is genuinely trying to provide a forum for informed and respectful debate and every once in a while he shuts down the comments when they get "overheated". This annoys me.

One of the things I really, really like about blogs is the free and often very tumultuous fracas that occurs in the comments section. One of my favourite in this regard has always been Iraq the Model. Another is Iraqi Bloggers Central. Once is a very, very long while someone may be banned from commenting, but normally any and every point of view is allowed. The debate absolutely churns and boils and no one is immune from "personal attacks".

While he may have an honorable aim, John doesn't like the personal attacks in his blog comments, but instead of issuing warnings to the offenders and banning them temporarily, he punishes everyone by shutting the comments down. Sooooo, in the interests of satisfying my own need for rough and tumble debate, I will open my blog as a place where John Murney's fans can have at 'er what ever way they want.

Remember, I do moderate the comments, so there will be a delay. But, almost every comment will be allowed to stand. I draw the line at personal threats (that means threats of violence), at spammers, real gutter language (of which I am the only judge) and at anyone who whines about censorship when nothing of the sort has happened. Authors of such comments will be warned first, and if they continue to offend, they will be banned.


So, John Murney's Blog Alternative Comments Page is officially open.