Tee-Vee and the UK Terror Bust; CAIR-Bears

Every so often a story comes down the pike that grabs my attention, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Yesterday’s UK terror bust was one such story. I was glued to the TV, and to a lesser extent, the ‘net, from 0100 until 0400 Thursday morning and again for most of yesterday (once I awoke). I was struck by the fact we (Americans) had a wide variety of news sources on this story to consult and consume. As with most everything in life, there were both good and bad points where the news coverage was concerned.

First, the Good. PBS’ The News Hour had the best US coverage. To steal a line from Roger Ailes, PBS’ coverage seemed to be Fair and Balanced, as well as comprehensive. Last night’s program began with borrowed, and quite good, coverage from the UK’s Independent Television News (ITN), segued to an extensive interview (ten minutes or more) with Michael Chertoff, and followed that with a methods and procedures sort of discussion with two experts, one Danish, and one American. All of the foregoing segments were informative and factual, with minimum (if any) spin.

The US and UK governments’ press conferences were also quite good. Chertoff performed quite well on the News Hour, answering all questions put to him with a minimum of tap dancing. I was impressed. I found myself switching to C-SPAN off and on during the day and caught the entire DHS presser there, with Secretary Chertoff, AG Gonzales, and FBI Director Mueller. The briefings were short and to the point; the Q&A sessions were handled effectively, openly, and (in my opinion) honestly. Likewise, UK Home Secretary John Reid’s press conference (also carried by C-SPAN) was informative, direct, and to the point.

C-SPAN also carried last night’s edition of BBC Newsnight, which had its good and bad points. The best bits were the “man in the street” interviews in the High Wycombe neighborhood where several terrorists were arrested. One segment simply seethed with tension between two groups of neighbors, one group of 30-ish moms and a group of young Islamic men. There was considerable interplay between the two groups, with the men coming off as both aggressive and defensive. One wondered if a mini-riot was set to begin right then and there. Newsnight devoted a significant portion of the program to the undercurrent of hostility among British Muslims. The UK definitely has an integration issue, as in a failure of British Muslims to integrate into British society. The lack of Muslim assimilation in the UK is something that’s been written about extensively, but it’s something we Americans don’t often get to see first-hand.

A little bit of the Bad. Boy, did I ever have issues with Newsnight. Kirsty Wark, the Newsnight presenter, seemed completely ate up with the semantics of yesterday’s events, rather than the substance. There were multiple occurrences of the multi-culti, politically correct, and Lefty points of view throughout the program. One such example was an exchange Ms. Wark had during her interview with Christopher Shays, a Republican member of the house from Connecticut. Ms. Wark asked what Rep. Shays thought about “…critics who would say (terrorism) is partially a result of US foreign policy, specifically Iraq.” Shays, to his everlasting credit characterized that POV as “silly” and further stated “Gimmee a break. How do “critics” get away with that kind of garbage?” Wark then went on to ask Shays “Bush talks about ‘Islamic Fascists.’ Do you think that kind of language is helpful in all this?” Once again, Shays rose to the occasion, telling Wark she was “straining out gnats and swallowing camels” when it came to semantics. Offending the Muslim community, real or imagined, was high on Wark’s/BBC’s agenda last evening and the exchange with Shays was but one example. You can see the entire Newsnight broadcast on a 34Kbps Real Video stream at the BBC Newsnight link above.

While we’re on the subject of offending Muslims, CAIR released a statement last night about Mr. Bush’s use of the term Islamic Fascists.

"Unfortunately, your statement this morning that America 'is at war with Islamic fascists' contributes to a rising level of hostility to Islam and the American-Muslim community. Just today, Gallup released a poll indicating that four out of ten Americans feel 'prejudice' toward Muslims.

[…]

"The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists,' 'militant jihadism,' 'Islamic radicalism,' or 'totalitarian Islamic empire,' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world. It feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam ...

Say WHAT? So, what exactly are we supposed to call Muslim terrorists? Note that the President never said just plain old “Muslims,” he characterized the terrorist for what they are: Fascists. A spade is a spade. If CAIR doesn’t like the fact that Islamic Fascists are waging war on the United States and the West, in general, then I suggest CAIR get directly involved in combating Islamic Fascism and worry less about the terms used to describe the enemy.

Reuters has an article on this issue, as well. Here’s a laughable excerpt from that article:

Awad (ed: The CAIR-Bear) said U.S. officials should take the lead from their British counterparts who had steered clear of using what he considered inflammatory terms when they announced the arrest of more than 20 suspects in the reported plot.

Right. Let’s be more like the multi-culti sensitive Brits. Then we can have our own assimilation problem. That’ll work.

And finally, one last “bad”…Anderson Cooper, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, referring to “the alleged war on terror.” Alleged? How the F*! can a war be “alleged?” I have issues with this sort of crap, big-time. It’s a small, subtle, sort of thing, but language counts, words actually mean something. The use of terms like “alleged war on terror” implies the war is illegitimate, and that directly undermines the war effort. But then again, that’s probably the intent, isn’t it?

Just Wondering...

Frequent reader Bec sends along this link, via the comments, which falls right in line with the post I had planned for today until I was overcome by events. Anyhoo, it seems like Nasrallah has appointed one Imad Mughniyeh as the new Hezbollah military leader/commander for south Lebanon.

Military and counter-terror sources maintain that this appointment raises the conflict to a new and dangerous level on several counts.

Mughniyeh, wanted for a quarter of a century by the FBI for the huge bombing attacks he orchestrated on the US embassy in Beirut and American and French troops, as well as a spate of hijackings and murders, is important enough to take orders from no-one ranking lower than Iran’s supreme ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Informed circles in the West have a high opinion of Mughniyeh’s military, intelligence and tactical skills. His hand was seen in the transformation of al Qaeda’s 2001 defeat in Afghanistan into a launch pad for its anti-US campaign in Iraq and many other ventures in the terror war against America. After the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, Mughniyeh is rated the world Islamic terror movement’s most outstanding field commander. Therefore, while the appointment is a measure of Israel’s belated military success in the Lebanese war, it also brings the conflict ever closer to two dangerous orbits – Tehran and al Qaeda.

So. Apparently we now have a direct command and control link from Tehran to south Lebanon, if one believes what is written in the referenced article. And there’s more, of course. YNet reports Iranian Revolutionary Guards are fighting alongside Hezbollah, and there have been many reports about Iranian long-range missiles (not the Katyushas), along with Iranian “technical experts” to man them, circulating about since this war began. You don’t have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to see the handwriting on this wall, now, do you?

There have been more than a few editorials and essays lately pointing out Tehran’s direct links to the current violence, and each of these editorials/essays wonders aloud just how long we’re going to continue to give the initiative to Tehran before we strike back. One of the better essays I’ve read on the subject appears in NRO (“We’re Losing World War IV,” by Barbara Lerner):

Despite all this and more, we have yet to admit that Iran is at war with us, or to seriously consider striking back at her, and, in speaking of our own war aims, we never dare use the v-word — victory — anymore. Instead, we make head-in-the-sand happy-talk about “peace,” “democracy,” and “ceasefires,” rejecting any military action against Iran for fear of “widening the war” — as if Iran were not already at war with us — and rely on the U.N. and “the international community” to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to prevent her proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, from continuing to bring death and destruction to our smallest, truest, and most vulnerable ally, Israel. In doing this, we ignore two obvious realities: rather than restraining Iran, U.N. heavyweights Russia and China are busy arming her, and the perfidious EU will not even recognize the plain fact that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Instead, these old-Europe “allies” join with our Islamofascist enemies in demonizing our brave soldiers in Iraq, and damning Israel for daring to fight back against unprovoked aggression, pursued with openly genocidal intent.

[…]

Most Americans are still unaware of Iran’s promise to light up the skies with a great surprise on August 22, but Muslims everywhere are keenly aware of it; most await the day with growing excitement.

[…]

We should not wait, passively, for the Iranians to unveil their surprise. We should light up the skies with our own surprise: a massive aerial bombardment that wipes out most of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and decimates the ranks of its mullahs as well as those of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces that keep them in power, defeating these monsters and decimating their fan base by shattering their image of invincibility.

Ms. Lerner provides background and history of this conflict to refresh the memories of those who haven’t been paying attention, and to support her right-wing saber rattling (my tongue is in my cheek. Obviously.). Her points are well taken.

And then there’s this op-ed in yesterday’s New York Sun:

Why is America waiting to be attacked by Iran? Why do we sit on the sidelines while Tehran makes war on our ally Israel in order to provoke America to join the fighting, first against Syria and then against Tehran itself? Why do we listen to the European appeasers as they pretend the Lebanon front is a regional conflict, a national liberation contest, when it is demonstrably the prelude to the wider war — the Spain 1936 to the continental war of 1939? What is the explanation for America's willful fiction that the United Nations Security Council can engineer an accommodation in Lebanon, when it is vivid to every member state that this is a replay of September 1938, when Europe fed Hitler the Sudetenland as the U.N. now wants to feed the jihadists the sovereignty of Israel?

The most threatening answer is that America waits to be bloodied because it has lost its will to defend itself after five years of chasing rogue-state-sponsored gangsters and after three years of occupation in failed-state Iraq against Tehran- and Damascus-backed agents. A grave possibility is that America is now drained, bowed, ready to surrender to the tyrants of Tehran.

Then again, perhaps America has been here before, and it is part of America's destiny as the New Jerusalem that we rarely start wars but that we are unusually good at finishing them.

What I want to know is…Is anyone, anyone at all, in Washington reading/listening to these voices? WHY do we persist in believing, accommodating, and participating in these terrible “willful fictions,” as Mr.Batchelor so aptly put it? Why do I feel like the guy with the fatal diagnosis who puts off treatment in the hopes that “it’ll get better?” Well, it never it gets better, it just gets worse. And worse, in this case, means that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will die at the hands of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. And it’s not like we haven’t been warned, repeatedly and often.

It’s less than two weeks until August 22^nd. I hope that day comes and goes quietly. But, I wonder. I really, really wonder.

"Mass Murder on an Unimaginable Scale"

So say all the major news outlets. Just a little over two hours ago I was headed to bed and decided to switch over to Fox for a quick scan of the headlines before I turned in. I was surprised to see a live feed from Sky News, Ol’ Rupert’s UK version of Fox, and watched as this story unfolded.

Basically, commercial aviation into the UK is shut down following Scotland Yard’s arrest of 21 people in London and the West Midlands. Police are still looking for as many as 50 people. The Metropolitan Police say they have foiled a large-scale terrorist plot to take down up to 20 airliners in flight by detonating bombs smuggled on-board in carry-on luggage. Sky News and CNN are using the 20 aircraft number, the BBC is saying ten. Even ten aircraft would result in anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 deaths if all ten planes were taken down. That really is mass murder on an unimaginable scale.

The Terrorist Threat Level has been raised to “Critical” in the UK, the highest category. British Airways has cancelled all flights “of short duration,” defined as three hours or less, from Heathrow until 1500 British Time. Air France, Lufthansa, KLM, and Olympic Airways have cancelled all flights into the UK. All flights originating in Brussels and destined for the UK have been cancelled. I’ve seen film of Heathrow and it looks like chaos. Temporary security measures have been implemented and no carry-on luggage is allowed on those flights leaving Heathrow aside from a very short list of permitted items such as wallets, medicine, and baby formula. Additionally, Heathrow’s management held a press conference and advised all people not to travel today unless “absolutely necessary.”

The US has increased its threat level for aviation only to “Orange,” according to CNN. Earlier both CNN and Fox were saying Red for aviation and Orange for the general threat level. Additional restrictions, such as prohibiting all liquids on-board aircraft, are being implemented in the US.

"Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane," the (DHS) statement said.

This is pretty serious stuff and the disruption level is high.

One light moment in all this… I was watching CNN International around 1:30 or so and the anchor, a Brit, was interviewing a “security expert.” The anchorman opened his interview with a leading question, along the lines of “Isn’t this indicative of an intelligence failure, given the last-minute nature of these emergency precautions?” “That’s utter rot,” replied Trevor Somebody, the security expert. The anchor wasn’t fazed at all, but I burst out laughing. Finally, someone called a spade a spade. Stupid, and called out for being stupid. Good for that Trevor guy!

And now, I’m gonna go to bed. Pajamas Media has a pretty good roundup of the news links, memeorandum has a lot of good blog links. But most bloggers are still asleep, like I’m gonna be in about ten minutes.

Vintage Tees

Remember when I told you I had to do laundry coz I was down to “vintage” tee shirts? Well, I wore one of those self-same tee shirts out to the base yesterday, specifically this one:



And Boy-Howdy did I ever get some hard looks from some ol’ codgers. I felt like telling at least one of those guys “Hey, I’m not a Commie, it’s a souvenir.” And so it is…from one of my Moscow trips during the ‘90s. (I have NO idea what the text says, and I've asked around, too.)

I probably would have gotten approving smiles had I worn this one, instead:



The yellow font is hard to read: it says “Miller.” Make sense, now? I love this shirt; it was a gift from SN2 back when he was an enlisted sailor on a boomer...the USS James K. Polk.

Long Night, It Was

Wow, last night was a looong night. I slept fitfully once I finally went to bed, and as a result, stayed in bed until late, late this morning.

So. Lamont wins, and that’s all we’re gonna hear about for the next few days. In a way, this is a good thing. We need a break, however small, from all the stupidity going on in the Middle East and right here on the East River in NYC, for that matter.

It was a near-run thing. Lieberman will run as an Independent in November, and Lamont will run as the Fringe-Left Democrat. I watched both Lieberman’s and Lamont’s speeches in real-time last evening, and I was particularly struck by Lamont’s…uh… “stage presence.” John McIntrye at Real Clear Politics echoes my sentiments exactly:

Nationally, the images from last night are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Perched behind Lamont during his victory speech were the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, grinning ear to ear, serenaded by the chant of "Bring Them Home, Bring Them Home." For a party that has a profound public relations and substantive problem on national security, these are not exactly the images you want broadcast to the nation.

Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart.

As I watched Lamont’s victory speech I thought about what Mom used to say: “You’re known by the company you keep.” I damned sure don’t want the likes of Sharpton and Jackson, not to mention the whack-o contingent of American society, running things in Washington. And the NYT describes these people as “moderates?” It is to laugh. Ace laughs about that, long, hard, and quite well.

The New York Times is here to inform you that "moderate" now means the more extreme, partisan, and ideological wing of the liberal/Democratic coalition.

[…]

They think you're that stupid. They really do.

Here’s one of those “moderates,” Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake:

At some point, the folks who report on politics and the folks who run for office will wake up and understand that bloggers are merely Americans who try to amplify the sentiment of thousands more just like them. And the overwhelming sentiment that I have been hearing for months and months is that people have had enough of the lies, the manipulation, the self-dealing, the egos, the idiocy, the selfishness, and the outright dereliction of duty and lack of accountability from so many in Washington, D.C. in this rubber stamp Republican Congress…we’ve had enough. (ed: emphasis mine)

Yep, that’s a “moderate” point of view. Hamsher is usually the one carrying the Lamont banner at fdl; I imagine Sweet Jane has one helluva hang-over this morning, which may be why Hardin is posting and not Hamsher.

Kos posted this about a half-hour after Lieberman’s concession and Lamont’s victory speeches were said and done:

Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started.

Note the royal “we.” Good ol’ Markos, while generally insufferable in the past, is about to become absolutely intolerable as he stakes his claim for being a prime mover in Lamont’s win. The same can be said for the other “netroots” folks, such as Hamsher.

Let’s hear from one more twit:

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

“Resounding defeat?” It looks to me like it was a near-run thing, what with Lamont getting a “resounding” 51.8% of the vote. But, hey…truth was never The Fat Man’s strong suit.

The bottom line, as I see it, is the Democrat party is still digging, as in “What’s the first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole? Stop digging.” Conventional wisdom says primary elections are the provenance of activists, moderates don’t turn out for these events. One could make a case that yesterday’s Connecticut primary was an exception, and I’m open to that argument…after all, anything’s possible. But, I think not. There were too many carpetbaggers involved, there was a lot of Move-On (read: Soros) money flung around, and the election was close. The Left won one last night. But I think the ultimate result will be as the ol’ saw says: “They won the battle but lost the war.” It’s gonna be interesting, indeed.

Oh! I almost forgot. More good news: McKinney lost. I looked all over for a transcript of her “concession” speech, but all I could find was a video. I watched the speech on C-SPAN in real-time and it was simply bizarre. Like the person giving it, I suppose. Good riddance and don’t let the door bang you in the ass on your way to court, Cynthia.

Just an Update...

Had to go out to the base this afternoon to pick up a prescription refill and do a little commissary run. My timing was perfect: two F-16s thundered off the runway in full afterburner just as I entered the turn on the perimeter road. In other words, the birds were about 300 feet in front of me and 50 feet overhead. What a glorious noise! And I’ll bet you a dollar to the proverbial doughnut that those Sidewinders on their wing tips were war-shots, and not “blue” rounds. Just sayin’. Dubya is in Crawford, ya know…

Liberal McCarthyism update. There were no Lefty blogs commenting when I put up that link this morning. Well, that’s changed. Forthwith a sampling… Here’s Kos his-own-self:

Where does this "liberal" (ed: Lanny Davis) go and cry about the mean scary bloggers (which he doesn't bother naming, of course)? The right-wing Wall Street Journal.

You go, Kos! (snicker-chuckle-grin)

And here’s one of my favorite twits, Oliver Willis (links removed):

Lanny Davis becomes another voice of the Dem establishment to attack Democrats in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Whats the deal with these guys? I'm not a big "netroots" triumphalist (no, Virginia, the internet is not the panacea to all that ails), but the ease with which so much of the Dem establishment jumps into the arms of the neo-fascist WSJ editorial pages is pretty indicative of the downward spiral they've put the Democratic party in through their leadership.

“Like Kryptonite to Stupid,” Indeed.

And Digby, from Hullabaloo:

And, make no mistake, Lanny Davis is a Bush fan, just like Joe. He's a frat brother who, just days after the recount was settled, wrote an opportunistic brown nosing op-ed in the NY Times attesting to Bush's good character. (Talk about rubbing salt in the wound. I'll never forgive him for that.)

I, for one, am thrilled to finally have him pitching for a different team than mine. I hope the WSJ gives him a regular spot in the rotation. He only hurts the ball club.

They don’t like Lanny, now do they? Not much on the basic complaint, though, which was the fact the unbalanced-Left (as opposed to, say, run of the mill Democrats) writes and speaks in an intimidating, coarse, rude, and boorish manner. But Lanny? He deserves what he got, near as I can tell from reading these guys.

Favorites, Good Words, and Really?

The Right’s “Favorite People,” according to right-wing bloggers polled by John Hawkins at Right Wing News. The numbers in the parentheses are the votes received from the polled bloggers, my comments follow in italics. The list:

21) Glenn Reynolds (6) Agree
21) Laura Ingraham (6) Umm…sorta, but not really. She IS cute, though.
21) Sean Hannity (6) NO! Too damned strident for my tastes.
21) Milton Friedman (6) Interesting…an economist? But: agreed.
21) George Allen (6) Nope.
20) Antonin Scalia (7) Yes!
17) Hugh Hewitt (8) Good, but not a favorite
17) Ann Coulter (8) Absolutely frickin’ NOT. Over the top, and not in a good way.
17) Tom Coburn (8) Who?
15) Walter Williams (9) Who, again?
15) Tom Tancredo (9) Interesting ideas, but too jingoistic for my tastes.
14) Victor David Hanson (10) Ab-so-frickin’-lutely!
12) Jonah Goldberg (11) Yes.
12) John Bolton (11) Oh my, Yes.
11) Newt Gingrich (12) I hope he runs for President. He has MY vote.
10) Dick Cheney (13) I’m basically ambivalent about Dick, but I like his style.
9) Rush Limbaugh (15) No.
7) Donald Rumsfeld (16) Yeah! HELL YEAH!
7) Charles Krauthammer (16) Yep.
6) Michelle Malkin (17) She’s prolific and well-spoken. But, once again, over the top.
4) Mark Steyn (19) Yes. There are equal but not better pundits.
4) George W. Bush (19) Only Number Four?
2) Thomas Sowell (20) He’s good. Very, very GOOD.
2) Rudy Giuliani (20) Umm, can I get back to you?
1) Condi Rice (22) I don’t agree with her Number One ranking, but I DO admire and respect her. A lot.

There were “honorable mentions,” too. I find it interesting that my personal top three pundits (Steyn, Hanson, Krauthammer) made the list. But then again, that’s not too surprising, eh?

Here’s a few quotes, taken out of sequence, from an editorial written by Vin Suprynowicz, a guy who thinks as I do:

In Lebanon, Hezbollah is nowhere near ready to surrender. To end a war which has now been dragging on for 58 years, somebody's ass has got to, finally, be whupped.

[…]

Imagine now that America, finally stirred from her lethargy, had fought through that miserable year of 1942, American boys desperately throwing away their lives at places like Wake and Midway as they took on a superior foe while equipped only with inadequate pre-war weapons and supplies.

Now, in 1943, the tables are finally starting to turn. We have finally driven the Japanese from Guadalcanal. Our factories having run at full pace for a year, we now have enough materiel to start slogging our way up the island chains toward Japan ... when some vastly superior coalition of nations steps in and says, "Your response has been disproportionate. They only sank a handful of your ships and killed a few hundred sailors at Pearl Harbor. Look at the pictures of the suffering your bombs and torpedoes are causing. This is barbaric."

Imagine that a three-year cease-fire had been imposed, during which Imperial Japan had time to rest, refit and re-arm. Then, in 1946, when Japan was ready, they attacked us again, unexpectedly, sinking more of our ships in Australia and in San Diego. Back to war we go.

[…]

The defeatists cry that "Nothing can be accomplished by violence; war only breeds more terrorists who will fight forever."

Really? Sixty years later, is America still under attack by the aggrieved suicide-belted grandchildren of the Germans and Japanese whose cities we flattened and burned to rubble in '44 and '45?

No. Because wars usually do resolve these issues -- if one side is allowed to fight to a decisive victory. It's just that the pink petticoat gang shriek hysterically and threaten to faint dead away when confronted with the reality of how real wars really end.

Someone raises a white flag, and promises to fight no more if only you'll give the survivors some food and water and stop burning them out of their holes. Many of the conquered women marry the conqueror's soldiers and move home with them, giving up their native dress and learning to drive Buicks.

As I said, the man writes the way I think. Good on him. Although we appear to be in the minority, there are still a significant number of people left in America with the ability to call a spade a spade. We’re usually shouted down by the “the pink petticoat gang,” however. Or categorized as “unevolved.” God save me from evolving…please.

“Liberal McCarthyism.” You don’t say? No, really? Heh. I remember getting into one of those pointless arguments (I think it was at maha’s place…) where I maintained the Left was much more uncivil than the Right. And I was shouted down. Imagine that.

Lieberman and Deja-Vu All Over Again

I’ve not written about the acrimonious Democratic primary election being held in Connecticut tomorrow, but I’ve been following the story in an off-hand sort of way. Some bloggers, on the other hand, probably should have renamed their blogs along the lines of “IHateJoeLieberman.com” given that their focus has been almost entirely on defeating Senator Lieberman. If you follow the previous link, and if you’ve not been following this brouhaha, you might be a bit perplexed when you read “About That Graphic.” In other words, what graphic? Here’s the story, along with the PhotoShopped graphic originally posted, but since removed, on the Huffington Post. Amazing stuff, especially coming from the all-inclusive and oh-so-sensitive Left. But, I digress.

At any rate, here are the two best articles I’ve read concerning Senator Lieberman, one by Martin Peretz, in today’s WSJ, and the other by Robert Kagan in yesterday’s WaPo. First, Mr. Peretz:

Finally, the contest in Connecticut tomorrow is about two views of the world. Mr. Lamont's view is that there are very few antagonists whom we cannot mollify or conciliate. Let's call this process by its correct name: appeasement. The Greenwich entrepreneur might call it "incentivization." Mr. Lieberman's view is that there are actually enemies who, intoxicated by millennial delusions, are not open to rational and reciprocal arbitration. Why should they be? After all, they inhabit a universe of inevitability, rather like Nazis and communists, but with a religious overgloss. Such armed doctrines, in Mr. Lieberman's view, need to be confronted and overwhelmed.

Almost every Democrat feels obliged to offer fraternal solidarity to Israel, and Mr. Lamont is no exception. But here, too, he blithely assumes that the Palestinians could be easily conciliated. All that it would have needed was President Bush's attention. Mr. Lamont has repeated the accusation, disproved by the "road map" and Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza, that Mr. Bush paid little or even no attention to the festering conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. And has Mr. Lamont noticed that the Palestinians are now ruled, and by their own choice, by Hamas? Is Hamas, too, just a few good arguments away from peace?

Now Mr. Kagan:

If Lieberman loses, it will not even be because he supported the war. Almost every leading Democratic politician and foreign policymaker, and many a liberal columnist, supported the war. Nor will he lose because he opposes withdrawing troops from Iraq this year. Most top Democratic policymakers agree that early withdrawal would be a mistake. Nor, finally, is it because he has been too chummy with President Bush. Lieberman has offered his share of criticism of the administration's handling of the Iraq war and of many other administration policies.

No, Lieberman's sin is of a different order. Lieberman stands condemned today because he didn't recant. He didn't say he was wrong. He didn't turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn't claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn't try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place. He didn't claim to be led into support for the war by a group of writers and intellectuals whom he can now denounce. He didn't go through a public show of agonizing and phony soul-baring and apologizing in the hopes of resuscitating his reputation, as have some noted "public intellectuals."

Jane Hamsher (she who I didn’t name in one of my links, above) has written that Senator Lieberman is better-liked and has more support among Republicans than Democrats. That may or may not be true, but “better-liked” is the wrong term. Republicans respect Senator Lieberman, and respect is a term that is completely foreign to Ms. Hamsher and other people of her ilk. Hamsher and her Buds prefer to vilify the opposition…after all, Rethuglicans are eeevil, ya know. And Lieberman, because of his support of the war, failure to recant same, and the fact he’s actually said a few good things about Dubya has revealed himself to be unworthy eeeevil.

Tomorrow’s election is the most closely watched primary in recent memory, and the results will be most interesting, no matter who wins. If Lamont wins, it’s a victory for the 21^st century variant of the “peace candidate.” If Lieberman wins, it’s a repudiation of the appease-niks, if I may coin a term. Either way, the country as a whole, and the Right, specifically, wins. A Lieberman victory will send the netroots back to the drawing board; a Lamont victory will turn the Democrat party upside down and will more than likely get us more candidates in the Lamont mold, a la McGovern. And McGovern-clone candidates will be very good news for Republicans, if not in this year’s congressional elections, but most certainly in 2008. Interesting stuff.

I meant to link this yesterday, but forgot. Victor Davis Hanson writes of the parallels between the appeasement of the 1930s and today. Excellent stuff, as usual.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and it is even more baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

Mr. Hanson is right-as-rain, as Mom used to say. It remains to be seen if we’ll actually learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. “Doomed” is the operative word, here. The 21^st century is a helluva lot more dangerous than the previous century. We had the luxury of time to undo the mistakes made in the late ‘30s (although the outcome was far from sure in 1940-41); today’s weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver those weapons severely limit our options to undo mistakes. We’ll have to live with those mistakes, if push comes to shove. It won’t be pleasant.

Have a nice day!

Lazy Saturday, Followed by Lazy Sunday

As I noted in the comments to the post immediately below, this is indeed a lazy Sunday. Here it is, nearly 1400 (as I write) and I’ve not updated the blog. To say I’m lacking in motivation would be serious understatement. So…this will be sorta brief.

Interesting. I’m number two in a google search for “"public perception" +bbc +bias.” That search turned up more than a few interesting links. Thanks, Unknown Visitor from the UK!

I dunno if this is a good thing, or not. I still blush, quite visibly so, even at my (relatively) advanced age. The scene: A couple of nights ago. My phone rings, I glance down at the Caller ID screen as I pick up the phone to answer; it’s SN1. I answer the phone thusly:

“So, how was the chick-flick?”

(Brief pause)

“This is Erma.”

Blood rushes to my face and neck in an alarmingly rapid reaction. I know this to be true because I was standing in the bathroom and looked directly into the mirror as I heard Erma speak.

“Uh, Hi, Erm! I thought it was Buck!”

“Unh-hunh”

Back story: SN1 had told me Erm’s birthday was going to be a low-level affair; her “wish list” included dinner out, followed by a quiet evening at home with just the two of them watching a movie of her choosing, and said movie would definitely be a “chick-flick.” And SN1 was under instruction to enjoy it (the movie). I opined to Buck that that just might be beyond the pale…in other words, you can ask me to watch such a movie with you, but demanding I enjoy it is quite another thing altogether. Just my opinion, mind you. I’ll not divulge SN1’s thoughts on the subject. And that’s why I answered the phone as I did.

We both (Erma and I) got a good laugh out of this, Thank God. I told her SN1 had relayed her wish-list to me, to which she replied: “Obviously.”

Lesson-learned: Someone else might just possibly be using someone else’s phone. Just possibly.

I want to move this link from frequent reader Bec from the comments up to the front page, so to speak. While the article is somewhat depressing, it reveals the complexity of the problem we have to deal with in Lebanon. To say Lebanese politics are Byzantine is understating reality by half… As it’s said: “Read the whole thing.” Thanks, Bec.

Update: What the HELL is it with Blogger? This is the second post in a row where the word-wrap function around a photo doesn't work. No meaning is lost, it just looks clunky. And I'm all about aesthetics, ya know.

A VERY Lazy Saturday

Well. Another late night, another sleep-in kinda day. I was complaining to SN1 when he called (“I hate it when this happens… I feel like such a slug!”) until he reminded me that “it’s authorized.” Still, and even…

There are a few Brits who are just as pissed at the Beeb as I am, to wit: Prodicus and Political Crossroads. The new BBC logo Prodicus posted is oh-so-apropos. Interestingly, one of these guys claim the World Service is worse than the domestic news. I’ll buy that, based upon what I’ve seen this week… and ever since the Hezbollah War began, actually.

I watched a bit of the X-Games last evening, specifically the motocross bike “tricks.” Amazing stuff. The guy who took the gold did a double back-flip and pulled it off, sticking a perfect two-wheel landing. A double back flip. In mid-air. On an MX bike, not a bicycle. And he lived. You can see the video at the link above, scroll down and look for “Travis Pastrana double backflips into the history books.” Those guys have ‘em…of the BIG brass variety.

I don’t consider this to be good news. Not at all. Dan Riehl agrees; it’s the same ol’ movie and that movie has been in re-runs waaay too long.

It's being reported that the US and France have reached agreement on a proposed UN resolution for a cease fire. Last time I checked, neither France, nor the US are directly involved in hostilities.

Pardon me if I don't watch it, I believe I've seen this movie before. The UN couldn't stop arms sales into Iraq and there was even more support for those resolutions. All this is is a simple re-hash of previously passed resolutions. If the UN had enforced those in the first place, this war would never have taken place.

Who the hell are the feculent French to be negotiating anything for anybody? Everyone knows their strong suits are back stabbing and surrender. Israel needs to continue this fight until Hizbollah is all but destroyed and the world should be kicking sand in the faces of Syria and Iran as they helplessly watch from the sidelines, hoping they don't get their asses kicked next.

I agree completely. We all knew this was coming, however. Hezbollah’s gruesome PR campaign is bearing fruit. Surprised?

Ace notes that Richard at EU Referendum is insinuating a lot.

EU Referendum insinuates much that isn't remotely proven. There's an awful lot of assuming what's going on in the minds of "rescue workers" that sure doesn't seem obvious to me. A "smirk" is noted that I don't see, and even if I did see it, how the hell do I know precisely what my mouth looks like at every single 1/32nd of a second instant of the day?

But what is undeniable is that there was an awful lot of Hezbollywood corpse choreography going on here, and that "Mr. White T-Shirt," the second-most photographed "rescuer" after "Mr. Green Helmet," has an apartment that seconds as a shrine to Hezbollah.

Agreed. But, yes, there certainly was “an awful lot of Hezbollywood corpse choreography going on.” And that’s an understatement.

Lotsa Rain and Other Stuff

OK…I’m a day late and a dollar short with this. But, in case you just woke up and EIP is the first thing you read (I make a funny, eh?), the Seattle Post-Intelligencer writes that over a third of Americans believe the government had something to do with 9/11. Ah, but it’s not the article itself that’s the attraction here, all the action is taking place in the comments. While it’s possible to read all 300+ comments, it ain’t practical or even desirable…what with fruits and nuts of all stripes drawn to this article like, like, uh…a suitable analogy escapes me. But I agree with this commenter:

Posted by Sub-Odeon at 8/3/06 11:08 p.m.

I wish we had some psychotherapists working this thread. The level of mental health being displayed here is quite poor indeed. Some of you seem truly disturbed; detached either partially or totally from reality.

As with the other conspiracy thread, this one has gone down a long, dark hole to nowhere.

Scary, to think that roughly 30% of the nation might suffer similar mental instability.

Goodnight.

Conspiracy theorists never miss an opportunity. The comments thread features links to nearly every 9/11 wacko web site in existence, extensive quotes from same, Bush-bashing galore, and the odd Bush defender here and there. Bush defenders? Seattle? Ah, well, the article has had national exposure, so I’m sure Dubya’s support ain’t from the locals…

Speaking of waking up… I think it was about 0830 the first time my (internal) alarm went off this morning. It was raining (again), a steady moderate rain, and the sound of the rain on my roof put me right back to sleep for another two-plus hours. We’ve had a lot of rain lately, including a great, roaring thunder storm last night that lasted about an hour and a half and featured some very intense downpours. It looks like we’ve received anywhere from .5” to 1.5” of rain in the last 24 hours, as near as I can tell, but I’m sure this precip map hasn’t been updated to reflect this morning’s rain. (I’ve bookmarked that link, btw. Very cool.) The incredible amount of rain we’ve had lately is very good news, even though the entire eastern half of the state is under a flood watch. Sure has kept the dust down, though. And the rain has kept my car looking pretty spiffy, too, even though I haven’t washed it in ten days or more. The clean car is one of those Eastern New Mexico “you had to be there” kinda things…

Another interesting thing about our weather is the fact we’ve been relatively cool the last few days (mid-to-high 80s), waaay cooler than the East Coast. Who’d a thunk it?

I’ll leave you with links to a couple of good reads. The first is from perennial favorite Charles Krauthammer, writing in the WaPo:

America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched monster: Sunni al-Qaeda is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaeda in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq -- to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances, give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival.

The moderate pro-Western Arabs understand this very clearly. Which is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately came out against Hezbollah and privately urged the U.S. to let Israel take down Hezbollah. They know that Hezbollah is fighting Iran's proxy war not only against Israel but against them and, more generally, against the United States and the West.

Krauthammer’s very critical of the Israeli government, and justifiably so. Olmert simply doesn’t seem up to the task of leading what has become a war-time government. None the less, this op-ed captures the essence of the conflict and why it is so damned important.

The second link is an essay by Victor Davis Hanson, another favorite pundit of mine. Writing in a Real Clear Politics essay, Mr. Hanson steals a riff from Bernard Lewis (What Went Wrong?) that is none the less pertinent and timely. Excerpt:

For about the last half-century, globalization has passed most of the recalcitrant Middle East by -- economically, socially and politically. The result is that there are now few inventions and little science emanating from the Islamic world -- but a great deal of poverty, tyranny and violence. And rather than make the necessary structural changes that might end cultural impediments to progress and modernity -- such as tribalism, patriarchy, gender apartheid, polygamy, autocracy, statism and fundamentalism -- too many Middle Easterners have preferred to embrace the reactionary past and the cult of victimization.

At one time or another, they have welcomed all the bankrupt ideologies that traditionally blame others for prior self-induced failure: fascism, communism, Baathism, Pan-Arabism and, most recently, Islamic fundamentalism.

While Hanson is good, Lewis is better. But that’s simply the difference between an essay and a book. If you haven’t read What Went Wrong?, you might want to.

And now I have to attend to life. I haven’t visited the laundromat in two months (just prior to the Maine trip) and I’m down to vintage tee-shirts and other assorted odds and ends of clothing. Damn. I hate doing laundry…

Just a Few Random Thoughts...

Feeling a bit older today. My daughter-in-law Erma turned 40 yesterday and SN1 turns 40 later on this month. SN1 pointed out to me while we were talking Tuesday night that at some point in the past I had defined “old” as that point in time when one has offspring that are 40 years of age. I’d forgotten about that, but it’s true. That, and having a granddaughter of child-bearing age. I’ll really feel old when I become a great-grandfather. Today I’m feeling a just a wee bit aged, but it’s nothing that’ll drive me to drink.

Miscellaneous Moans, Groans, Bitches, and Complaints Dept:

1. You are more than likely aware, Dear Reader, that I have an affinity for C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. I watch the program whenever my erratic sleep-cycle permits, which is more difficult than it sounds, given the program airs from 0500 MDT until approximately 0800 MDT, points in time that usually find me fast asleep these days. But the oh-dark-thirty program timing ain’t the problem. Oh, no. Here’s what gets my knickers in a twist: Every whacked-out point of view, no matter how ridiculous, gets a polite hearing from both the host and the expert guest of the moment. Every single one. Case in point: During a segment about the Middle East this morning, a caller began reciting talking points from the discredited, shopworn, and tiresome “It’s the Jooos…” school of so-called-thought. “Israel controls American foreign policy,” “Zionist controlled media,” and so on, ad nauseaum. Instead of summarily dismissing this claptrap, said expert-of-the-moment responded as if the caller was making a valid point. We’ve become SO politically correct that every idea, no matter how ludicrous, apparently deserves a hearing. Well, some points of view should be dismissed immediately, as in “What a crock of shit. Do you actually believe what you’re saying?” with accompanying eye-rolls and smirks, followed by “Next call, please.” There once was a point in time in the not so distant past when stupidity was widely recognized as such and was greeted with derision, rather than “Good points, but I don’t agree. Here’s what I think…” Your average whack-o is validated when one treats their arguments with respect rather than dismissing them as what they are: stupid bullshit. We need to get back to that time when shunning was deemed appropriate, rather than “insensitive.” Peer-pressure works.
   
   
2. Pointless encounters with bureaucracy…Did you know you cannot send a bubble-pack envelope as Registered Mail? S’true. I had to mail SN1 a bill of sale, title, and spare keys to the bike, important stuff, in other words, so I wanted to send the package registered mail. Given that I was mailing keys, which have a habit of exiting any container that isn’t padded or otherwise well-insulated, I used a bubble-pack. Well, that was a deal-breaker. Registered Mail? Couldn’t do it. When I protested to the clerk, the USPS Guy-In-Charge came over and said “Yeah, we know it’s stupid, but it’s the rule.” So I sent it Certified Mail. Institutionalized stupidity. You can’t fight it, either.
   
   
3. Have you seen that ad for the analgesic you “apply directly to the forehead?” It’s a 15-second ad, with a visual of a woman with what looks like one of those old roll-on deodorant bottles rolling it back and forth on her forehead while another woman does a voice-over that says only “Head-On! Apply directly to the forehead!” THREE frickin’ times! God, how irritating. I can’t find/hit the mute button fast enough. And I can’t believe I actually linked it. But, it’s just in case you haven’t been irritated enough today…

Speaking of ads… Have you seen any of the new GEICO ads featuring Charo, Little Richard, and Burt Bacharach? Off-the-frickin’-wall, they are! But in a good, no, great sorta way. I just love the “customers” dead-pan expressions while the celebs do their schticks. I don’t know how one keeps a straight face while in the company of Little Richard, but…it can be done. And I agree with the writer at the link above: the Bacharach ad sorta creeped me out, but it does make me smile.

Rue, Britannia

I had the opportunity to watch an hour-long talk by Melanie Phillips on C-SPAN a couple of months ago while she was doing a US tour promoting the release of her book, “Londonistan.” The talk, which was both impressive and scary at the same time, focused on excerpts and anecdotes from Londonistan. Now, thanks to neo, I’ve been made aware Ms. Phillips has a web site. The day before I wrote my screed on the BBC, Ms. Phillips had this to say:

The BBC in particular has turned into the Beirut Broadcasting Corporation, reporting the war almost entirely from the perspective of a Lebanon that is entirely innocent and victimised (as opposed to Sky which is far more even-handed). All this with scarcely a nod at the scores of Israeli dead and hundreds of casualties, or the thousands of Israeli refugees being taken in by families in the south of the country. And this despite the fact that those Israeli casualties are being specifically targeted for death, whereas the Lebanese casualties are the inadvertent victims of attacks directed against Hezbollah terrorists and their infrastructure. The Israelis are leafleting Lebanese civilians in advance of their raids to ensure that as many as possible leave the zone of fire. Unfortunately it doesn’t always work, but the intention is patently there to avoid killing civilians because this is a war of self-defence against a terrorist army. The Hezbollah, by contrast, is firing its rockets tipped with ball-bearings — designed to murder and maim as many as possible —in order specifically to kill Israeli civilians.

[…]

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the cumulative effect of the BBC’s poisonous distortions is to incite hatred of Israel in anyone who knows little about the region and is exposed for long enough to its TV and radio bulletins. The impact this is having on the general population is bad enough. The likely effect on those Muslims who are already prone to a hysterical sense of grievance against Israel and the Jews as a result of the propaganda pouring out of the Arab and Muslim world – and who believe that the BBC is to be trusted, heaven help us, as the voice of truth and objectivity – cannot be exaggerated in its potential for fomenting yet further evil. The BBC has now become one of the most potent weapons of the enemies of civilisation. It is the most prominent cultural symbol of a society that has turned upon itself and is hell-bent on committing collective suicide.

But the moral crisis in Britain extends far wider and deeper than the wretched BBC and other media. The surreally distorted response by so many to Israel’s attempt to destroy the would-be purveyors of genocide raises the question of whether Britain will ever again support a just war — because it no longer knows what a just war is, and no longer has the intellectual capacity to know. This is in large measure because moral agency has disappeared altogether from the analysis. Intention, the essence of moral actions, is now tossed aside as of no significance. All that matters are the consequences of an action. This is in accordance with the prevailing amoral consensus which has negated moral agency altogether in order to remove the burden of personal responsibility. What someone intends to do is therefore held to be of no account. All that matters is the consequences of their action.

So the fact that Israel is at war solely to prevent the deaths of innocents is dismissed. All that matters is that the consequences of its actions are that Lebanese civilians are dying. The fact that the Israelis do not intend them to die is irrelevant. Those deaths are deemed to be the equivalent of the deaths caused by Hezbollah. The fact that Hezbollah deliberately sets out to murder innocent Israelis is irrelevant. Thus the only thing that matters is which side has more dead people. The fact that there are more dead Lebanese than dead Israelis settles the matter. The Israelis are in the wrong, are behaving disproportionately, are committing war crimes, are the villains of the piece. The fact that they are actually the victims of unprovoked genocidal aggression is deemed irrelevant. Thus the moral bankruptcy of Britain’s post-modern cultural desert.

That’s a pretty big excerpt, but believe me, there’s a lot more. Ms. Phillips is sufficiently alarmist, to be sure. But she does find hope in the fact the British “man in the street” seems to be more aware of the realities of the current Israel – Hezbollah situation, regardless of the arguments and rhetoric put forth by the intelligentsia and the British media, particularly the BBC. And she is right on point when she identifies Iran as the crux of the problem. I hope a majority of the British people are reading what this woman has to say, and more to the point, I hope they agree with her. Her voice needs to be heard in America, as well.

By the way… there’s much more on her web site than just the one essay I’ve linked. Ms. Phillips’ site is well worth browsing at length.

(Up early or late? You decide...)

No Rest for the Wicked

I was going to give it a rest today, “it” being politics in general and the Hezbollah War specifically. That was until I read Gerard’s essay of July 31st. Here’s a teaser:

After all, who among us is not moved by endless images of dead babies sheathed in blood, body parts hanging by a shred of gristle, with the blank stare of eternity glazing their eyes? What "civilized" person secure in their happy world of languid summer days, mall festivals brimming with second-rate food and third rate crafts, concerts on the lawn with wine and traveling minstrels, could not want this distant tribal slaughter to stop, stop, stop this very instant?

To see the Bloody Shirt, as the Hezbollah in Lebanon drag their children from the rubble and parade them before the world, is to want all replaced with the Rainbow Flag immediately -- no matter who must suffer, no matter how many Jews must die in that distant country where, "After all the Israelis aren't so much Jewish as they are Zionist oppressors who, if they just gave up a little more, would be left in peace. I mean, look at that. Children are dying every minute there. Have you no compassion, sir? Have you, at long last, no compassion?"

Have I no compassion?

That was a fair question the first time it was posed to me, oh, several decades back. I think I had a lot of compassion back then. I must have had oodles. I must have been soaking in it. At least that's what I conclude when I read the things I wrote and remember the things I did. For awhile, every cause on Earth, every injustice from Cape Horn to Belfast called upon my bottomless well of compassion. The church burnings and bombings in the South during the Civil Rights struggle. The napalmed girl on the road in Vietnam. The carnage of apartheid. And, of course, the 50 years of ceaseless exposure of their dead by the Palestinians.

Powerful and highly unusual stuff. You don’t read this sort of op-ed every day, in fact, I’d venture to say you’ve never read anything like it.

No cease-fire. The war continues until every last one of them is DEAD! And it’s NOT what you might think. Oh no, this is better! (via Feisty)

One of the many reasons I like James Lileks is the sheer quality of the man’s writing. Here are a couple of examples from today’s Bleat. On Raymond Burr:

Man, Bunny could be nine feet of stones, no? He made a great heavy, and for those of us who grew up with him as (trademark quick intake of breath) Perry Mason, seeing him in bad-guy roles is always a treat. The Wikipedia entry says he had a relationship with Natalie Wood, which surprised many people, due to his homosexuality. Really? He was gay, not stupid. If she made a move on him, he probably realized he was obliged to respond – if not for himself, than on behalf of all men. If he’d turned her down, and told the story at the gayest party in Gaytown in the state of West Gayginia in the nation of Gaydonia on the planet Gay, everyone would fall silent, and someone would say you turned down Natalie Wood? What is wrong with you?

On Jane Russell:

Jane Russell. Born in Minnesota of North Dakota parents: that’s my gal. In her “Outlaw” period she was the reason the Society for the Incoherent Reactions to Bosoms added the second “Hubba.”

LitCrit is as far removed from my core competencies as astrophysics, which is to say I have neither the formal training nor the professional standing to be considered a “qualified” writing critic. But, when it comes to good writing I’m like Justice Potter Stewart — I know it when I see it. I feel most of us are in that same boat.

So. I was going to launch into a “what IS good writing, anyway?” type of post but got distracted while making my rounds. I’ll save that for another day, just as I’ve saved so many other things “for another day” and have yet to get around to actually doing it. I am SO lacking in discipline…

Was it something I said? Or didn’t say? As of 0930 this morning I’ve had exactly two visits. I know Blogger isn’t down coz I’ve made my usual rounds and more than a few of my daily reads are hosted on Blogger. I’m hurt. Hurt, I tell you!

/attempt at sardonic wit

It Is to Worry

The knives are coming out… Bret Stephens, in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Israel is losing this war.

This is not to say that it will lose the war, or that the war was unwinnable to start with. But if it keeps going as it is, Israel is headed for the greatest military humiliation in its history. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israelis were stunned by their early reversals against Egypt and Syria, yet they eked out a victory over these two powerfully armed, Soviet-backed adversaries in 20 days. The conflict with Hezbollah--a 15,000-man militia chiefly armed with World War II-era Katyusha rockets--is now in its 21st day. So far, Israel has nothing to show for its efforts: no enemy territory gained, no enemy leaders killed, no abatement in the missile barrage that has sent a million Israelis from their homes and workplaces.

[…]

Harder to understand is a military and political strategy that mistakenly assumes that Israel can take its time against Hezbollah. It cannot. Israel does not supply itself with precision-guided bombs; it does not provide its own cover at the U.N. Security Council; it does not have 130,000 troops at risk in Iraq of an uprising by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. It should be immensely worrying to Israel's leaders that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is calling for an immediate cease-fire. Ayatollah Sistani--unlike, say, Kofi Annan--is the sort of man who can get George W. Bush's ear.

And, a “key Republican” “breaks with Bush” on the Mid-East.

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said. "President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."

The Bush administration has refused to call for Israel to halt its attacks on southern Lebanon, joining Israel in insisting that Hezbollah fighters must be pushed back from the Israeli-Lebanese border.

Note the language used by CNN in the supporting paragraph immediately following Hagel’s quote. I use scare quotes on purpose; Hagel’s position seems to be more about playing the opinion polls than sticking to principles. But then again, he is a politician, one with presidential aspirations, at that… Silly me.

Nearly every op-ed I’ve read this morning cites Sunday’s bombing incident at Qana and the loss of civilian life as the prime mover in the increasing calls for “an end to the violence.” David Horowitz, writing in FrontPageMag, has the following comments (among others) on this phenomenon:

The appeasers of Islamofascism, who have been calling for a ceasefire and bewailing “civilian casualties” in Lebanon and Gaza, will succeed. Hezbollah will agree to turn over its arms to the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese army. The pro-Hezbollah UN will establish a security zone on Lebanon’s southern border to keep the area clear of non-government militias, of which the Hezbollah “militia” is the only one. The credulous in the Western camp will greet this as a victory for the peacemakers. But exactly the opposite will be the case.

According to a recent poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah “militia.” Only it won’t be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.

Horowitz gets a bit hyperbolic in his rhetoric, but his points are well-taken, in general. The bottom line is Hezbollah and its sponsors are fighting this war with the gloves off. They are expertly exploiting the weaknesses of the Western world, chief among them being our concern for innocent non-combatants. They are winning the propaganda war, that much is obvious.

Related: In an op-ed for Examiner.com, “Edward Morrissey: This is the soft nihilism of low expectations”:

Those who argue that Israel has occasionally violated the Geneva Conventions in its attacks casually ignore the blatant violations of Hezbollah, whose combatants wear no uniform, deliberately hide in civilian populations and fire weapons from residential areas. Hezbollah conducts none of its operations within the rules of war — and yet world leaders and the media never mention it.

Why? Because no one expects terrorists to follow the rules. This is the soft nihilism of low expectations.

This creates an impossible double standard for Israel and political victories. In order to defeat terrorists, Israel will have to engage them when they attack, wherever that happens to be. In their effort to zealously apply the rules of war to only one side, the global community doesn’t act to reduce the tragedies of civilian casualties, it increases them by encouraging Hezbollah’s tactics. The terrorists counted on precisely this response, which dictates their tactics and strategy to this moment.

Writing at his blog, Mr. Morrissey adds the following to his op-ed:

Quite frankly, this double standard will eventually destroy Western civilization by rendering us incapable of defeating our enemies. Those nations wishing to destroy us have watched carefully over the last several years while our own people obsess -- and I do not think that too strong a term -- over anomalies like Abu Ghraib and Qana, and they note the lack of outrage over the fact that their proxies have deliberately launched 2,500 missiles at Israeli civilians. No leaders or media make a peep about the butchery of our enemies as displayed in the torture and beheading of our troops, except to somehow make it our fault for fighting terrorism in the first place.

What lessons do you think Iran, Syria, and the rest of the terrorists draw from these observations?

A rhetorical question, that. We know the answer; at least some of us know and understand, but apparently those of us who do understand are in the minority. Others simply don’t get it, and we see evidence of that fact each and every day. Warning: that last link takes you to a WaPo op-ed by Jimmy Carter.

I worry. My God, how I worry.