VDH Without Blinking

"When such thinking is confronted by the primordial world of the 7th century, then a sort of dangerous naiveté follows, perhaps best epitomized by our confusion over Iran.

A jihadist of the first order swears that he hears religious voices and through his mesmerizing speech prevents his audiences from blinking. He promises a world without the United States and swears he will wipe Israel off the map. As relish he brags about shutting down the Straits of Hormuz and choking off global petroleum commerce. And these are not impossible threats, since Ahmadinejad has at his disposal billions in petrol-dollars, soulless commercial partners in Russia, North Korea, and China who will sell him anything, and a certain apocalyptic vision that, Jim-Jones like, convinces him that he can achieve eternal fame in this world—the downtrodden Shiite Persians at last trump the Sunni Arabs as the true warriors of Islam—and Paradise in the next.

And all this is reified by an ongoing nuclear program. Set against all that, our own wise men and women demonize those who will not “talk” with the Iranian theocracy, so convinced are they either of their own moral superiority and beguiling rhetoric, or of the rational sense of the Iranians. In other words, suggest modestly that Iran is creepy enough to keep distant from—and suddenly that wariness is slurred as a neocon plot to wage war with Teheran.

So, yes, I have no apologies for labeling radical Islam as a danger comparable to Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Mao.That admission does not make any of us who share these worries fond of war, far from it. Rather we fear that radical Islam has much in store for us ahead, and the more America prepares for it, the less our citizens and others less strong will suffer."

"Does Iran present a threat to the United States?

If the United States has indisputable evidence that the Iranians are manufacturing and shipping bombs into Iraq that are killing Americans, should we strike across the border to destroy those facilities?

Should Iran be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons? (This will require some follow-ups as anti-Bush Democrats don't want to answer the question, even though it is the most crucial question of all.)"

The Battle Of The Potomac

"But to carry the analogy further, it was not passive defenses but the destruction of the U-Boat lairs and its transit routes which finally ended the Nazi threat. The U-Boats were "intercepted" in transit, such as in the Bay of Biscay. And finally the U-Boat pens themselves were taken and the Nazi naval threat was ended forever. This is what must happen to IED threats like the explosively formed projectiles and their associated targeting systems. You can't keep bailing the water. You have to turn off the faucet.

If Iran insists upon sending U-Boats -- pardon, explosively formed projectiles -- to attack Americans, it is effectively opening hostilities on the US. That politicians in Washington choose not to regard it as such is not really Teheran's fault. One can accuse the Ayatollahs of many things, but creating American indecision cannot be blamed on them. That is the result of politics along the Potomac."

UPDATE: "We should also note that being able to intercept and decrypt their communications was critical to countering the U-boat threat."

Hangin With Hez

"He told me that 18 days after the start of the war a large group of civilians decided it was time to leave Ain Ebel and flee to the north. They were no longer willing to stay while Israel fired back at Hezbollah’s rocket launchers. It was too dangerous, and Hezbollah insisted on staying and endangering those who lived there.

So they fled the area in a convoy of civilian vehicles. It was safer, they figured, to travel in a group than alone.

On their way out of the village, Hezbollah fighters stood on the side of the road and opened fire with machine guns on the fleeing civilians.

I was shocked, and I asked Alan to confirm this. Was it really true? Hezbollah opened fire on Lebanese civilians with machine guns? Alan confirmed this was true.

"Why?" I had an idea, but I wanted a local person to say it.

Because, Alan said, Hezbollah wanted to use the civilians of Ain Ebel as “human shields.” I did not use the phrase “human shields.” These were Alan’s own words.

Fortunately, Hezbollah didn’t kill anybody when they opened fire. One person was shot in the hand, and another was shot in the shoulder. This was enough, though, to do the job. The civilians turned around and went back to the village under Israeli bombardment."

Minimal Homework Failed

"Reading through the conventional, warmed-over "wisdom" of the Beltway's media elite, the pack mentality shines through. They are, as a whole, fundamentally uninterested in whether President Bush's strategic understanding of the centrality of the battle for Iraq within the war with Islamic extremism is correct. Rather, they are intent on figuring out if the Democrats can muster enough votes to cut off funding for the war in a replay of the end of Vietnam. Thus they have converted the crucial debate of our time into a sequel about domestic politics. It is a template with which they are familiar and which their limited experience equips them to discuss. I am reminded of my question to Dennis Kucinich that stumped him: Was he aware of the Quds forces? It isn't just Congressman Kucinich who has failed to do minimal homework. It is also most of the media elite."

What Conjectures?

"The alternative, sadly, is Duncan Black's version of deterrence. And I don't really want to play that game; genocide makes me kind of queasy. He appears to have a stronger stomach." [ These conjectures. -ed. ]

"The irony here is that a decadent lesbo-feminist ideology is being used to force “reforms” that create the conditions for the societal arrangements in the remoter parts of Somalia and Afghanistan. That will, given the rest of human nature, soon reduce women to chattels, while obviating the power in women to restrain the excesses of men."

"West argues that the US fights American criminals more severely than the head-choppers of Baghdad. "American troops mockingly refer to arrests of insurgents as 'catch and release.' ... Meticulous review procedures introduced after Abu Ghraib have proved favorable to the insurgents. Any Iraqi detained is brought to an American lawyer at the battalion level; two American soldiers have to fill out sworn arrest affidavits; physical evidence is bagged, and pictures of the 'crime' scene are taken." It goes on and on."

Cat's Got His Tongue?

"So would you say you have contempt for a terrorist group like
Hamas?

I wouldn’t put those words in my mouth. I wouldn’t say anything on
that issue. I’m here to talk about peace. I’m a man who does want peace for this
world, and I don’t think you will achieve that by putting people into corners
and asking them very, very difficult questions about very contentious
issues.

Anyone into pattern recognition may note that Mr. Islam sounds remarkably like Nihad Awad, Awad's colleagues at CAIR and Islamists elsewhere."

"Being hanged is a tough thing. Being told to "go to hell" is hardly the factor that makes the experience a negative one. I think the fact that the "taunting" of Saddam has been considered a major news story is one of the most remarkable manifestations of the whole upside-down world of modern media in which we live."

Did I Forget To Mention Yasir Approved It? Directly?

"THE CABLE released by the State Department's historian states, "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."

Although clearly skilled in the art of deception, Arafat could never have succeeded in creating and prolonging his fictions and with them, his crimes, without the cooperation of the US government and the media.

In this vein, the release of the State Department cable raises two daunting questions. First, how is it possible that the belated admission of a massive 33 year cover-up of the murder of senior American diplomats spanning the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations has been ignored by the US media? A Google news search for Cleo Noel brought up but a handful of stories - none of which were reported by the major news networks or national newspapers.

On the face of it, the released cable, which calls into question the very foundation of US Middle East policy for the past generation is simply stunning. The cable concludes, "The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike where least expected. The open participation of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack provides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."

The media's silence on the issue does not merely raise red flags abut their objectivity. By not availing the American public to the knowledge that Fatah and the PLO have been specifically targeting Americans for 33 years, the media has denied the American people basic knowledge of the world in which they live."

"First and foremost - one must consider the source of this story. The Sunday Times journalist in question Uzi Mahnaimi, is a controversial figure, who co-authored a book with Bassam Abu Sharif, former senior adviser to Yasser Arafat and PLO press officer.

While some may believe he has actual military sources in Israel who use him to leak stories that won’t make it past censors, others think he is used by foreign agents to push stories that embarrass Israel. Still others go farther, calling him unprintable names and charging that that despite the fact he works for a mainstream British newspaper, his sources makes Jamil Hussein look like the White House press secretary.

One thing is clear: Mahnaimi makes a regular habit of reporting that Israel is about to attack Iran. If his reporting was accurate, Iranian nuclear facilities would already be a smoking ruin – not once, but multiple times."

The New Democratic Era ... Same As The Old Democratic Era

"During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.

So, ya know, when no one's payin' attention, we'll change the term-limit rule back to the way it was when we last ran da House...

As they say in Chicago, Punch 10." [ How could I be any more shocked, shocked I tell you? -ed. ]