D'oh

Another reason for the French to be proud.

the French version of the Secret Service might be even less effective than France's military forces. When President Jacques Chirac arrived in Dakar, Senegal, yesterday, at least two members of his security detail were pickpocketed. Among the pilfered possessions: a camera and a cellphone.

Iran's Nukes

While the EU-3 continue to talk, Iran is quickly approaching the point-of-no-return in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Today, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a resistance group that has been fairly accurate on identifying Iran's nuclear progress is saying that Iran tested nuclear triggers.

PARIS (Reuters) - Iran has conducted successful experiments on a crucial triggering mechanism for a nuclear weapon, an exiled opposition group said on Thursday.

DoctorZin thinks that the US strategy towards Iran has been quietly enunciated over the past few months, and that issue is focusing on human rights.

German unemployment highest since World War II...

In an alarming report, Germany's unemployment rate skyrocketed to its highest levels since the end of WWII.

The adjusted unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent, a seven-year high, while the unadjusted jobless total passed 5 million for the first time since the war.

In December, Germany had the second highest unemployment rate after Spain among the 12 countries that share the euro, at 10 percent on a comparable basis. The rate in France was 9.7 percent.

In stark contrast ...

Germany's rising unemployment contrasts with the U.S., where the jobless rate probably remained unchanged at 5.4 percent in January as 200,000 jobs were created outside farming, a Bloomberg survey of 70 economists showed.

In the U.K., the latest available comparable rate is 4.6 percent for October.

So why does the American left continue to insist that the US needs to be more like "old" Europe? When will they understand that Europe's antiquated social policies (aka. socialist programs ... aka. the government trying to run the economy) just don't work?

Counting His Blessings

It has been said that Bush has been blessed with the opponents he has had. And it seems the Democrats continue to bless him.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - Howard Dean emerged Tuesday as the almost assured new leader of the Democratic National Committee, as one of his main rivals quit the race and Democrats streamed to announce their support of a man whose presidential campaign collapsed one year ago.

Why the Democrats would do this to themselves is a mystery. But the editors of NRO are begging Pretty Please.

But now he's back. And this time it isn't the supposedly unsophisticated Democratic caucus and primary voters who are swooning for Dean, but the party's insiders, the voting members of the Democratic National Committee. Freud could get an entire monograph on his theory of the "death drive" out of observing contemporary Democrats. The party is displaying an unquenchable thirst for irrelevance. Several theories have been advanced in the wake of Bush's reelection for the Democrats' troubles: a lack of seriousness on national security; an out-of-touch liberalism on social issues; an inability to sell its message in terms that connect with "red state" voters. The DNC is about to reject all these theories in favor of one of its own — all that ails the Democratic can be fixed by more of the same, only more so.

Its always preferable in a democracy to have at least two viable parties. But how does one stop the Democrats from sticking the knife further and further into their own gut?

Where Did they Go?

It seems that the most vocal critics of President Bush's Iraq policy have disappeared.

Soros, Moore, Carter are all strangely silent these past few days. In their hatred of President Bush, they - these fighters for liberty and human rights - can't even acknowledge the success of the Iraqi elections. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong, and they - and all their ilk - have shown just how small they are.

Too Quiet

Maybe it just isn't being reported, but since the election in Iraq there has not been one suicide bombing. Is this a sign of good things to come, or are the terrorists just regrouping?

I have a scream ... Iraqi style!

Brit Hume of FOX News always knows how to end a broadcast:

BRIT: And finally tonight, critics of US policy in Iraq have said that US-style democracy just can't take hold in that country. But listen to how one of the Iraqi candidates who didn't do so well is reacting.

CUT TO CLIP FROM TONIGHT SHOW [and just to set the stage, there is an Iraqi man at the podium with an Iraqi flag in the background, and he's yelling in the microphone]: "We're going to go to Fallujah, and Mosul, and Baghdad, and Basra, and Kirkuk, and Sadr City! Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!"

PRICELESS!

Jay In Davos

If you've never read Jay Nordlinger's annual review of the World Economic Forum in Davos, then I strongly encourage you to check out his 6-part series this past week in National Review here, here, here, here, here and here.

A few excerpts for ya:

"Think of Davos as one big, multinational New York Times editorial board, with a dash — or several dashes — of al-Jazeera thrown in."

On Sharon Stone speaking about AIDS:

Finishing up, the actress says, "If we just stopped arrogantly killing people all over the world, and channeled the money into AIDS, we would have a solution."

I imagine that "arrogantly killing people" is an allusion to the War on Terror. And I think for a minute about that phrase, "arrogantly killing people." It seems to me that two experts in arrogantly killing people were the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regime. I think of Iraq's mass graves, the gassing of all those innocents, the putting of men into industrial shredders, feet-first (so that the torturers could hear the screaming). I think of the routineness of rape, and the cutting out of tongues for dissent, and the children's prisons.

And the Taliban? I'll say it again: There are people in this world — I suspect many of them are here in Davos — who would rather homosexuals be crushed to death by stone walls, bulldozed onto them by decree of sharia, than that they be freed by George W. Bush and the U.S. military.

But "arrogantly killing people": That sums up, better than anything I have heard, the ignorant or malicious Left's view of U.S. operations — operations designed precisely to keep bad people from arrogantly killing people.

On Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, son of the Lybian dictator:

And what has Gaddafi to say about the future of Israel/Palestine? He seizes on a line that is growing popular in the Arab world, and on the Western left: There's no need for two states; Israel/Palestine should be like South Africa — in which blacks and whites live in harmony; Arabs and Jews should live in harmony in the same way. This is the "final solution," says Gaddafi. (Oops.)

Of course, if Israel/Palestine becomes like South Africa — that means no more Jewish state. Which, of course, is Gaddafi's point.

On Ted Turner (to whom Jay humbly refers as the "Mouth of the South"):

Anyway, about the Mouth: Who could have told you, 20 years ago, that, between Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, Jane would turn out to be the more conservative?

And there's plenty more where that came from.

The Kerry Interview

The Tim Russert interview with John Kerry seems to have claimed one victim, although he is now on the road to recovery.

“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert is “slowly regaining consciousness” after suffering a one-hour interview with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) on Sunday, Mr. Russert’s doctors said today.

The NBC newsman, who is said to be resting comfortably and “doing well” at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C., experienced what is being termed a “major concussion” after his head hit his desk during the hour-long conversation with the former Democratic nominee.

Amorality of the Left

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

Much of Europe, and the American Left have come to perfectly fit that description quoted by Dennis Prager. The Left, which bills itself as "progressive" and caring is no longer able to make judgments. This is not immorality (bad morals), but amorality (the absence of morals), and this trait of the Left has recently appeared in many forms.

Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.

There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

A couple of days ago there was a story about a woman in Germany who was going to lose her unemployment benefits because she refused a job providing "sexual services" in a brothel. The most interesting part of the story however was this line:

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

Now, I've been to a few bars in my life, but somehow I have never had much difficulty distinguishing them from brothels. Why is it that the German government could not? The same line of thinking that makes one lose the ability to distinguish a bar from a brothel makes one also lose the distinction between attacker and attacked, and between good and evil.

Fear and Self Doubt on the Left

I almost feel like the first line of this post is an opener straight out of The Onion ... but here goes:

In a startling development, self-described Liberal Democrats are starting to question whether or not they have actually been wrong about Bush and Iraq all along. The funny thing is, this is no joke. An op-ed piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times by columnist Mark Brown was the first sign of such self-doubt.

A few excerpts for ya:

"But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?"

"I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces."

"Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something. Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly. Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well."

"If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance."

Ya gotta love it.

It almost makes ya wanna ask "Would you like some fries with that CROW?"

But I still don't know whether to be thrilled about the fact that some of them are finally beginning to turn the corner, or appaulled that even the "honest looks of joy on so many of their faces" didn't convince this clown that freedom is a good thing and worth fighting for!

Gorbachev Calls Iraqi Elections “Fake”

This must be the MOST absurd story of the day ...

In an interview with the Interfax news agency, he said the elections are “very far from what true elections are. And even though I am a supporter of elections and of the transfer of power to the people of Iraq, these elections were fake.”

“I don’t think these elections will be of any use. They may even have a negative impact on the country. Democracy cannot be imposed or strengthened with guns and tanks,” the agency quoted Gorbachev as saying.

This comes from a real-live communist who was directly responsible for preventing hundreds of millions of people from participating in elections for decades in the former Soviet Union.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a hard time listening to the final dictator of the Evil Empire talk about what constitutes a real vs. a fake election? I mean, that's like listening to Stalin talk about human rights ... or even better, Bill Clinton talk about self-restraint.

(sorry, I lost some self restraint there myself for a minute).

And the goofy comment of the day was: "In his defense, Gorbachev has more expertise than almost anyone alive today when it comes to fake elections!"

Desperation

Yesterday, terrorists in Iraq claimed that they had taken a US soldier hostage and would behead him in 72 hours if their "brother and sisters" were not released from US custody. They even showed a picture of the soldier sitting in front of a black banner, as we have seen with other hostages. Now Drudge is reporting that the "soldier" that is sitting in front of that banner is actually a toy. Seems the mujahedin are getting desperate.

Update (from the Elder of Zion #6):

Through baffling and ingenious processes, far beyond the meager mental powers of the terrorists, the Elder has uncovered the identity of the hostage. Sometimes life is just good.

Michael Moore spreading the love in former Yugoslavia

I would have thought that the vision shattering revelations of youth (there is no Santa Clause, people look ugly when they are naked) would fizzle eventually until, as an adult I would ease into a warm and fuzzy acceptance of “I’ve seen it all”. Well, I get older and every once in a while, I still have one of those conversations where you just get surprised.

So I was perusing (as I sometimes do) a Muslim chat room yesterday and came across a very nice young lady. She was 24 and married, living in Sarajevo. She was quite interesting as she was able to recount, first hand, some of the atrocities that took place there. She was pretty cool and well traveled, educated (with a masters degree in economics), modern in many ways and actually married to a Christian man (kind of remarkable given her religiously volatile surroundings). We shared some pleasant small talk banter, covering music, books and sports. Apparently she was a world class figure skater in training, as a little girl, until the war came of course.

And then, as all nice conversations do, we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque as it accidentally drifted to politics. At one point, she let it slip that she went to visit Canada last year. She was going to visit the United States as well, but changed her mind. I asked her why she did not want to visit the U.S. and she replied, “I would never spend any money that would go to your country”. As you can imagine, I was surprised to hear this. I pointed out, what I though to be the obvious, that U.S. soldiers lost their lives in order to liberate her people. Not to mention, the U.S. was directly responsible for saving her from the very atrocities, she had only moments before recounted. Why would she feel this way? To my amazement, she stated that it was not the United States that did this, it was Bill Clinton. She is forever grateful to him. Now that he is gone, she wants nothing more to do with us. I mentioned that we still have our military in the region, which play a big part in keeping things from tumbling back to where they were only a few years ago. She said that they are there in order to maintain control of the region, just like we are in Iraq… and then she referenced the Michael Moore movie.

So here is the thing, the holes in her logic are obviously of Grand Canyon proportions, but that is not the point. The point is that she did not come to these conclusions herself. Our own media, our own filmmakers, convince the very people who should be eternally grateful, to hate us.

Victory or Exit?

The Democrat's pre-buttal to President Bush's State of the Union speech revealed once again their erroneous thinking on Iraq and the GWOT. On that front, their chief demand seemed to be to define an "exit strategy". It seems that what the Democrats want is for the US to leave Iraq. Whether we win, is not that important to them. But as Frank Gaffney shows, there is nowhere to exit to.

In fact, were America actually to heed the siren's call - issued by Mr. Kennedy before Sunday's remarkable election in Iraq made doing so, at least for the moment, unimaginable - and retreat from the Iraqi front in that war, it would simply assure we will fight these enemies far closer to home and, indeed, in all likelihood here.

Let's be clear: The discredited Left, epitomized by Mr. Kennedy, proposes a reprise of their cut-and-run exit strategy in Vietnam. Just leave and if somebody else wants to take over - say, the United Nations - so be it.

History shows that the longer the US stays in an "occupation", the more likely that we succeed in establishing a viable and productive country. If we leave Iraq within the next five years we are virtually guaranteeing failure there, and more trouble in the Middle East.

Yes, But...

What happened in Iraq this past weekend was truly remarkable. Perhaps the most important Arab country held elections - something that has been unheard of in the modern Middle East. Pretty much everyone recognized the significance of this event...with the exception of the Democrats. Mark Steyn points out that these are the same people who have been wrong about everything over the last 3 years.

AND so the "looming Iraqi election fiasco" joins "the brutal Afghan winter" and "the brutal Iraqi summer" and "the seething Arab street" and all the other junk in the overflowing trash can of post-9/11 Western media fictions. The sight of millions of brave voters emerging from polling stations holding high their purple dye-stained fingers was so inspiring that, from America's Democratic Party to European protest rallies, opponents of the war waited, oh, all of three minutes before flipping the Iraqis their own fingers, undyed.

"No one in the United States should try to over-hype this election," warned John Kerry yesterday before embarking on the world champion limbo dance of Iraqi election under-hyping.

He has a point. One vote does not a functioning democracy make. To be a truly advanced, sophisticated democracy you need an opposition party that knows how to react to good news by sounding whiny and grudging and moving the goalposts. "The real test is not the election," he declared, airily swatting aside 8 million voters. "The real test is..."

The Diplomad calls these people "The Comma-ists".

There is one group of singularly anti-American types who just have had the hardest time imaginable praising the events of January 30. Who are these foul anti-Americans? Has The Diplomad taught you nothing? Why the leaders of the Democratic Party of the USA, of course! The party that has become the party of the Comma-ists. You know what we mean: the types who must always insert a comma after a ritual throw-away phrase. For example: "Of course the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were horrible [Here it comes! Listen for it!] [COMMA] but US policy in the Middle East . . ." "Of course the Iraqi elections were a good thing [COMMA] but they will not resolve the serious issue of severe income inequality in East St. Louis, or the growing gender disparity in the granting of scholarships to welding schools . . ."

I'm not saying that the Right has not made mistakes in the GWOT and in Iraq. But at the very least, they recognize the importance of the elections and celebrate the beginning of democracy and the "march of freedom" in an area that has known neither.

Iran

I think MAH is absolutely right that Iran is next in the sights of the US. Statements out of Cheney and Bolton in the last week are probably meant to try one last time to push Iran to voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons program. At the same time, there was a story on Sunday that the US was refusing to join the EU diplomatic drive against Iran, another move intended to pressure Iran. There are also rumors that Air Tasking Orders (the orders for what kind of planes, what ordnance, and what flight routes are to be used for an attack) have been issued by the Pentagon to units in the area.

The question then is who would actually execute the airstrikes against Iranian facilities and how, assuming that John Pike is right and Iran's facilities are above ground and we know where the vast majority of them are. It seems to me that it is not in either Israel's or the US's interest to have Israel destroy those facilities. First, the routes that Israeli planes would need to fly would be either through Saudi Arabia (an unwelcome prospect even with Saudi Arabia's concern about Iranian nukes), or through US controlled airspace. In any case, the US would be blamed for bombing Iran's facilities. Why take the blame, without getting any of the credit?

Second, and Israeli strike on Iran could cause a much wider regional confrontation. Iran will undoubtedly want to retaliate against Israel for such an attack. It could launch its Shihab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel, though it seems from some reports that those missiles are not fully operational yet. More likely, Iran will activate Hizbullah to fire missiles at Israel. Given the number of missiles that Hizbullah has been given by Iran and Syria, and and the range of those missiles - some able to reach the center of Israel - Israel will have no choice but to respond. The response would need to be a full-scale multi-divisional assault on Hizbullah-land in the south of Lebanon, and would then potentially put Israel in confrontation with Syria. Clearly, this scenario is not one that either Israel or the US wants.

So, barring a revolution in Iran, it seems that unless the US can pressure Iran into completely giving up its nuclear weapons pursuit, the US will need to carry out airstrikes on the Iranian facilities. Hopefully this will spur reformist elements in Iran to rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

"We're not flying over frigging Iran" ... or are we?

A great little article appeared in the Guardian (London) on January 29, 2005:

US jets flying over Iran to spot targets, says source

In-Depth Coverage
By Julian Borger in Washington

The US is increasing the pressure on Iran by sending military planes into its airspace to test the country's defences and spot potential targets, according to an intelligence source in Washington.

The overflights have been reported in the Iranian press and the head of Iran's air force, Brigadier General Karim Qavami, declared recently that he had ordered his anti-aircraft batteries to shoot down any intruders, but there have been no reports of any Iranian missiles being launched.

"The idea is to get the Iranians to turn on their radar, to get an assessment of their air defences," an intelligence source in Washington said. He said the flights were part of the Pentagon's contingency planning for a possible attack on sites linked to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme.

"It make sense to get a look at their air defences, and it makes the mullahs nervous during the EU negotiations (over the suspension of Iranian uranium enrichment)," said John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent military research group.

The flights come after reports of American special forces incursions into Iran. However, former US intelligence officials have said they believe the incursions are being carried out by Iranian rebels drawn from the anti-Tehran rebel group, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, under US supervision.

The US military denied the reports. "We're not flying over frigging Iran," an official said, suggesting Tehran was making up the incidents to attract international sympathy.

And the commentary that must follow: IRAN IS NEXT!!!

Last year's mantra was "No war in '04" (understandable during an election year in the US, yet regrettable nonetheless).

Well, '04 is over and the US has been on a cycle of one-war-every-two-years (Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003). Moreover, our President has finally adopted a long-awaited (by many) "Freedom Doctrine", which was both announced (at his inaugural) and vindicated (by successful Iraqi elections) in the past 30 days.

And if you were shocked when President Bush referred to Iran (as well as Iraq and North Korea) as a full-fledged member of the Axis of Evil in his often-quoted State of the Union Address from a few years ago, then you may be floored in the days and months to come.

So don't be surprised on Wednesday if President Bush goes a lot further than merely calling evil by it's rightful name when referring to the gross lack of freedom in Iran (except, of course, for the Iraqis who live in Iran, who actually had the opportunity to vote this past weekend) during his widely-anticipated (by many) 2005 State of the Union Address.

And if you think that's far-fetched, I would direct you to comments made by Vice President Cheney, who just a few weeks ago said that if you "look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."

By the way, if you're interested in reading about how it could all go down (and if you have some time because this isn't a quick read), I would refer you to a brilliantly-written (in my opinion) piece by John Pike and his team at GlobalSecurity.org, which you can find here.

And one last sidenote - If the US doesn't do it, Israel will. The above-mentioned article cites the following evidence (as well as a ton of additional insightful information about possible Israeli and/or American preemptive options to hit Iran's nuke facilities) that substantiates Israel's determination to keep nukes out of Iran:

The annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel's Knesset on 21 July 2004 noted that Iran's nuclear program is the biggest threat facing Israel, "Maariv" and "Yediot Aharonot" reported on 22 July 2004. Some Likud and Labor Knesset members subsequently called for a preemptive strike against the Iranian nuclear facility. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh (Labor) said, "If the international community's helplessness in the face of the Iranian threat persists, Israel will have to weigh its steps -- and soon." Ehud Yatom (Likud) said, "The Iranian nuclear facilities must be destroyed, just as we did the Iraqi reactor. We must strive to attain the ability to damage and destroy any nuclear capability that might be directed against Israel." On 08 September 2004 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the international community has not done enough to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and warns that Israel will take its own measures to defend itself. He also said Iranian officials have made it clear they seek the destruction of the Jewish state. Israeli Air Force pilots have been practicing attacks on a scale model of the Bushehr reactor in the Negev Desert.

And if you have any reason to doubt that Iran is a threat to Israel (as many do), then I would encourage you to read this (a recent MEMRI report titled" Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial in the Iranian Media), this (another MEMRI report titled "Recent Speeches by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei"), and this (yet another MEMRI report titled "Iran's Political and Military Leadership Call for Martyrdom").

And for those of you who are not familiar with MEMRI, it's the Middle East Media Research Institute, one of the only true sources of non-biased news from sources inside the Middle East. And they even translate it all from Arabic to English so YOU can read what THEY are saying over THERE about US. You know (or you may not) ... it's all those things that Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and what's-his-face-who's-taking-over-for-Dan-Rather won't bother reporting to you because it doesn't support their twisted worldviews.

OK ... Mad's out ... catch y'all later :)

U.S. Official takes a leak

Don’t look now, but here’s another leak to the media about the possibility that Israel may take a preemptive strike at Iran’s nuclear targets of interest.

"The vice president said we're very concerned that this might happen"

One Elder’s take… the concern should be that it does not happen. Back during the first Gulf war, Israel was convinced to show “restraint” as Iraq fired upon its civilians. This restraint inspired respect and admiration from Israel’s neighbors… not. Lesson learned boys and girls.

Breaking News

Dow Jones is reporting

AMHERST, N.Y. (AP)--A Buffalo radio station reported Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is being taken to a hospital after collapsing while delivering a speech to a local Chamber of Commerce.

Update: Doesn't look like its anything serious.