Labor Day weekend is upon us and I am hitting the road within the hour.

No more blogging until Tuesday.

Hope everyone has a great holiday.

This article by Mark Steyn  had this little ditty that just...well read it for your self.

...he argues, a mid-air plane switch took place on three of the jets. "The passengers of one of the flights died in an aerial explosion over Shanksville, Pa.," he writes, "and the remaining passengers (and aircraft) were disposed of in the Atlantic Ocean."

I read that and was just honestly stunned. I know that there are cooks and nut jobs out there. I am hardly naive in that sense. But it is really just something that can take you back a bit when someone demonstrates the complete, absolute and utter insanity.  Yes I know complete, absolute and utter tend to be redundant but it seemed the best way to explain the magnitude of the persons lunacy. Just saying complete doesn't cut it.

On the one hand one is tempted to just ignore such blathering and dismiss them as just being foolish, mentally unbalanced people who should be ignored. On the other hand, is the realization that this person is a professor at a University and is actually teaching the youthful minds entrusted to his tutelage this kind of drivel. That someone so detached from reality should be teaching students at a university is very disturbing indeed.

So after my initial laugh followed immediately by a stunned horror I end up passing into a low simmering anger.  It strikes me that it must be a measure of evil to promote such ideas. Oh certainly, this person is marginally (if not fully) mentally unbalanced if they actually believe such nonsense. But for any semi-rational person to look at the fact of the event of 9-11 and come to this kind of conclusion that implicates some bizarre scenario wherein the government of the United States for some unexplainable reason kill 3000 of their own citizens, rather than place the blame clearly where it belongs is a small kind of evil. Blaming people who are not responsible while exonerating those who are clearly guilty in such a horrific act is also an act of evil. To actively promote such nonsense makes the sin of it even more vile.

IN the end I am stunned by the utter stupidity of some of fellow humans and disgusted by their capacity for low, mean, evil things.

This article by Michelle Malkin over at Jewish World Review is about how terrorists use emergency service vehicles and positions to help them in their terrorist activities.

In March 2002, Israeli Defense Forces discovered a bomb in a Palestine Red Crescent Society ambulance near Jerusalem. The bomb, packed in a suicide belt, was hidden under a gurney carrying a Palestinian child. The driver confessed that it was not the first time ambulances had been used to ferry explosives.

...armed Arab terrorists in uthern Gaza using an ambulance owned and operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees...used the UN emergency vehicle as getaway transportation after murdering six Israeli soldiers.

Senior UNRWA employee Nahed Rashid Ahmed Attalah confessed to using his official U.N. vehicle to bypass security and smuggle arms, explosives, and terrorists to and from attacks.

This in itself is bad. Not only do the terrorists cynically take advantage of the West's time honored tradition of leaving emergency vehicles alone, but is also shows that they have completely infiltrated international relief agencies using them to perpetrate their heinous acts.

But where it really starts to stick in my craw is in the manner in which they use this to dupe the all too willing media into promoting what is obviously propaganda for their cause.  The fact of which has become so blatantly obvious that one has to seriously begin to question the notion of them being just simply useful idiots going along because they don't know any better. One has to seriously begin to question to what extent the media is in willful compliance and thus having culpability in the terrorist activities of these thugs.

Take for example this little tidbit.

 I remind you again of CNN's Anderson Cooper's description last month of Hizballah's ruse: "They had six ambulances lined up in a row and said, OK, you know, they brought reporters there, they said you can talk to the ambulance drivers. And then one by one, they told the ambulances to turn on their sirens and to zoom off, and people taking that picture would be reporting, I guess, the idea that these ambulances were zooming off to treat civilian casualties, when in fact, these ambulances were literally going back and forth down the street just for people to take pictures of them."

Keep all this context in mind -and keep the summer's bombshell blog revelations of Photoshopped war fauxtography by Reuters and staged photos by other media outlets in mind — as we move on to the events of July 23. According to the Lebanon Red Cross, two of its ambulances were deliberately struck by weapons in Qana, Lebanon while performing rescue missions. The international press, which has stubbornly ignored the prolonged exploitation of emergency vehicles by terrorists, immediately accused Israel of committing "war crimes."

Photos and accounts of the alleged ambulance targeting were disseminated widely by news wires, the BBC, ITV, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and countless others. It should be noted that Western journalists were not allowed onto the scene, but received video and pictures from locals. Bloggers have again raised pointed doubts about what those photos really show (see zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/and my Internet video report at hotair.com/archives/2006/08/29/ambulances-for-jihad/). The roof of one Red Cross ambulance said to have been hit by a missile had a neat hole punched dead center — in the same location that ventilation holes of other ambulances are positioned.

Massive rust and corrosion around the hole suggest the damage may have occurred before the alleged strike. Moreover, a missile explosion inside an ambulance would not leave the rest of the vehicle as intact as the supposedly targeted ambulance remained. A paramedic quoted by several media organizations claimed a "big fire" engulfed the inside of the vehicle. But photos of the ambulance allegedly consumed by the fire showed gurneys and seats intact and minimal damage to the interior.

What is the response from all of the media hypers of the alleged Red Cross ambulance missile strike last month? The same response they've had to the jihadists' past ambulance hoaxes: Nothing.


This sort of media complicity has gone on far too long without them being held to account. The list of instances of them being willingly duped goes on and on and raises some serious questions.

Take the instance of that building that collapsed during the recent Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. The media is immediately out front and center repeating as fact everything Hezbollah said about the incident the number of "civilians" dead etc etc. AFter the fact it gets reported that the building didn't actually fall down when the Israeli's struck it. Then it comes out not as many died as were thought...then the revelation that the Hezbollah people were parading the corpses around allowing photos of them in different positions and being carried by different "aid workers" in what was clearly a staged show for the media. And that was just one of what is beginning to emerge as a pattern of the media showing up  for clearly staged events that they broadcast to the world making no attempt whatsoever to reveal as being staged but instead presenting these macabre shows as the facts. 

It can not be avoided however and must not be dismissed that they know full well that they are being played for suckers. It is not possible that so many of them are ignorant of the fact that they are being shown staged lies and deceitful half-truths. Indeed when pressed on the matter they often admit as much...and yet the still continue to present such events as facts. Why would they do so? When they know that what they are being told and shown is most likely a fabrication why on earth would they insists on presenting it as a fact. Why are they so eager to believe these terrorists stories when time after time they are demonstrated to be lies and propaganda. You would think the Media would get sick of being dupes and played for fools. But every time some "civilian" run up with a story about American or ISraeli atrocities they flip their camera's on ignore the man behind the curtain and start telling the terrorist side of the story as if it were simple fact and nothing more. 

As I said before this apparent willingness to be duped begins to border on complicity and therefore culpability. When a Reuters photographer willingly edits a photo to make the damage look more severe from an ISraeli strike that is not "an honest mistake made through over eagerness" Perhaps if such an occurrence were isolated it could be dismissed. But it is part of a pattern that is far past an emerging trend into what could be more accurately described as standard operating procedure.

Everyday the terrorist hide in civilian houses, use ambulances as transport, children as shields, stage bogus death scenes and they do so for the consumption of the media which they willingly eat up despite knowing that they are false. This has to end. The press needs to either stop being useful idiots or they need to begin to be held accountable because what they are doing is in my view bordering on...well perhaps treasonable is too strong a word, but I don't know what else to call it when a media outlet willingly broadcasts the enemy's propaganda.

This article is actually shocking. 
 
A Hamas spokesman makes  this statement.

"We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

Its actually a fairly amazing admission on his part. To admit that the situation in Gaza is one of there own doing.
The fact is that they made the bed and now they have to lie in it. Until  these people stop teaching their children that violence, death and murder are the greatest things they can aspire to in life than their society is doomed to continue to experience such abysmal failure. Actually, society isn't even really accurate. It has too much connotation of civility. They are living in the anarchic world of barbarism but it is the world they created for themselves.

Who would have thunk?  Now despite the embarrasment of having to link to Minnesota Public Radio's website it actually is an interesting article. I suppose even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

But seriously, apparently there is 400 billion barrles of untapped (or at least barely tapped) oil in North Dakota. That is a HUGE amount of oil. Saudia Arabia's current estimated reserves is only 250 billion. And the best part is there are no caribou...though I should keep my mouth shut because knowing the environmentalists they will probably find some form of life there..the long legged dung beetle or some such whose habitat will be destroyed and so game on.

Seriously though when I see those number I just go ga ga.  Add to that the 1 trillion in shale oil and over 80 billion in off shore oil wells and 20 billion in Alaska....then ask yourself, why are we dependant on foreign oil? Oh thats right..the evironmental wacko's wont let us actually drill for any of that oil. I have a feeling though that they are gonna have a hard time continuing to thwart the devlopment of oil reserves in America.

Add to it this little ditty about  new methods of extracting oil that promise cheap oil for years to come...hopefully this will mean some cheaper energy costs in the no so distant future.

This article at the Washington Times continues to highlight the debacle that is our current state of "negotiations" with Iran on their nuclear program.

This little ditty starts it off and frankly says it all:

Just days before the United Nations Security Council deadline for Iran to cease and desist enriching uranium, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the West the Iranian bird. By inaugurating a "heavy-water" reactor, Iran instantly doubled its chances of acquiring nuclear weapons.

As if that isn't bad enough, they just tossed off a bunch of test missiles including a long range missile.

But any measure of resolution via the UN remains as improbable as ever.  

Iran is now confident neither Russia nor China will go along with meaningful economic sanctions. Moscow says sanctions have never worked,...

Since a part of the equation for China and Russia is the weakening of America power and influence this position makes sense.  Some have wondered why Russia or China would be so foolish as to allow Iran to become nuclear.  There are many answers to that. For Russia they currently have (and frankly have had for some time) a strategic relationship with Iran in the region.  Additionally, Russia has significant economic interests in Iran and is not likely to do anything to damage those.  Sanctions would immediately impact fuel prices perhaps causing oil to go over a hundred dollars a barrel. This could have significant impact on Russia's strategic geopolitical goals in places like Eastern Europe, the Caucuses etc. Why would Russia want to put such things at risk over a policy that is doomed to fail?

The author of the piece seems to think that sanctions might have some impact citing South Africa, but I would argue that sanctions only worked on South Africa because it was ultimately a rational western government that wanted to be a part of the body politic of the globe.  Ultimately, South Africa wanted to be accepted into the world...so punishing it for not acquiescing to international demands of conformity worked. There would be no such success in Iran.  Sanctions causing the people of Iran to suffer would work in the mullahs favor and towards their design, further cutting off its people and giving them someone to blame for their difficulties beyond the mullahs themselves. Iran's goal is the resurrection of the Caliphate with Iran at it's head. They also have an apocalyptic world view that isn't likely to shy away from petty notions of sanctions. These people sent children out to walk mine fields so that their soldiers would be preserved from harm.  It sent them wrapped up in blankets so that they wouldn't' get blown into too many pieces making identifying them afterwards too difficult. Does anyone actually think they are going to shy away from their course over a few starving people.

It is important to note as well that China and Russia both are fully aware that America will eventually be forced to act. Either America will or Israel will but since Israel is viewed as a little America in the region it amounts to virtually the same thing.  Europe will do nothing so long as America allows them to keep their heads in the sand. So assuming America is eventually forced to act, were they to do so without the support of the United Nations, they would once again be giving the global impression of being a unilateral, imperialistic, hegemonic power. the political fallout globally would not be insignificant and Russia and China would garner significant influence and good will by being apposed to the action. Indeed in such a scenario Russia in particular would get to have its cake and eat it too.

Add to it the following analysis offered up by the article.

Given Mr. Bush's overarching dedication to "winning the Global War on Terrorism," said one former senior intelligence analyst, the neutralization of Iran has become a sine qua non, "equal if not higher on his list of priorities than 'victory' in Iraq, another impossibility that he is unwilling to recognize, even privately, much less acknowledge publicly."
    Mr. Bush's national security advisers have also pointed out that an escalating danger of U.S.-Iran military confrontation automatically intensifies internal and regional opposition to U.S. objectives in Iraq. The president keeps reminding private interlocutors to think of how history will judge this critical period 15 to 20 years hence. He sees personal and national humiliation if he were to leave office having acquiesced to an embryonic Iranian nuclear arsenal.
    So odds makers bet sometime before the end of his second term President Bush will order a massive air attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers. Mr. Bush is convinced a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to U.S. national security and, as one former intelligence topsider put it, "he is firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership."

Given these and other facts I think it seem almost certain that the United States will be forced to act militarily against Iran within the next year.  Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps the President, bogged down in Iraq and worn out from the political fallout from the endeavor will opt to go the UN route. Which of course would mean do nothing whatsoever except talk itself into obsolescence just as the League of Nations did in the lead up to World War II.  In which case Israel will be forced to act against Iran. Either way its war in the future because Iran clearly has no intention of stopping the nuclear weapons pursuit willingly and nothing short of force will stop them. 

In the meantime we can get back to important things like the racially divided Survivor and the non story's about that lunatic Karr fellow not being charged. Let's keep our priorities straight people.

Well wouldn't this be just peachy.

The idea of Venezuela on the Security Council would normally just have me seething. Frankly, though, the UN has lost any credibility whatsoever (if they ever had any to begin with) so the idea if an irresponsible, populist regime run by a troublemaker getting elected to the security council and winning that election because he's a loud mouth who criticizes the US just about says everything you need to know about the legitimacy of the organization.  I say let them. They are so irrelevant and every action they take as an organization to do things like put Venezuela on the Security Council and Cuba on the HUman Rights committee just ruins them as and institution even further.  All the better.

This might be a hoax..but if it isnt..wow what a find.

This article reveals that Al Sadr is emerging as a significant force in Iraq. We made a terrible mistake in not finishing this guy off in 2004. We had him and his militia beat and rather than finish him off like we should have we let him go. He is now stronger than ever and while he doesnt represent a real threat to US forces in any serious sense his strength does threaten the stability of Iraq which is not a good thing. So long as his militia men are runnign around executing people and taking the law into their own hands and frankly existing as a force outside of the legitimate government then our work there will clearly not be done.

This man is a menace and an Iranian stooge to boot. He needs to be dealt with and decissively in my opinion.

Well no need to worry about this.  The UN will quickly put a stop to it...right? Sure.

 

This is a thought provoking piece by Kathryn Jean Lopez over at National Review Online.

The central thesis of the piece is that Hillary's attempt to present a moderate front to position herself for a run for the presidency may have made her unelectable in the democratic primary. This is obviously a very serious reality. As we saw in the Connecticut primary its mostly the dedicated party purists who come out in primary elections. "Softer" party moderates tend to stay home. It's one of the reasons I am not convinced that McCain or Giuliani is destined to be our next republican candidate for president as the press seems to believe. 

    Hillary definitely has an uphill battle.  But it's too early to count her out.  Much will depend on what occurs with Ned Lamont.  If Connecticut voters make Lamont their next Senator than I think Hillary is in real trouble. The kook fringe of the left will be so emboldened by this that I suspect they will go on a purging campaign seeking to punish all the "impure" ones. They will toss the baby out with the bath water and Hillary would probably go down in the primary. If on the other hand Lamont loses (and particulary if he loses big) then it should put the fringe folks back on their heels a bit. They certainly wont go away, but they will probably lose influence as the consequences of their position become more apparent.

So Russ should hold off any champaign toasts. Hillary isn't out yet. Lets wait and see what happens with Lamont first.  Either way its bad for the democrat party. Which could be good for the republicans in the long tern.

I actually feel honored because Dean Barnett replied over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog. Honored and little intimidated.

Not to get into a tit for tat in exchanges but I feel I ought to reply.

Of course we can get along…

Since Dean obviously read my blog post, it would seem he couldn’t possibly have missed my initial comment which was that he has been doing a very fine job blogging at Hugh Hewitt. Just because I don’t care for one blog doesn’t mean I can’t stand someone or think they are a rotten person. One can be critical without intending ill.

Ok. Perhaps I was a bit severe when I said I found his “crowing” to be “juvenile, petty and simple.”

I would however, point out that in Dean’s own initial post he acknowledged a slight tendency towards pettiness. So I will go ahead and extend an olive branch by apologizing for being rude in my characterization. But I did find it to have a note of disdainfulness about it that I thought distasteful.

I do find it interesting that Dean only responds to my more severe characterizations rather than any of the more on topic points I tried to make.

I still reject the notion that having a false alarm or two is somehow damaging in any measurable way when compared against the damage already being done daily who already don’t believe in the seriousness of the threat. I also have to reiterate that I think the argument that failing to convince Andrew Sullivan of the seriousness of the threat is somehow damaging to the cause is weak.

Finally, Not to be tit for tat but..

1. I was hardly thinking of people like Brent Scowcroft when I was referring to serious minded individuals.

2. “Flogging relentlessly” gives a much clearer indication of who you are referring to when you speak of these unnamed bloggers. Now you give the impression of people who were convinced the earth was going to end rather than more sober people who may have noted that some prominent people had voiced concerns and that perhaps there was cause. Perhaps you mean them too and if so than I still have to take issue with your comment because one can hardly claim that Bernard Lewis has no insight into the Jihadist mindset and he was clearly concerned about the potential. But he was hardly histrionic about it. I concede some were and it does bring into question their credibility...but then I mentioned that in my previous blog

3. I know you are concerned with terrorism Dean and that you are a sober serious person on the topic. I was specifically referring to your own declared unconcern with “the big nothing” that was the 22^nd.

4. You are still a Red Sox fan which brings everything you say into question and under severe scrutiny. I personally question whether a Red Sox fan can get into any mindset…let alone the mindset of a jihadist.

Thanks for the reply though.

Update:  Dean Barnett just made a nother post over at Hugh Hewitt and THIS post I take absolutely no issue with whatsoever.

In the New World Order, we must treat every day as August 22.

No disagreement there Dean. No disagreement at all.

 

Dean Barnett was doing a fine job over at Hugh Hewitt’s blog until he posted this obtuse piece last night. I fear he had too many beers at the golf course.

Here are the few points he made in the piece followed by my comments.

I have a ton of respect for Bernard Lewis. He’s forgotten more about Islam than I’ll ever know. Hell, he’s forgotten more about everything than I’ll ever know (except probably pro wrestling – I bet I have the edge there). But his carefully worded warning fell on deaf ears at the Soxblog household.

…

What made it especially upsetting is that a lot of the most respected and intelligent residents of the blogosphere bought into this silliness.

…

So I was planning on spending the day monitoring the big fat nothing that I knew was going to happen today.

…

these people did our country no favors this week. There are a lot of people desperate to believe all is well and that we’re perfectly safe. These are the people, like highly respected Time Magazine columnist Andrew Sullivan, who think the terror bust in London was a Karl Rove-orchestrated P.R. stunt. Until these people get a grip on reality, we’ll struggle to fight this war successfully, being such a divided society.

We have to win the hearts and minds of our countrymen, too. Today, August 22, was not a positive step in that direction.

I hardly think it is foolish to take the words of one of, if not the foremost scholars on Islam and Islamic history seriously when he suggests that a day might be portentous. Several very serious minded individuals took it seriously as well. I feel no shame in having been anxious about the 22nd and frankly find Dean Barnett’s crowing about being right in being singularly unconcerned not only unseemly, but juvenile, petty and simple.

Personally, I didn't blog on it other than to acknowledge the concern registered by others. I didn’t think it would be rational to go about predicting doom and destruction...it tends to undermine your credibility when it doesnt occur. Much like Hugh Hewitt undermined his credibility when he insisted Harriet Miers would be a grand SCOTUS justice insisting that the senate calculus prohibited a true conservative from getting approved only to have Alito end up on the SCOTUS. (I love ya Hugh but that wasn’t one of your finest hours)

However, I find it equally silly to run around beating your chest after the fact, patting yourself on the back for being certain nothing would have happened. Boy wouldn’t you have looked stupid if something had. Paying attention when a man like Bernard Lewis speaks is hardly something one would categorize as stupid.

Finally, Barnett’s insinuation that those who were concerned somehow damaged the GWOT is completely absurd. At this stage of the game there are those who either believe in the threat or don’t believe in the threat. Merely because one day a threat doesn’t materialize isn’t going to change people's minds who already believe that there is no threat to begin with. And frankly, if someone is going to suddenly think the whole thing is a hoax because less than two weeks after an uncovered bomb plot to blow up planes across the Atlantic some warnings turned out to be nothing, than that person is a fool and lost cause anyway.

Arguing that we should never have a false alarm because they put off silly people like Andrew Sullivan and some how that makes it more difficult for us is just asinine.

I tell you what Dean. You were put off by the whole thing. Fine, but spare me the holier, smarter and all things better than thouism.

This is hardly the first and most certainly won’t be the last time there is a false alarm. People have to be larger than that and wise enough to understand that they will occur. It is far better to be overly cautious than to be not cautious enough even to the point of being cavalier which as I mentioned earlier smacks of a certain juvenile simplicity…but then what more can one expect from a Sox fan.

I am almost loathe to post this because I hate linking to latimes.  However it is a good article and worth reading. 

This guy gets it I think.

Indeed, Shlomo Avineri, a former director-general of Israel's Foreign Ministry, argues that his country fought the wrong war: Instead of targeting Lebanon, it should have gone after Syria. The Syrian armed forces are less motivated than Hezbollah, and they offer many more targets for Israeli airpower.

I'm no expert but I tend to agree. Syria is the weak link in current terrorist nexus in the middle east.  They are the least motivated have a veritable joke of a military and are ripe for toppling. (assad is not loved) They also happen to serve as the conduit between Iran and its proxies. Take them out and suddenly Hezbollah and Hamas find it much harder to receive supply. Syria need to be defeated and the Assad regime removed.

This is beginning to be just silly. I love Italy. Its a wonderful country. But this article puts me in the mind of a joke my grandfather used to tell about them. How can you tell which army is the Italians...they are the ones with their hands up.  We think of that joke as being french but for my grandfather who fought in North Africa, Sicily and Italy mostly under Patton. The Italians were the ones to mock.

Today It seems that Italy doesn't like the thought that its soldiers might get shot at in Lebanon. They are saying they wont deploy until Israel stops shooting. You have to seriously wonder is the people who say such things realize what idiots they sound like.

1. What are soldiers for? I always sort of thought getting shot at was a risk of the job..being a soldier. Apparently though Italy has been taking lessons from France and they don't like the thought that in a war zone bullets might actually fly.

2. This also shows the utter lack of comprehension by these western European lefty big wigs as to what is really going on in the middle east. The whole region has been in a state of declared war with only cease fires and temporary truces to break up the fighting. The muslim states want Israel eliminated...Israel naturally wants to survive. The idea that this pathetic cease fire in Lebanon is going to hold and be lasting is utter rubbish. If you send forces into lebanon they are going to get caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hezbollah who WILL START FIGHTING AGAIN. It why you fools should have just left well enough alone and let them fight it out.

One wonder how long the cease fire will hold now.  More pressure gets put on it each day by violations...no one will send troops as long as its dangerous..which is forever..and Israel wisely wont allow muslim foreign nations that deny their right to exists to come in and act as peacekeepers.