April 2005

Go read. I’ll quote just a snippet:

Sinking Bolton means handing a huge psychological victory to a federal bureaucracy that so spectacularly failed America on 9/11 and to a U.N. bureaucracy eager for any distraction from its own mess. The Democrats’ interest in derailing Bush foreign policy is crude but understandable.

When will the Republicans learn that the best defense is offense, the more the better?

The Senate Republicans need to go see The Untouchables and commit these lines to heart:”He pulls out a knife, you pull out a gun, he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue…that’s the Chicago way!”

When Republicans are up against the Democrats, they need to remember that gentlemen went extinct shortly after WW2, and play the Chicago way.

Here’s how to do it. Reporter says filibuster, Republican Senator says “Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Is that a good precedent?” Reporter says Kennedy, Republican Senator says “unanswered questions on Chappaquiddick“. Reporter says Bolton, Republican Senator says “Oil for Fraud”, “Darfur”, “Rwanda”, or “Cambodia”.


According to this report via Lucianne, Mugabe’s regime is going to slaughter the animals in their wildlife reserves to feed the starving peasants. And, when the animals are gone, what will be left? Certainly not tourism. And the peasants? Weeds and tree bark? Mugabe is going to go down in history as the first despot to commit genocide by incompetence.

Meanwhile, environmentalists fret about obscure animals under threat from housing developments, the NAACP attacks Bush as a racist, and the UN ignores Mugabe’s crimes against black and white Zimbabweans.

Secretary of Transportation.

Christopher Hitchens, writing in Frontpage Magazine, explains why he is a strong supporter of Tony Blair. One sentence caught my attention:

After Sept. 11, 2001, Blair told Bush that he would send ground troops to Afghanistan even if the United States would not.

Perhaps that was just to stiffen Bush’s resolve. Without more context, it’s impossible to say. But, it’s a pretty amazing thing to hear from a leftist/centrist European leader. It would have been even more amazing to hear from a leading Democrat.

But imagine where we’d be if the Democrats had followed Blair’s example. The country would not have been nearly as divided on the war in Iraq had they followed Blair’s example. Quoting Hitchens again:

In 1999, when Bush was still an isolationist governor of Texas, Blair made a speech in Chicago pointing out that Saddam Hussein’s defiance of international law made a future confrontation with him inevitable.

But the Democrats, sensing political advantage in the difficulties posed by the insurgency in Iraq, chose to attack Bush on the war. They chose a known anti-war candidate and lost. But they made WMD (or the lack thereof) a major campaign issue. The problem is that we now face a dire WMD threat from a nuclear armed Iran. Instead of having the country united to face down that threat, we are divided. The Democrats and their MSM allies can say, “you were wrong on Iraq’s WMD, how we can we trust you again”. Of course, they ignore Libya’s nuclear program, the Khan network that supplied it (both exposed, courtesy of John Bolton). They also ignore Saddam’s efforts to maintain his capabilities until sanctions and inspections were suspended.

The result of their efforts to undermine Bush has been to undermine the security of the United States and its allies. They simply made it much harder for Bush to take decisive action. But, with an ally like Blair, Bush stands on much firmer ground and the Democrats are exposed for what they are; not principled liberals but hard-left political opportunists willing to undermine their own country in their pursuit of political advantage. Had they followed Blair and been aggressive in the pursuit of America’s enemies, the electorate would have trusted them with the keys to the country.

The British conservative party has proven to be a mirror image of the Democrats, undermining Blair from the right. It’s a funny old world where the left-wing British Labour Party is more closely aligned with the Republicans than the Democrats. Try to imagine a meeting between Tony Blair and John Kerry. Then again, WW2 saw the great alliance between Democrat FDR and Conservative Winston Churchill. But then, Bush is starting to look a lot like Roosevelt, good and bad.

All the Republicans have to do is promise that they won’t filibuster the next Democratic President’s judicial candidates. This would have the virtue of reminding the Democrats that setting the filibuster precedent will backfire on them when their turn comes.

But then again, maybe that’s why the Democrats want to filibuster — they don’t rate their chances of regaining the Presidency very highly.

Andrew G. Bostom at American Thinker discusses Professor Vahakn Dadrian’s study of the Armenian genocide that took place early last century. It makes horrific reading. It seems no one really wants to talk about what really happened but Dadrian has been meticulous in his research. This passage reads like something out of The Scourge of the Swastika: A Short History of Nazi War Crimes but with religious overtones that makes the crimes even more horrific, if that is possible:

In a 2003 essay collection [2], Dadrian recounted the harrowing details of this particular slaughter, its Islamic religious motifs unexpurgated. Six thousand four hundred Armenian children, young girls, and women from Yozgad, were decamped by their Turkish captors at a promontory some distance from the city. Then,

To save shell and powder, the gendarmerie commander in charge of this large convoy had gathered 10,000-12,000 Turkish peasants and other villagers, and armed with “hatchets, meat cleavers, saddler’s knives, cudgels, axes, pickaxes, shovels”, the latter attacked and for some 4-5 hours mercilessly butchered the victims while crying “Oh God, Oh God” (Allah, Allah). In a moment of rare candor, this gendarmerie commander confided to the priest-author, whom he did not expect to survive the mass murder, that after each massacre episode, he spread his little prayer rug and performed the namaz, the ritual of worship, centered on prayer, with a great sense of redemption in the service of Almighty God.

Why is this important now? Bostrom writes:

Yet ninety years after the events of April 24, 1915, the Turkish government persists in its denials of the Armenian genocide, abetted by a well-endowed network of unsavory political and pseudo-academic sycophants operating with the imprimatur of morphing geostrategic rationales—formerly, “Turkey as a bulwark against Communism”, and now, “Turkey as a bulwark against radical Islam”. This leeway afforded Turkey is both illogical and morally indefensible. West Germany was arguably a much more direct and important ally against the Soviet Communist bloc, while each successive post-World War II West German administration, from Adenauer through Kohl, made Holocaust denial a punishable crime. Moreover, there is burgeoning evidence, available almost daily, that both Turkey’s government under the Muslim ideologue Erdogan (see here as well) and large swaths of the Turkish media and intelligentsia (see, “Turkish Media Project”) hardly qualify as “bulwarks against radical Islam”. Indeed, Turkey’s contemporary Islamic “revival” is of particular relevance to the tragic events that transpired between 1894 and the end of World War I, because the Armenian genocide was in large measure a jihad genocide.

So, the big question is, in the war against Radical Islam, is Turkey an ally or playing a long-term game going back to the last Caliph? The Turk’s refusal to allow the allies to open a northern front against Saddam, an action that arguably cost thousands of allied soldiers and Iraqi people their lives, does not bode well.

PatriotBlog notes that:

Bolton was the inspiration for the Bush administration’s proliferation security initiative (PSI), which seeks to curtail the sale and trade in weapons materials through such things as joint ship inspections. And Bolton was seen as effective in negotiating European and Asian participation in the PSI – even though it is a signature Bush administration “coalition of the willing” initiative that sidesteps the UN.

“His idea was to create a new initiative without any international institution participation at all, so it’s hard to see that as a recommendation for making him ambassador to the UN,” says Nancy Soderberg, a security expert at the International Crisis Group in New York … Ms. Soderberg … was also on the National Security Council in the Clinton White House

Ms. Soderberg and like-minded critics are too concerned about pleasing the international community and not enough about results or America’s interests. The PSI has been far more effective in stopping nuclear proliferation than the United Nations body, the IAEA. The PSI uncovered Khan’s nuclear market and Libya’s nuclear weapons program, not the IAEA. If the UN is to be of any use in promoting peace and security it needs to become more effective. To date it has been useless across the globe. East Timor – no use. Rwanda – no use. Sudan – no use. The Balkans – no real use. Millions have died or been turned into refugees because the UN is worse than useless. Meanwhile, a lucky few have become incredibly rich through the UN’s oil-for-fraud program. That’s why the UN is worse than useless.

The UN desperately needs reformation. John Bolton is the man to start the process.

Next Page »