November 30, 2006 Posts
02:47 Ahmadinejad's Mindless Rant 04:23 President Bush Isn't Going Wobbly 12:01 Why ISN'T This Surprising? 12:23 San Diego to Ban Wal-Mart Supercenters 17:53 Smoking Gun Found
Ahmadinejad's Mindless Rant
It's stunning to listen to Ahmadinejad's longwinded rant. He can't expect Americans to believe him because it's the type of rant that only the most delusional people could believe. Here's one of the biggest whoppers:
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together.If you're going to parse Old Mahmoud's words, it's important to remember that he thinks of Jews as the descendants of apes and pigs; therefore, they aren't humans. Therefore, in his mind, he isn't contradicting himself when (a) he says that Israel must be wiped from the face of the earth and that (b) he talks about the "exalted worth of all human beings." It's important to know that he's hoping that we won't put those things together. He's hoping that a few politicians ignore his hatred and instead pressure President Bush into having a conference that wouldn't accomplish anything.
Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Western press to ask how Ahmadinejad works toward "securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent." I'd further like the Western press to ask Ahmadinejad thinks are "oppressors and bullies" besides Israel, the British and America. Would he include Syria and the Sudanese government in that list of bullies and oppressors? If not, why not?
We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.Old Mahmoud just might be delusional enough to think he's fooling people by talking about "the trampling of peoples' rights" when his country doesn't recognize women as human beings. I think that we'd agree that's intimidating and humiliating to them.
We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief.That paragraph starts what I call the talking out of both sides of his mouth section because he started the letter by talking about "the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings" but then quickly turning to decry the hatemongering Zionists who are "firing machine guns at students in the streets" while "subjecting [Palestinian] families to endless grief." He further says that Israel, which was created by the UN, isn't the "rightful owners" of the land they live in. Rather, he contests that Palestinians are the "rightful owners." Forgive me if I don't excuse the hypocrisy of his doubletalk. Actually, that's typical of terrorists, who talk peace to the world but who foment violence against anyone who doesn't think like them.
Let's take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty.Yes, let's examine what's happening in Iraq, Mahmoud. Yes, terrorism has grown in Iraq. He shouldn't be bashful, though, because it's increasing thanks to his funding it. Let's examine the "infrastructure" that hasn't been restored. Is Mahmoud talking about the great oil production infrastructure that Saddam built? Or is Old Mahmoud talking about the paved streets and concrete sidewalks paid for by Saddam's last public works bill?
Or is it a different type of infrastructure altogether that we haven't noticed? It seems to me that one type of infrastructure that Saddam has built that we aren't rebuilding is the infrastructure Saddam put in place for his 'Oil-For-Food' Scandal. For that matter, let's ask Old Mahmoud how a foreign nation can "alleviate poverty" in a nation left in utter shambles because a tyrant raided Iraq's oil revenues for his own gain.
The bottom line on his letter to the United States is that it's really about reinforcing in his countrymen's minds that Israel and America are the Satans and that he's their only protector against the Zionists and intruders. This letter won't get a minute's worth of serious consideration by serious American politicians.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Democrats won't adopt his letter as part of their daily talking points.
Posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 2:49 AM
No comments.
President Bush Isn't Going Wobbly
That's the abridged version of Newsweek's Richard Wolffe's and Holly Bailey's article. Here's some of the details from their article:
You could be forgiven for thinking there was something big in the works. President Bush is holding a three-way summit in the Middle East. Washington's political insiders are swapping leaks about forthcoming studies on Iraq. Even the network news anchors are flying halfway across the world. So the White House is ready to change course in Iraq, right?To their credit, I think Wolffe and Bailey get that right. People who expected President Bush to get railroaded by Jim Baker's report were discounting President Bush's determination to actually defeat the terrorists in Iraq. While it's true that there will be some major adjustments made, those adjustments don't include a John Murtha-styled cut and run policy or a Barack Obama-styled cut and walk policy. Rather, it's about President Bush telling Nouri al-Maliki that he needs to crush the violence instead of cozying up to Muqtada al-Sadr.
Not quite. The president and his senior staff arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Wednesday with a deep sense of discontent about the direction of Iraq. But that doesn't translate into a major course correction, no matter what the pundits, or the Democrats, or James Baker's study group, suggest. Somewhere between Stay the Course and Reverse Course lies Bush's new approach. Call it Adjust the Course.
So Bush's goal in Amman is not to deliver an ultimatum to Maliki or to get tough with him. Instead of isolating Maliki, Bush's message will be that he and the Iraqi prime minister are in this hole together.The ultimatums won't come from the Bush administration. Many of them will come from tough-talking Democrats who voted against the war. Other ultimatums will come from Democrats who think that their regaining the majority was a mandate for their pacifist policies.
In his big set-piece speech of the trip, at the Latvia University in Riga on Tuesday, the president described his goals in Amman. "We'll continue to be flexible, and we'll make the changes necessary to succeed," he said. "But there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." In other words, anyone, such as the newly empowered Democrats, expecting troop withdrawals will have to wait either until Iraq is able to govern itself, or until Bush leaves office.Right after the election, I said that the President needed to pick a fight with Democrats. My choice was to pick a fight with them on terrorism but the President didn't take my advice, choosing instead to pick a fight with Democrats on Iraq. That's fine with me because Democrats don't have a coherent strategy for Iraq, the GWOT or foreign policy of any sort. Frankly, President Bush doesn't even need a clearcut victory over Democrats on this. Picking a fight with Democrats will help get the GOP base back with him.
Bush's aides note tartly that if that's all Baker is suggesting, he won't be able to live up to the expectations surrounding his report. Dealing with Baker's report may be relatively easy if Syria and Iran are the big new ideas, these aides say.The Agenda Media were hyperventillating when the first Baker Report leaks happened, figuring that President Bush wouldn't say no to Bush family friend Baker. I didn't completely buy into that notion, though I was a bit worried for awhile. It's good to see the President getting back to his feisty self.
Posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:25 AM
No comments.
Why ISN'T This Surprising?
This morning's Washington Post reports that Democrats have set a record in breaking a major campaign promise even before they assume control. That's never happened before, to the best of my recollection.
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.Actually, they've broken two campaign promises with one inaction. Democratic candidates promised more vigorous oversight and they promised to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I'm guessing that the Democrats are only interested in oversight if it's able to criticize Halliburton or the Patriot Act and the like. It's obvious that they aren't the least bit interested in oversight into truly important matters.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
Bill Clinton campaigned on giving a middle class tax cut. He gave up on that fairly quickly, saying "I've never worked harder in all my life" on anything but it just isn't possible with the huge deficits. At least he waited until he was in office a couple weeks before breaking a major campaign promise. Congressional Democrats couldn't even live up to that modest benchmark.
Why am I not surprised?
"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), the chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee and a close ally of the incoming subcommittee chairman, Rep. John P. Murtha, (D-PA). "That is not going to be their party position."Color me shocked and surprised that John Murtha isn't interested in reform. Color me shocked and surprised that Democrats aren't interested in reform either. Frankly, I don't know why the American people believed that Democrats are reform-minded. Nothing in their past suggests that they're interested in reform.
Posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:02 PM
No comments.
San Diego to Ban Wal-Mart Supercenters
That's another misleading headline but what's new, right? Here's the real story:
The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s potential to expand in the nation's eighth-largest city. The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.In other words, the San Diego City Council is voting against middle class and working poor voters but the mayor will defend these people from the politicians.
Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes. "What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy," Sainz said.
That's the real story to this article.
Posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 12:24 PM
No comments.
Smoking Gun Found
ABCNews is reporting that "U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories." My first question is "Where was this type of reporting before the election?"
According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006. This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.I guess that that puts to rest what little credibility Old Mahmoud's letter had left about they "greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Ahmadinejad couldn't care less about justice or equity or about defending the innocent.
In fact, this proof tells us the exact opposite. It tells us that he's perfectly willing to fund the violence that's killing thousands of Iraqis just to prevent them from establishing a legitimate government that would be a counter to his government.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran. Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.This information should end all consideration of the Baker Commission Report. Initiating a new round of diplomacy with Iran is counterproductive because they aren't willing to give up their hopes of an Iraqi government that is Iran's puppet regime. It further walks back the longstanding US policy of not negotiating with terrorists. AFter all, Hezbollah is nothing more than Iran's forward-deployed version of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Another negative impact that having talks with Iran is that it makes us look weak, especially in light of this information. In case nobody's noticed, the sectarian violence has escalated when they've perceived us at our weakest point.
This leads me to another point: that blue ribbon commissions are a waste of taxpayer money. The 9/11 Commission certainly didn't distinguish itself when it didn't question Jamie Gorelick for building the wall that kept Able Danger's leaders from sharing their information with law enforcement. For that matter, they embarassed themselves by not taking the Able Danger people seriously. Instead, they promoted the building of a new bureaucracy that's set us back years while ignoring the real solution to connecting the dots.
The Baker Commission looks like it's heading for the same insignificance by proposing the same 'conventional wisdom' BS that's helped us from getting real things done. From what's been leaked thus far, we know that their report says that part of Iraq's solution comes in restarting the PLO-Israeli 'peace' talks. Riiigggghhhttt. That'll convince those Iranian terrorists to drop their weapons and return home to being auto mechanics, accountants and farmers. Frankly, the Baker Commission is likely to be another stain on Jim Baker's resume.
That isn't to say that Democrats won't jump on the Commission's report as 'proof' that we need to bring our troops home. Thta's when things will get interesting because President Bush will be on the side of the angels when he picks this fight with the Democrats. People don't like the war but when people read that Iran is funding the terrorists operating inside Iraq so that they can have a puppet regime, they'll know that we can't give Iraq away to a nutcase like Ahmadinejad.
Posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:55 PM
No comments.
