I am a regular reader of Kathy Shaidle's Five Feet of Fury. Many times I agree with her, sometimes I don't, but she is always compelling. She has a wonderful way of packing a lot of meaning into few words. I've always admired people who can do that...it's a talent I wish I had.
Kathy and numerous other prominent conservative Canadian bloggers are being sued by one Richard Warman, a man who -- on a habitual basis -- actually sues people for offending his delicate sensibilities and wins. No he is not laughed out of court, he wins. Another one of the defendants, Ezra Levant, explains the lawsuit and Warman's background. Warman is a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is some sort of Orwellian star chamber used to regulate and punish people for saying the "wrong" things and having the "wrong" opinions. Like so many things in government, it started out as something to help protect the rights of the weak, but is now being used by those with a sense of entitlement to bully others.
Kathy and her fellow Canadian bloggers will need help fighting this lawsuit:
We can only fight this man's attempt to silence conservative opinion if we have international support: both moral and financial.
This lawsuit will cost me at least $30,000 to fight.
And fight it I will.
Richard Warman's friends at the Canadian Human Rights Commission say "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.
Well, some Canadians DO believe in freedom of speech.
Please help Kathy if you are able. If the Canadian bloggers who are being sued win this lawsuit, it will be a tremendous step forward towards true free speech in Canada. If Warman wins, the enemies of free speech will become further entrenched.
The failed Bay of Pigs invasion happened many years before I was born, but I was familiar with the generalities: that exiled Cubans tried to take back their country, but were unable to do so because America didn't help them. However, until reading this series of essays at Babalu Blog, I didn't fully realize the tremendous bravery of the Cubans who fought this battle and of the disgusting way the Kennedy Administration betrayed them. Here are a few excerpts:
Fontova mentions that Brigade 2506 was outnumbered by Cuban troops by almost 40 to 1! Two-to-one, or three-to-one are staggering enough odds, but forty-to-one? Nevertheless, it took the Soviet-backed Cuban forces three entire days to defeat a group of 2,000 men, and this was only after they ran out of ammunition. [...]
Kennedy's decision not to engage angered many of the Navy trainers who worked with the Brigade before the battle. Four of the trainers decided to go anyway. Their names are Thomas "Pete" Ray, Riley Shamburger, Leo Baker and Wade Gray, and they were officers in the Alabama Air Guard. Against steep odds, they decided to stick with their fellow combatants. All four died on their first missions.
"The Republicans have allowed a communist dictatorship to flourish eight jet minutes from our borders," accused John F. Kennedy during his famous debate with Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign. "We must support anti-Castro fighters. So far these freedom fighters have received no help from our government."
Two weeks before that crucial debate in October of 1960, JFK had been briefed by the CIA (on Ike's orders) about Cuban invasion plans (what would later be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion). So JFK knew perfectly well the Republican administration was helping Cuban freedom fighters. But since the plans were secret, he knew perfectly well Nixon couldn't rebut.
Which is to say, to blindside his Republican opponent Kennedy relied on that opponent's patriotism. Let's face it, Republicans are at a woeful disadvantage here. Nixon bit his tongue. He could easily have stomped Kennedy on it. But to some candidates national security (and those freedom fighters' lives) outweighs debating points.[...]
"Where are the PLANES?" kept crackling over the invasion ships' radios. That was their commander, Pepe San Roman, roaring into his radio from the beachhead between artillery concussions. Soviet howitzers were pounding 2,000 rounds into the desperately embattled men (and boys). "Send planes or we CAN'T LAST!" San Roman yelled while watching the Russian tanks close in, his ammo deplete and his casualties pile up.
The pleas made it to Navy Chief Admiral Arleigh Burke in Washington, D.C., who conveyed them in person to his commander in chief.
JFK was in a white tux and tails that fateful night of April 18, 1961, having just emerged from an elegant Beltway ball. For the closing act of the glittering occasion Jackie and her charming beau had spun around the dance floor, to the claps, coos and titters of the delighted guests. In the new president's honor, the band had struck up the Broadway smash "Mr. Wonderful."
"Two planes, Mr. President!" Burke sputtered into his commander in chief's face. The fighting admiral was livid, pleading for permission to allow just two of his jets to blaze off the carrier deck and support those desperately embattled freedom fighters on that shrinking beachhead.
"Burke, we can't get involved in this," replied Mr. Wonderful.
"WE put those boys there, Mr. President!" the fighting admiral exploded. "By God, we ARE involved!"
Mr. Wonderful refused to help the freedom fighters. The advice from his Best and Brightest again prevailed. The election was over, you see. Now his "leadership" was on full display.[...]
"Russian tanks overrunning my position," San Roman on his radio again, "destroying my equipment." crackle ... crackle ... crackle ... "How can you people do this to us?" Finally the radio went dead.
"Tears filled my eyes," writes CIA man Grayston Lynch, who took that final message. "I broke down completely. Never in my 37 years have I been so ashamed of my country."
If JFK had not been assassinated, and therefore remembered as some sort of martyr shrouded in the carefully packaged "Camelot" mythology, I think history would have judged him far more harshly.
I went off on a tangent commenting on my capital punishment post. The tangent has to do with this story.
I have just a couple of things to add. First, if these guys are really peace activists and pacifists, it seems to me they should be evenhanded in the way they condemn violence and war. But they aren't. This is why I put "peace" in scare-quotes and why I think this is simply an anti-American outfit trying to pass itself off as being a peace group.
Why didn't they protest Hussein's millions of atrocities, which were committed openly and as a matter of policy? Why are minor American sins worth protesting, when huge, egregious, Hitler-scale Iraqi sins don't even justify a press conference?
Answer: because peace isn't what these people are about. They're about shitting on the USA.
I pray that no American soldier lifts a finger to help them. Our brave fighting men and women have no business risking their precious blood for America-hating attention whores who undermine the troops who offer their lives to protect their right to whine and obstruct.
You say you're a peacemaker? Fine. Make peace with your captors. Show us how diplomacy works with these people. This is your defining moment. Talk your captors into setting you free, and make fools of everyone who supports our troops and our President.
I was doing a bit of blog-surfing before going to church this morning. One post I ran across was some lefty Christian blogger dumping on the military. Typical and not surprising, but it still makes me angry.
I laugh when I hear idiots rant about the weapons America allegedly sold Saddam.... Where are all the American planes, tanks, bombs, missiles, rockets, munitions, rifles, mines, etc.??? How come they look so - Russian? Is that also some kind of sinister Bush/Halliburton/Israeli scheme? Oh I get it - Dow Chemicals sold Saddam some fertilizer 25 years ago that was used for non-fertilizing purposes. Riiiiight.... [...]
I hope to see a free, secure Iraq someday soon. I am working hard for that. I am working hard to stop terrorists from stealing that hope and vision from the majority of Iraqis. I hope politicians quit striving to portray this effort as a failure in order to gain political ground. I hope the MSM quits LYING and starts reporting the other side of Iraq - the 98% that is positive.... I'm not holding my breath.
What is the purpose of the military? Discoshaman reminds us of the answer to that question. It's an answer that makes some people very uncomfortable:
Part of the soldier's job is to kill people, and to do so with a certain amount of enthusiasm and initiative. There's a large segment of the American people who would like to forget what the military is for. As my Sergeant-Major used to explain, it's to "Kill people and break things." It is not, as the Namby-Pamby Caucus would like to believe, the world's most elite airborne soup kitchen.
In a New York Post opinion piece, Ralph Peters puts it this way:
We've come to a sad state when a Marine who has risked his life repeatedly to keep our country safe can't speak his mind, while any professor who wants to blame America for 9/11 is defended by legions of free-speech advocates. If a man like Mattis hasn't earned the right to say what he really believes, who has?
Had Gen. Mattis collapsed in tears and begged for pity for the torments war inflicted on him, the media would have adored him. Instead, he spoke as Marines and soldiers do in the headquarters tent or the barracks, on the battlefield or among comrades. And young journalists who never faced anything more dangerous than a drunken night in Tijuana tried to create a scandal.
Finally, I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis said about this general subject in Mere Christianity:
When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major -- what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight -- the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause -- is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage -- a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.
But doesn't this statement pretty much drive home the kind of attitude we don't want when it comes to defending this country? Here's what Lileks has to say:
Mosquito bites are a nuisance. Cable outages are a nuisance. Someone shooting up a school in Montana or California or Maine on behalf of the brave martyrs of Fallujah isn't a nuisance. It's war.
But that's not the key phrase. This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.
But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were.No. I don’t want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nighmares are their dreams.
We have to get back to the place we were.
No. We have to go the place where they are.
While on this subject, if you haven't already read them, please do read Bill Whittle's latest essays: DETERRENCE (part 1) and DETERRENCE (part 2). Trust me...they are worth your time. Those of you on the left and right who opposed us going to Iraq or think Iraq was a mistake should especially read these essays...if you dare.
I'm sure you've heard about Security Moms, women who are concerned about the security and defense of this country. These are women who see this issue as being their main concern when deciding who to vote for in November.
I have to admit I've felt a little left out of the whole Security Mom thing. While I am in complete agreement with the concern for defense issues, I'm not yet a mother. Well, via Jen Speaks, I found another description that would include people like me -- Eowyn Voters:
You mess with me and the people I love -- I take offense to that. You stand aside and let other people mess with me and the people I love -- I take offense to that too. I'm not a fan of war, I have no great desire to be a warblogger, but it is because I long for peace, true peace, that I choose to fight the war that is upon us. I choose to fight by blogging, I choose to fight by voting, and if I ever find myself in a situation where I have to physically fight for my life or for those around me, I will choose that as well.
So, consider me an Eowyn Voter, too. In fact, I'm going to slap one of these handy banners on the sidebar.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.
Abu Ghraib is that wound, or threatens to be. It will lead to exposure of other "atrocities," real and imagined. It will draw a line from a prison in Iraq to prisons here in America, and will lead to an airing of our worst side in the middle of a war in which our moral authority is indispensible to victory. The world already hates and fears us; seeing us as a truly abusive power, in living color, will dash whatever sympathy the world may have still held for us. Abu Ghraib will also paint us into a corner in which we will no longer be able to use serious methods to interrogate dangerous terrorists who may have information on future attacks. It will give a hostile press and our political opposition something to exploit, and will give the anti-war movement renewed energy. As the war has heated up, fringe leftist rhetoric has gone mainstream, with Democrats spouting "Bush knew!" and accusing him of plotting the war for purely political purposes. There is even a returned US soldier from Iraq playing Kerry's latter day mini-me. The Vietnam-era anti-war movement is back in force, ready to turn America once again from sure victory to catastrophic defeat.
Is the cultural rot too deep? Are Americans still strong and decent enough to see this thing through? Or are we weak and decadent like our enemies say we are?
The past few months, the anti-war crowd and the Iraq War skeptics have been doing the superior dance all over their blogs and in blog comments because of the (supposed) lack of WMDs found in Iraq.
One has to wonder why Saddam simply wasn't more cooperative if he was innocent of having WMDs. He could have prevented the whole war, and he could be still living in palaces, funding terrorism, torturing people, feeding them into plastic shredders and burying them in mass graves with impunity. (All while the good pacifists wipe away their crocodile tears and look the other way, as they usually do.)
As Steve H. points out, a mobile bioweapons lab was found several months ago, but this find was quickly pooh-poohed and swept under the rug by the anti-war/war-skeptic crowd. Dean Esmay says the same thing will happen with the latest WMD find. Dean also reminds us that the WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq. I admit that the WMDs loomed large in my own mind at the time. But now, with all the other things that have come out, I realize that there were many more reasons why Saddam's regime needed to be taken out. I truly believe we did the right thing.
I'm as frustrated as Steve and Dean are. They're right...no matter what is found in Iraq, the same crowd will just ignore it. They will also ignore the torture, mass graves and terrorist funding. And they will keep doing their superior dance. So, to hell with them.
What he said. I've always been irritated with those who snark and snicker every time the threat level is raised. Mainly because these are probably the first people who would screech and point their fingers if there were no warning and another attack occurred.
"The devil has told you that! The devil has told you that!" cried the little man, and in his anger he plunged his right foot so deep into the earth that his whole leg went in, and then in rage he pulled at his left leg so hard with both hands that he tore himself in two.
Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers - and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:
And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.
It goes almost without saying that most of the left didn't and still don't support our intervention in Iraq. Human rights abuses had been a fixture of that country for decades, where a bloody tyrant killed anyone who became inconvenient. He hated America, hated our power, hated everything about us. He also, according to the consensus of such right-wing bodies as the United Nations Security Council, failed to comply with binding resolutions aimed at depriving him of horrible weapons he could use to kill or blackmail people in Israel, Europe and America. But none of that mattered to the left--they didn't support intervention, even when the pre-war argument that our very national security was at stake was compelling. If we find more evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons programs, the national security case for war will be iron-clad, but the left will never admit it was wrong.
Now, tiny and insignificant Liberia is embroiled in a civil war. It has been bloody, but by no means a threat to American security, and probably less bloody than the average day in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Saddam's Iraq. From the UN and elsewhere come calls for American intervention--from the same people who said we would fail in Afghanistan, the same people who didn't want us to use our military for its intended purpose of national self-defense.
Now, you can make a good case for involving the American military in these peacekeeping missions. Rev. Mike makes a compelling argument for such interventions (in this case, regarding Rwanda):
Contrary to those who would argue that peacekeeping and humanitarian missions are not part of the core mission for our military, I would argue that when other guys with guns are the root cause of the humanitarian crisis, then who else are we supposed to send?
Personally, I'm of two minds about this subject. Part of me agrees with Rev. Mike -- if we can do something, then perhaps we should. But then there's a part of me that says, "Why is it our job to be the world's rent-a-cops, especially since we get nothing but grief for it anyway?"
What gets me is the double standard pointed out in the JYB post. I posted about this in Rev. Mike's comments, and I'll reiterate my point here. What I want to say to those who whined about us going to Iraq, and are now whining because we don't go to other places is this: What on earth can America do to please you? It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we dare use our military to actually defend our country (which is what the military is for), we are condemned as warmongers and imperialists. However, if we try to stay out of situations that don't directly affect our national security, we are condemned for being uncaring. You don't want us to be "imperialists," but yet you want us running around at your beckon call beck and call, putting out fires all over the place. Will you please make up your damned mind?
Here's my proposal. On July 9, as many blogs as possible focus on the struggle for freedom in Iran. It's the anniversary of the pro-democracy protests that have been going on for years. I'll devote the week after July 4 to this issue, culminating in July 9...Many people have theorized about the power of the web to bring about change and the young generation in Iran must know this as well as any group of people. So let's try and use it - if only to send a symbol of solidarity with those resisting the theo-fascists who have wrecked Iran for three generations.
Rev. Mike then issues a challenge:
Andrew has started the ball rolling, and a number of secular blogs have picked it up and run with it as well. I'm game. How about the rest of you Christian bloggers? If two or more of us blog something in Jesus' name, what might happen?
Instead of updating my previous WMD post, I decided to start a new one. Here are some more blog posts about WMDs and whether we have found sufficient proof of their existence:
Bill at Thinklings comments on this Mona Charen column. Charen reminds us that Iraq did indeed once possess these weapons -- even the left's beloved U.N. has confirmed this. She is also inclined to believe that these weapons are well hidden and that the will eventually be found. She ends her column with this:
The capacity of Bush' opponents to believe the worst about him -- even if it means giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein -- is staggering.
...We decided to settle on the WMD reason primarily because we first decided to go through the UN while building up our forces. This strategy then allowed Saddam to disperse his WMD to Syria, while importing all the terrorists and Fedayeen that threaten us with counterattacks even now. It's also allowed the Democrats to now launch a parallel post-war counterattack in the media.
Had we used Salman Pak as our primary cause for a clear war of self-defense on a terrorist state, we wouldn't have had the UN and the French to damage our power and prestige. Then the American people (and Turkey) would have also jumped onboard much faster. The warplan was very different for that political track, but the Pentagon had a plan, and we then could have had a measure of strategic surprise in our attack timing.
Unfortunately, the NY Times put that leaked plan on the front page, hoping to force us to abandon it or get our troops killed in larger numbers. That was treasonous, and it's a shame people got away with it.
My final thoughts on the WMD question (at least for a while)...even if they do find them, the usual suspects will never admit that they're wrong. They will either cook up some nutjob conspiracy theory and say that Bush planted them, or they will spin the information in some other way that makes America out to be the source of all evil in the world.
Given all that, I couldn't possibly care less if the entirety of the "WMDs" discovered in Iraq amount to a squirt gun and a bottle of Chlorox. It's like breaking into John Wayne Gacy's house and finding out that there's only one kid's shinbone in his crawlspace, and not dozens of children's corpses. Who the hell cares?
Also, Joshua Claybourn links to a poll that, if accurate, would indicate that the WMD question is not a big deal to a majority of the American people. He also recommends this William F. Buckley column: Who Screwed Up?
After all, you don't refuse to tell how you destroyed your WMD, have thousands of chem protection suits made for your soldiers, refuse to cooperate with inspectors, build rockets that can carry WMD, keep your scientists from talking to inspectors, have bioweapon labs made, & take tens of billions of dollars in sanctions losses if you don't have a WMD program.
If they are never found, I am inclined to accept that explanation. After all, what better way to humiliate the United States and President Bush than to smuggle the weapons out of the country or destroy them on the eve of war. Saddam knew darn well the anti-war crowd would believe him over the U.S. any day.
I have to say, if it turns out that the Bush Administration did lie and mislead the public, I will have no more use for them.
But, if there were no WMDs, was the Iraq war for nothing? No. It was worth it to take out a dangerous, terror-supporting regime and to free the Iraqi people.
WHY AM I UPSET THAT WE HAVEN’T FOUND THOSE NASTY WEAPONS YET?
Yes – it does bother me that we haven’t found Saddam’s chemical and biological weapons, but not for the reasons you might suspect. Saddam was removed from power because he failed to provide the evidence that he had destroyed those weapons. The U.N. resolutions required this of him, and he failed to comply. Those same resolutions said that any member nation could use force to compel him to comply .. and that’s exactly what some member nations did.
My reason for concern is our intelligence capabilities. If we were so sure he had those weapons, why haven’t they been found? Certainly our intelligence agencies were telling Bush that Saddam definitely had them … so, where are they? If they’re not to be found, what does this say about our intelligence capabilities? In this age of Arab Islamic terrorism directed against the people of the United States we can ill afford intelligence lapses like this.
Update 2: For more about WMDs, please see my latest post on this subject.
If you will remember, I linked to this story by Ken Joseph, Jr. a few days ago. At the time, I noted that the website had said that the tapes were going to be on ABC news, but that information had been removed.
Well, I just got a comment to that post with some more information on the tapes:
Regarding Ken Joseph, I just got this from them:
Sorry for the confusion. We had an exclusive with BW/ABC setup, but they kept delaying, so we backed out of the offer. They wanted a black out on media. So, the interview will not air.
Ken is slated to be live via satellite tonight on MSNBC -- either at 8pm or 10pm ET -- they haven't determined which yet.
We're having problems getting the tapes here from Amman and edited, too.
Posted by Matt at April 3, 2003 01:44 PM
I will be watching MSNBC tonight. I hope they get the glitches worked out. Thanks to Matt for the update!
Sitting next to me was an older man who carefully began to sound me out. Apparently feeling the freedom to talk in the midst of the mingling crowd he suddenly turned to me and said `There is something you should know.` `What` I asked surprised at the sudden comment.
`We didn't want to be here tonight`. he continued. `When the Priest asked us to gather for a Peace Service we said we didn't want to come`. He said.
`What do you mean` I inquired, confused. `We didn't want to come because we don't want peace` he replied.
`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued.
What in the world are you talking about? I blurted back.
That was the beginning of a strange odyssey that deeply shattered my convictions and moral base but at the same time gave me hope for my people and, in fact, hope for the world.
(Yesterday, the Assyrian Christian website had a page saying that the tapes that Ken Joseph made of Iraqi citizens telling their stories were to be aired on ABC news next week. Now it's gone. Strange...)
Only those afflicted by the disease of moral relativism, which blinds them to right and wrong, cannot see which regime is worth fighting for.
Not all anti-war protesters are moral relativists, but the belief system underpins the movement, as a lawyer and former US Marine, Adam Mersereau, wrote in an article for National Review Online last week. "Many people who are anti-war are anti-war not merely because war is violent and inhumane, but because war is the ultimate statement of moral certainty - it is the ultimate in 'judgmentalness'. For the enlightened person, war is never the answer because he can never identify with certainty an evil that must be confronted, or a cause that is unquestionably just."
Finally, Rachel Lucas has this amazing story told by a Naval officer acquaintance of hers. Apparently, the officer's mother indicated on a bumper sticker that she was a proud of her son. Some busybody took offense at this:
"Excuse me but I hope you know that your child is a murderer," the woman in the Mercedes yells at my mother. My mother doesn't even respond because she is completely shocked. "Your child is over there killing and murdering and maiming innocent women and children! He's nothing more than a cold-blooded killer! How dare you call yourself a parent knowing you raised a barbarian!"
At this point my mother can scarcely believe what she's hearing. And it's important to understand that my mother is one the most non-confrontational people on God's green earth. She wouldn't know how to yell at someone even if she wanted to, now matter how provoked and justified she might have been. She does manage to muster the chutzpah to say: "You bitch!" (Go Mom!)
This is where it gets almost surreal.
This woman actually has the gall to be shocked and insulted at my mother's response.
I think this guy's mother showed amazing restraint.
(*Just a warning -- the post on Josh's site may crash your browser if you're using IE.)
These are the coffins of six members of the United States Air Force. They did not die as a result of enemy fire. They died while attempting to transport Afghani children to a US medical facility for treatment. That is what the United States does. To all those who say, "...but what about Afghanistan? We haven't fixed it yet..." and other such whining, I say: screw you. Six brave airmen died trying to make life better for children and their families who were brutalized under a tyrannical theocratic regime.
Of course, we never get any credit for things like this. And getting credit isn't the reason you do things like this. You do it because it's the right thing to do. But it would be nice if the anti-war crowd would drop the "eee-vil Amerikkka, enemy of world peace" crap and actually acknowledge things like this once in a while. But then, I'm still waiting for them to condemn Saddam and his regime as vociferously as they condemn America. Looks like I'll be waiting a long time...
... why the Russians were so anxious to keep the United States out of Iraq.
Over the weekend we heard stories that the Russians have been quite active in the war effort. Quite active strengthening the hand of Saddam Hussein. We now know that Russian companies have sold several thousand night vision goggles to the Iraqi army. This removes some of the advantage that coalition troops would have during night battles.
It' gets worse.
It has now been disclosed that Russian companies, with the complete and full knowledge of the Russian government, have been selling devices to Saddam Hussein that can be used to jam the GPS signals that guide American precision-guided bombs to their targets. In fact, Russian technicians were in Iraq last week showing the Iraqi government how to use this equipment. The GPS jamming systems were hidden in shipments of humanitarian aid to Iraq during the past few months. And just who was sending this humanitarian aid? The United Nations, of course. Now we have to wonder if there was complicity on the part of some U.N. officials in shipping these military devices to Saddam Hussein.
It should be said that when the GPS signals to the precision bombs are jammed, these bombs lose their precision guidance and will strike in unintended areas. Civilians may well die in those unintended strikes ... all because the Russians want to help the Iraqis save their military targets. So, Iraqis use jamming devises to cause GPS guided bombs to miss their targets. When the bombs miss the Iraqis carry foreign journalists to see where they struck, and claim that Americans are targeting Iraqi civilians ... all with the help of our friends the Russians.
And wait again! There's still more! We also learned that Russians sold anti-tank guided missiles to the Iraqis, and that these weapons were delivered within the past two months.
I was going to write a post about the war and about the "peace" protests. But I'm sure you can predict what I was going to say anyway. So, instead of an essay or rant, I'm simply going to link to a few posts from various blogs with pictures and/or stories involving war and peace protests. You can draw your own conclusions...
I went to Pep Boys a few months ago to get a new battery put in my car. After reading this story, I won't be going back until they stop breaking the law and start doing the right thing by our military reservists.
Not only for Iraq, but also for the United Nations. This will be the day that we discover if the United Nations has any relevancy in the age of terrorism and petty dictators with dangerous weapons.
The United Nations is discovering today what a true ultimatum is. An ultimatum is not a 12-year series of “last chances” followed by appeasement, followed by another last chance, followed by more appeasement, followed by an ultimatum, followed by … nothing.
Midnight today. There, Kofi Annan. That’s an ultimatum. Sit back and watch this one go by … please.
Yeah .. I want the U.N. to continue to fail to act. The United Nations has shown itself yet again to be dangerous to the United States. It is, and always has been an essentially anti-American institution. The most frightening aspect of this whole Iraq-American drama has been the stupefying number of American people who seem to not only be willing, but actually eager to surrender American sovereignty to this anti-American body. Come on, people. Are you serious? You want the nation of Cameroon to have a say-so as to whether or not the U.S. can act in what it perceives to be its own national interests? What kind of insanity is this?
Do you know that the root of the word “resolution” is? It’s “resolve.” The United Nations has none. George Bush does.
In Maine, children of military personnel are being harassed...by their teachers and principals. These elementary school children, along with facing the hardship of having one of their parents away on a dangerous mission in Iraq, are also being told by school authority figures that their parents are evil people. Yet another example of peace-loving tolerance from the NEA-driven public government schools.
Many people in the "anti-war" side of blogdom have paid lip-service to acknowledging the oppression of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein. However, they're against the U.S. overthrowing Saddam because somebody might get hurt. What they fail to realize is that if Saddam stays in power, many more will get hurt in Iraq and, eventually, elsewhere.
Dean Esmay has a new online campaign aimed at bringing attention to some brave Iraqis who want to take their country back. I'm honored to participate in Dean's campaign and place the following graphic and link on my sidebar.
Bill Whittle makes an excellent, well thought-out case as to why Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. He argues his case from the heart as well as from the mind. The essay is lengthy, but well worth taking the time to read, no matter what your opinion on this issue is.
Neal Boortz posted this intriguing item on today's Nealz Nuze:
JUST SO YOU DON’T SLEEP WELL TONIGHT
Attendees at a recent high-level policy seminar on the East Coast last weekend heard a presentation from an acknowledged expert on terrorism and the Middle East. Yeah … I’m being vague here. My source didn’t want me to name names.
This expert said that President [Bush] couldn’t have been more right when he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil” in the world today. He then set forth the following scenario:
1. Osama Bin Laden is, indeed, quite alive and is presently in Iran. American authorities are aware that he is alive, and know where he is.
2. Even prior to 9/11 there was continuous communication between Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il and Saddam Hussein as they hatched a plan to bring the west, and particularly America, to its knees. US authorities are also aware of these communications.
3. When the United States actually launches its war on Iraq, North Korea will immediately invade South Korea – knowing that the United States is not able to maintain two major battle theatres at the same time. Again, U.S. Authorities are fully aware of this operational plan.
Fact? Hey, I don’t know. Let’s just call it a “scenario.” It is certainly easy to see how this could be true. You have to admit, it’s a dammed good game plan. America is pledged to protect South Korea from the North. We have 37,000 soldiers over there right now. If Bush has to quickly withdraw those soldiers in order to save their lives, and leave South Korea to suffer its fate, American prestige would be desperately damaged worldwide. Can’t you just see the celebrations among the “We hate America” crowd as the United States tucks its tail in Korea and runs? What an incredible victory this would be for Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong-il.
This could be a very interesting year.
If true, this is pretty alarming. It would help explain a lot of things, though.
I’ve been reading some disturbing articles and blog posts about the looming threat of smallpox being used as a biological weapon. William Quick over at Daily Pundit has an analysis of some recent news that Iraq may have an extremely virulent strain of the virus that our vaccines may be useless against. What he has to say is alarming, but it makes a lot of sense. Feces Flinging Monkey also has this post about what a smallpox plague would mean for the whole world. (WARNING! The FFM link has some very graphic and upsetting pictures of smallpox victims.)
I know this information is very worrying. I'll probably have trouble sleeping tonight thinking of it. But we all have to realize the extreme danger we are in.
JunkYardBlog has more on John Doe #2 and Jose Padilla here, here, here and here. Bryan Preston has refrained from any conspiracy-mongering and simply presents the information, letting readers draw their own conclusions. My conclusion? Well, JD#2 and Padilla do look very much alike, except that the sketch of JD#2 shows him to be more square-jawed than Padilla. I've never believed that there was no John Doe #2. I'm not convinced that JD#2 is Padilla, but I think it's a possiblity that should be investigated.
I was looking at my Lindsey-inspired rant of last night and I want to add one thing. My rant was directed at the American civilian population and certain parts of the government. I'm sure our military people who are fighting terrorism see the real dangers and are not complacent.
Right after 9/11, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. The anthrax scare, although scary, didn't seem to be the other shoe. But I realize now that the terrorists are waiting. They've been waiting for us to think things are back to "normal" again. They've been waiting for us to be lulled back into complacency. I agree with many who have said that the decision to not allow pilots to be armed sends a dangerous signal that we are not serious in this fight against terrorism. It is a sign of weakness to our enemies that people are still worried about PC bullcrap and "racial profiling", that the "federalized/professionalized" airport security are more likely to search little old ladies than middle-easterners, and that anybody still listens to anything CAIR has to say. Our enemies think we are weak and decadent, and as much as I hate to say this, we as a people are not doing much to prove them wrong.
How many more people are going to have to die before we buck up, get strong, tell the people who are spreading weakness in America to shut the hell up, and do what we need to do?