This is just retarded.  "Tar Baby" is a legitimate American literary moral tale. I suppose now it belongs to african-american leftistsand only they can say it ro use it. Personally I think that this false outrage and taking offense to every little quip or verbal comment is what is offensive. For some politican who to get up in the public and try to whip up public outrage and further divide and anger people over something like this is pathetic. As a freeper said "Grow a Hide."

Listening to Bill Bennet this morning prompted me to post this blog.  On his show a caller made an absurd proposition.  Calling for the mobilization of America he endorsed the calling up to arms of every male in America to put their affairs in order and go answer the call of service in the military for a year.

With all due respect this is an utterly ridiculous proposition. First and foremost even during the good old days of World War II not EVERY male in the nation joined the military. Were that to happen today some 30-40 percent of our population (thats 80-95 million people) would just run off and join the military. Not only would our military be TOTALLY unequipped to handle such an influx of personnel but the impact on our economy would be devastating. roughly 60% of the earning power of the country would be gone..not to mention 30-40% of the man power.  Entire segments of the market would be completely eliminated as it would lack the manpower and means to survive such a action.

Not to mention that such a notion is in complete ignorance of the fact that most American families live within a paycheck of insolvency and the male earner is the majority earner in most households. HOw many families would lose there homes as they were no longer able to pay their mortgages. SO this callers solution to our dilemma is to complete denude the country of its working male population destroy our economy and send the vast majority of the population into homelessness and destitution. MArvelous suggestion.

Secondly, such a notion is so impractical and impossible as to say that it will never happen so even theorizing such an outcome is just preposterous. 

Thirdly, what guarantees would we have of winning in a year. What would happen after that year was up?

Fourthly, it is hardly neccessary to be successful in the war against Islamofascism. The problem facing the West in this war on terror is not a lack of man power. We have more than enough military ability and power to achieve the victory we desire. What we are lacking is the political will and leadership to do what needs doing. John Podhoretz asked the right question when he asked "if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war..." 

   This is the pressing question. Not whether we have enough people "sacrificing" but what is the effectiveness of that sacrifice. To call for blanket sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is nonsense. What is the value of such an empty mindless gesture. What good an 80 million man army when no one has the will to use it. What good a society mobilized for war when at the first accidental bombing of civilians we will all be sent home or at least forced to hold up while our politicans did their due diligence in expressing their remorse or outrage or recriminations depending on their affiliation over the incident. 

Most people lack the ability to even define what it is we are fighting with any clear purpose. They have no sense of the real nature of the enemy or the threat. OUr POlitical leadership is spotty at best.  Even President Bush who was so solid after 9-11 has pulled back from an aggressive pursuit of the enemy.  It is his adminstration that sits on its hand playing "diplomacy for diplomacy sake" while Iran moves ever onwards towards a nuclear weapon. It is his administration that send millions in "humanitarian" assistance to Hamas, thus relieving them of the burden of providing for their people and leaving them free to spend their resources fighting Israel. And it is his administration that allows this farce of Syria and Iran to supply their proxy terror group Hezbollah while it fights Israel and asks Israel to show restraint and finish up their task in a couple of weeks.

With such "linguini spined" leadership (to Quote Mark Steyn)  it is clear that we are not yet ready to fight this war and until we are ready any talk of some mass mobilization of our society and calls for "sacrifice" on the part of all are nothing more than empty rhetoric.

War is an ugly business. As Sherman said "War is Hell" As a southerner by birth I Was raised to have a loathing of Sherman. But Sherman was right and despite how most people seem to reproduce that particular quote I do not believe he said it to be flippant. "War is Hell" It should be. One should make it hell on ones enemies. When one makes the decision to go to war one should fight it with every ounce of will and ferocity one can muster. When a decision is made to go to war it must be persecuted with full and absolutely ruthlessness. This should be done not because we are savages seeking to mindlessly slaughter the enemy. BUt because the goal in fighting a war is to destroy your enemy and thus end the fighting. Half measures that leave the enemy alive and kicking to come back another day only prolong the war causing greater destruction, loss of life and misery for longer periods of time.  If a nation is not ready to win a war it should not fight it. If it is not willing to accept that war is a violent destructive act whose purpose is to kill people and destroy an enemies will and ability to respond then it should never enter the fray. 

In the end I do not believe that we have any choice but to fight this war. What's more I believe it is a war that should be fought, for the only word  that can be used to describe our enemy is "evil" and if we can not manage to find it within ourselves to fight evil then we are a disgrace and a failure as a society and as a culture. BUt right now we are not yet ready to fight and to do what must be done. Until then, lets have no more talk of mass mobilizations and everyone ponying up for the sacrifice.

Ok so for the farmers involved it isn't "light" but its still not war and destruction and general mayhem.  I say good for the farmers. They should refuse to comply with this lunacy. Imagine what could have been accomplished if instead of pushing this kind of idiocy the state of Vermont were to take some more rational steps..like stockpiling antivirals and flue vaccines.

I swear sometimes I think that getting elected to public office causes some sort of brain alteration that shuts down the part of the brain responsible for rational thinking.

This article on the UN outpost has my temperature up to boiling.  I get very sick and tired of the lies, corruption, incompetence and general worthlessness of the UN.  This article that outlines that the UN post that was destroyed by Israeli fire was not in fact being targeted but was essentially being used as a shield by Hezbollah. I find it completely  impossible to believe that The UN  (and specifically Kofi Annan) didn't know about this when Mr. Annan accused Israel of intentionally bombing the outpost.

If one assumes (as one must) that since the UN people on the ground knew what was going on then the UN itself knew. Either that or they are grossly negligent, incompetent and irresponsible. While I grant that is entirely possible considering that this is the UN I choose to believe that they are both. That Kofi knew the truth seems to me to be an almost certainty. Which makes his claim an outright lie. To what purpose? No doubt to damage Israel and force it to come to the table. Disgraceful. Of course everyone knows that the UN is essentially an anti-Semitic organization and so such anti-Israeli posturing is to be expected. BUt outright lies that flies in the face of the truth should not be tolerated by our country. Kofi Annan should be forced to explain himself and the Un should be called out on the carpet for this blatant anti-Israeli action.

Victor Davis Hanson has a great article about the fragility of our prosperity. One great thing about Victor Davis Hanson is his incredible sense of history. And the parallels he is able to draw. I would caution that I think too much is made about the decline of the roman Empire and attempting to draw parallels with America today. Victor doesn't draw those same casual comparisons here and his references are apt...but in general uninformed people love to toss out general commentary to that effect when in truth they know nothing about the circumstances that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Thats moving a bit far afield though. Victor Davis Hanson does a fine job of referencing Roman greatness and decline without trying to intimate that we are in some parallel decline as of yet. What he is really talking about is the complacency of Americans in their luxury. I would actually go a step further to attack American liberalism.  I believe most of liberalism is as it exists in America today is a result of prosperity. Not blaming prosperity mind you..but the luxury of thought that leads to such mindless silly hand wringing by the left over what are just inanities.

Could you imagine starving Somalians banding together to form a PETA branch location? Perhaps if the acronym was the People Eating Tasty Animals but the sheer absurdity of starving people getting together to defend a chicken right to life (while at the same time insisting that aborting fetuses is a human right) It is of course ludicrous on its surface. Only a bunch of overindulged spoiled people with more food at there fingertips than they could ever imagine would even conceive of such a notion. The same goes for most other absurd lefty pet projects. Imagine Libya debating whether to open up drilling in the desert because its a pristine wilderness that should be unsullied by man. They don't have the luxury of such a debate so of course it would never even occur to them.  The list could go on and on of all of the foolish ideas that only find traction in a society of overly pampered bored people with the time luxury and money to engage in such tom foolery. The rest of the world..the world that lives daily with the harsh realties of unprivilaged life have no time for such nonsense.
 
Would any nation other than a Western nation engage in the idiocies we do in commenting, overseeing and otherwise tying the hands of our military? Ironically non-western nations such as Russia and China regularly play at sharing our ideals by engaging in criticism of our actions (which the American left takes to heart) but meanwhile their own action tell the real story in places like Chechnia. Do you think Russia gives the Chechnian rebels the same treatment we give our Guantonimo bay prisoners? No wonder the Islamists think we are soft. Look at the silliness we engage in and tolerate in the name of being "progressive".  This latest business about "proportional" warfare is only the latest in western leftward lunacy.

As Victor Davis said however. Its a far more fragile condition than we believe and it could disappear in a heartbeat given the right circumstances.  One wonder how much of that "thin veneer of civilization" would have to be scraped off in order to get ourselves back to a more realist outlook of the world..or would this disease of liberalism stay with us right down the drain pipe of history.

This post by a liberal is just stunning...sort of. Its not stunning in that I expect liberals to be head in the sand, don't confuse me with the fact, living in denial, silly people. But it is stunning in that the existence of WMD's and WMD programs waiting to be reconstituted, the eminent collapse of the containment of Saddam's regime, as well as the collaboration between Saddam and terrorist organizations has now got to be the most documents series of historical facts in history all things considered. You would think they would let it go...but I suppose they feel in typical Nazi style that if they repeat the lie often enough it will become fact.

Regardless this person might want to pause before throwing out accusations of ignorance and confusion about reality.

This really does begin to push my buttons.  There are so many things wrong with this.

1. It is beyond offensive to me that Israel should be expected to accept a ceasefire when at a minimum thier kidnapped soldiers are not returned to them. My patience is very thin..to nonexistent with Arab hypocrasy over Israel and there double standard. I am approaching the point of thinking that Israel should just take the land call off all negotiations and refuse to budge one step further. It seems they are always the ones expected to give and the arabs never give anything in these so called negotiations.

2. The discussions about deploying an intenational force to patrol really miffs me. Teh more I hear about it the more convinced I am that it would end up being a disaster for Israel. They would have their hands tied by teh pressence of such a force. But such a force would lack the means and will to enforce any kind of peace. Just as in Kosovo the Islamists would opperate with relative impunity giving up a gun cache here and there for appearances sake but othertwise oprating under the protective shield of "peacekeepers".

Israel is once again going to get collectively hosed by the "international community" and our state department is leading the charge.

This article demostrates the absurd arrogance of the left as well as there "plantation mentality"

The irony here is that the author of the article answers her own question..she just doesnt realize it.  Her question is Why is Condi a Republican. Her answer lies in when she acknowledges that "she's smart".

This is tragic and unfortunately a reality of war. The question I have is why did Israel bomb it. One assumes that there is a reason or else it was an accident. If it was an accident then as I say it is terribly unfortunate but these things do happen in war. However if it is an intentional act then Israel must have some reason for bombing the UN post. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I have heard stories about how UN peacekeepers have helped Hezbollah before. If the peacekeepers at this site were complicit in some fashion with Hezbollah than sorry to say but the attack is justified. This is of course all entirely speculative and I will reserve any judgement until more is known.

One last thing to add. The MSM in typical fashion is laying the story out as if the IDF did something horribly wrong here. How bout we wait to find out what happened first guys.

This article by Pat Buchanan has prompted this heartfelt reply.

Mr. Buchanan there are times when I seriously wonder about the source of your constant anti-Israeli position. With you, it’s like Israel can never do anything right. You sir, who, were America to be attacked by a rocket barrage from some city in Mexico, would be the first in line screaming for a response.Yet, you can’t seem to find it in you to support Israel even when it is clear beyond any reasonable measure that there actions are not only justified, but indeed far greater action seems demanded. The measure of just how wrong your are here sir ought to be who you find yourself aligned with in your arguments. That you are standing firmly on the opposite side with all the leftists and anti-Semites ought to give you pause.

The first items of your article that stands out as being somewhat out of order is your comment “and the two-week Israeli-Hezbollah war, an artillery exchange by World War II standards, seems to be winding down.” Nice of you to belittle what is a very real conflict and all but more importantly, where do you get the idea that this is winding down? Ground troop are moving into Lebanon and if it isn’t to the extent I think they should it certainly doesn’t constitute a winding down of the conflict.

Of course, you only make it worse by declaring Nasrallah the winner. Well, as I stated this is hardly over enough to be declaring victory for anyone. And I would add that in my view Mr. Nasrallah’s days are probably numbered. Simply because he survived a single attempt to take him out hardly constitutes victory for Hezbollah.

You go on to say that Israel has “shocked her friends” and declared that their response is “a puzzle” Perhaps so to you sir, but to most people Israel’s response is completely understandable. Despite the protestations by typically anti-Semitic nations such as France to the outbreak of combat operations, Israel’s response is entirely justified and within measure. This is after all war. What exactly was Israel to do? Nothing? Was that supposed to lead to some sort of resolution in your world view? Is Israel to keep on doing nothing all the way up to Iran sneaking an atomic bomb into Hezbollah’s hands? Perhaps at the moment Israel has won nothing as of yet...but since the operations are ongoing its too early to tell isn’t it. I would also argue that any wariness on Israel’s part is not out of fear of engaging the enemy but because foolish voices abroad are pressuring them to use restraint.

As for Lebanon, if they are a loser in this then they have only themselves to blame. It is Lebanon that, rather than disarming Hezbollah as required under the agreement that saw Israel withdraw in 2000, instead chose to embrace Hezbollah into the government of Lebanon itself. That makes the government of Lebanon culpable in any action Hezbollah takes. It is a reality of war that civilian populations suffer. They may or may not have supported the actions of their government but unfortunately they have to pay the price because it is THEIR government. Spare me the “innocent Lebanon paying the price. We didn’t spare any thoughts for the residents of Dresden in WWII or for all the innocents in Hiroshima not because we are an immoral nation but because "War is Hell" and cant be fought by wringing your hands. Considering all of the care Israel is taking to avoid civilian casualties it is completely inappropriate for you to bring up the Lebanese as some sort of innocent victims of Israeli aggression anymore than you go around bemoaning all of the innocents who lost there lives in America’s just wars.

As for Lebanon being in danger of being another failed state, I hardly think they had yet to qualify as a successful state so that is a moot point isn’t it? I would concede that the stability of Lebanon would be at issue except that the stability of Lebanon is not only impossible but undesirable if said stability means a peaceful haven from which Hezbollah can work towards its goal of obliterating the Jews. Stability and peace can not be had in a vacuum and people such as yourself should be embarrassed to suggest that Peace can exist while Israel sustains daily attacks against her people. It is not "peace" when one side gets attacked by another indefinately into the future. It is a lie and it is long past time that the diplomats of the world stop retending otherwise.

You also err in declaring Syria a victor and beneficiary and I think are grossly miscalculating the region. If anything in this Syria is in danger of being exposed as irrelevant…little more than a client of Iran. Your proposition that Syria would ever be a legitimate and reliable partner in shutting off arms to Hezbollah is naïve and frankly ignorant of the realities on the ground. While Syria sends terrorists into Iraq daily and supplies them remorselessly to kill our boys all the while denying complicity we are supposed to partner with them to establish peace with a nation that they have NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED has the right to exist. Frankly I am a bit embarrassed for you for suggestion such a ludicrous proposition.

You finish off Pat by arguing that Israel is somehow to blame for its annexation of land and that they are creating failed states on their three borders.

No sir! You are not to be allowed to get away with such a misrepresentation. First off, in all of the history of man, the loss of territory is an accepted international standard for losing armed conflict. Israel has every right to every inch of land it has taken. But even were I to grant that they should give back the Golan Heights I would never argue to them that they must do so with a nation dedicated still and unapologetically to their destruction. And It must be rejected in the most absolute of terms the notion that Israel is responsible for the failure of any bordering states. Israel has never been the aggressor in this conflict. It is not Israel who bilked their people of billions into offshore accounts instead of spending on infrastructure. It is not Israel that built bombs for suicide bombers rather than fund hospitals. It is not Israel that has raised an entire generation to believe that killing themselves in order to kill Jews is the greatest glory a person can achieve. That legacy and the responsibility for it lie completely with the failed leadership of the Arab world.

 

Normally, I am a great admirer of Dennis Prager. He is usually very clear.  This article by him however, is less than stellar. I don't disagree with some of it.  His list of liberal "wrongs" is certainly spot on, and I concede that his argument that there is a difference between the wrong left and the despicable (indecent is his word) left seems to be demarcated fairly clearly over this current crisis. For example one "indecent" human being was on Sean Hannity's show debating Mr. Horowitz. He argued that Israel was over reacting and went so far as to deny that Hezbollah and Hamas were terror organization bent on the destruction of Israel.

BUt I take umbrage to the notion that because someone is willing to defend Israel that they are suddenly decent. Someone who is so "wrong" on almost any issue, unapologetically wrong mind you and completely dedicated to the continuation of being wrong on so many issues moving forward, does not get a free pass into being decent because they side with Israel on the right side this one time.

I would further comment specifically on one person he references in the article.  Jim Carrol writes that he "rejects war" before going on to say something to the extent that he will just have to stomach it in Israel's case this time because they are in the right. (a paraphrase) Well that's mighty big of you Jim. I personally would argue that anyone who states that they "reject war" has lost any claim to any sort of rational meaningful position. By declaring such an idiotic thing they are announcing that they have no understanding not only of all of human history but of human nature and the condition of the human state. War is a far more natural state for mankind than peace. It may be an ugly truth...but its still a truth.

Saying that you "reject war" also means that you reject the notion that something is worth fighting for...worth defending against the ravages of an enemy or heaven forbid evil...but I would argue that someone who "rejects war" most likely has difficulty with such clear cut notions of good and evil. Things are too gray for them.

Regardless someone who holds such a position is so isolated from the reality of the world at large that they forfeit any claim to relevancy in their opinion and should be dismissed out of hand.

It's time for folks to do a gut check on Israel vs. Hezbollah. This article lays out the reality.
Some people are suggesting that NATO should enter into Lebanon to serve as "peacekeepers" In my view this is an idiotic solution. For one thing....we already have major military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan and we need to be able to respond to other threats like Syria/Iran/N Korea...or heaven forbid China. The last thing we need is more troops tied up on the ground dealing with a threat that Israel can manage on their own if they would only be allowed to do it.

People also need to get a grip and realize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They aren't going to just surrender their weapons because NATO shows up and says so. There are two likely outcomes and they would depend on Nato's actions in Lebanon should they enter the fray.

1. NATO and Hezbollah would be at war...which not only doesn't really accomplish the goal of accomplishing peace in the region but also gets OUR troops fired at.

2. NATO would not actually TRY to effectively disarm Hezbollah (much as the have failed to disarm muslim extremists in Kosovo) and so their presence would have the net effect of providing a defensive shield for an Islamist terror organization while it continues to carry out its activities against Israel.

Either outcome is unacceptable...particulary in light of the fact that Israel is more than capable of handling the situation and has the right to do so without our interference.

This make me wonder if Japan threatening to rearm hasnt maybe tweaked China a tad...

A good article..I happen to agree with him. I would however take it a step further.  Destroying Hezbollah is I don't think possible without destroying those who back it. Hezbollah is nothing more than Iran in Israel..some would say it is Syria but I am becoming more convinced that Syria is currently little more than an Iranian client. Regardless, it is long past time to accept that we are engaged in a global war. We can not win the war on terror by allowing the nations that use terrorist organizations to do their dirty work by proxy to go unpunished. Until we wake up as a nation and do what needs doing (eliminate Syria and Iran) we are doomed to be struck again by terrorists..and again..and again. How many people have to die before we do what needs doing.

I try and post Steyn articles whenever I can.