Mr. Kurtz's Neighborhood

Taxi!

Elections continue in Cuba as the US Coast Guard assists a group of citizens departing the polling place and the country.

Go Directly To...

Ace of Spades HQ for a great post on the Christopher Caldwell article on Blogging Killed The EU Star?.

to: Claire and SondraK

Why, Indeed?

Recently, I have dropped some remarks here and in various comments elsewhere, on the nature of our current political strife. It's time to expand and clarify these thoughts. For an armature, I'll use this article by Jeffrey Gardner in the Albuquerque Tribune of June 2, 2005.

Jeffry Gardner: Democrats just aren't

They're the true enemies of democracy, as seen in their tantrum over Bolton and U.N.

The conflict between America's political left and right over the largely useless United Nations has winnowed itself down to the battle over President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton.

I think not. Consider SCOTUS: In the remaining three years of this administration, and its questionable majority in the Congress, there is certain to be at least one Supreme Court Justice appointment, including that of Chief Justice. There may be as many as three. A lot of "winnowing" left.

Mr. Gardner continues:

For America's left, the United Nations is a treasured petting zoo. We must approach the animals cautiously, lest they become angry and bite the hand that feeds them. Given that you and I finance a sizable chunk of the United Nations' $11 billion annual general budget, that would be our hand.

But the United Nations routinely bites the hand, wrist and arm of the United States. The recent oil-for-food scandal is one example of the disregard with which the organization holds us and another example, again, of the organization's folly.

So why are the Democrats making an issue of Bolton?

Why, indeed? Why would a group of the peoples representatives, allegedly speaking for nearly half of the electorate, discourage a move to appoint a delegate representing the views of his own nation? Why abrogate our national sovereignty to a supra-national organization that, since the reign of Dag Hammarskjold, has consistently sought to replace duly constituted and elected national authority with a faceless bureaucracy that has no center and no foundation but power. And this is an organization that delegates the definition of human rights to Libya, Cuba and Sudan.

Mr. Gardner thinks that:

It's about contempt for Bush - contempt that has blinded the Democrat leadership into thinking it actually is doing something, when in fact it's doing nothing but obstructing.

Again, I think not. The key here is not contempt for the President, however often they may express it, it is fear. The party of fear, the party of discouragement, the party of victimology, is now expressing its true nature. They now believe that this is their time; a time in which cost has replaced value, attitude substitutes for character and their appetites serve in place of desires.

I think it was Ayn Rand who pointed out that there are essentially three forms of human interaction. One can beg and depend on the pity of the intended victim to grant one value that is beyond one's reach.
One can extort and substitute violence for value that is beyond one's understanding.
One can trade, thereby insuring the unconflicted exchange of mutually agreed upon value, representing one's own free effort.

The key here is the term "value" and it points to the critical flaw in the Democrat's program. What have they to offer? I suggest it is lesser power dispensed by greater. Influence and pie-in-the-sky fueled by never ending designation of one group of victims after another, raising need to the level of a moral absolute and worthlessness as the end goal of life and as Rand put it, "the aristocracy of pull". What can this lead to but the "war of all against all", a Hobbsian chaos resembling a kind of animal "Gotterdammerung".

Mr. Gardner makes one more hit and a palpable miss:

I suggest that neither Bolton nor Bush's judicial appointments nor the insidious Patriot Act nor maybe even al-Qaida represent the greatest threats to our democracy today.

That honor goes to a Democratic Party held hostage by its most radical wing, which simply can't muster real, genuine loyal opposition.

They are "hostages" in the same sense as Giuliana Sgrena. Power does not corrupt. It attracts the corruptible.

Too apocalyptic for you Bucky? Then look at what they do in light of what they say. With no disrespect to the chillin' or those who believe a compromise effected through mutual reward can be achieved, ask yourself just what reward is available. Is it simply recess from conflict? In 1938, when the (conservative) government of the United Kingdom was seeking "a peace for our time" and selling out the Czechs, with the support of the party leaders and most of the electorate, one cabinet member said: "Czechoslovakia is not worth the life of a single British soldier." Six and a half years later, 455,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were, you guessed it, dead.

Ask yourself if the reward you work for is a 30% FICA "contribution" with no payout at the end. Ask yourself if surrendering our sovereignty to the rapacious dove will relieve you of having to make a decision on election day. Ask yourself how many more persons or entire peoples will be exterminated by the homicidal thugs encouraged and facilitated by the UN and the party of non-judgement in the name of their "beliefs" or "self-determination".

And to use a term not much favored by the Disloyal Opposition, ask yourself; What's it worth?

Who Lied?

This material is extracted from Your Congress.com. Go there if you want to read or re-read it all. The passages quoted here should be self-explanatory, at least for the few who come here.

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

The first four paragraphs detail the history of United States and UN. resolutions beginning with the 1991 coalition that fought the Gulf War, concluding thus:

¶ 5. Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

This is where a lot of folks, including some who voted for this resolution, seem to stop reading.

¶ 6. Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

¶ 7. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

¶ 8. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

The next several paragraphs detail and re-iterate the UN resolutions regarding WMD, terrorist support by Iraq and issues of genocide (not so labelled) and Gulf Region security and stability.

¶ 14. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

¶ 17. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Who lied (lies) indeed? And if I may borrow a heartfelt expression from SondraK; You snivelling bastards out there trying to undermine the effort to rid the world of these murderous thugs and provide some of the world's most oppressed peoples with just a portion of what we enjoy: Have a double cup of STFU!

Yah, Yah!

According to N.Z. World News, North Korean leader Kim Jing-IL called Vice-President Dick Cheney a"Blood thirsty beast", in retaliation for Cheney saying that Mr. Pouffy was "irresponsible and runs a police state".

Oooohh!

In related news, ABC World News Net reports that:

Kim Jong Il stands tall in platform shoes.

The Dong-a Ilbo newspaper published a recently obtained photograph of a smiling Mr Kim that shows him wearing a pair of platform shoes with heels about 10 cm-12 cm high.

"Platform shoes are an essential item for Kim Jong Il who fears being ignored when he meets outside leaders and Westerners", said Sohn Kwang-joo, chief editor of the Daily NK, a website that follows North Korean news.

"What would North Koreans think if their leader was such a short man? That's why Kim feels he deserves to wear platform shoes, even if they kill his ankles," he said.

Kim is apparently no taller than about 5'3" and the shoes would raise his height between 4" and 4 3/4".

The Vice President's concern is clearly visible in this picture at a recent visit with the troops.

Photo: David Bohrer White House Images.

Diversionary Tactics

A little smoke and mirrors here while I get the act together.

These caught my eye this morning.

Dymphna, at Gates of Vienna , posts on the current war and provides a valuable new source: Regime Change Iran. Added is a fascinating take on (non-Muslim) religious desecration with a nod to The Manolo.

The excellent David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey, at NRO have one of the best takes on Amnesty International's recently soiling themselves in the Gulag of their minds.

Bill Roggio mentions the recent targetting of the CIA in the Whines , something I will have a bit to say about later, including whether my crossword addiction can handle saving $50/mo. on that rag.

From Jeff a round up of notable Hitler references and a link to the Suburban Chicago News for those of us with daughters.

"A lot of the little girls kept watching me and at first I didn't understand. I'm not that funny," she said. Then it occurred to her; she might be their first exposure to a woman "who wasn't a victim of some sort, that wasn't oppressed or repressed or working in a field. I'm very free, and I was uncovered."

To you all.

Merde!

Reuters Photo
French President Jacques Chirac leaves
the polling station after casting his ballot
in the referendum...

With approximately 83% of the votes in, French voters rejected the EU Constitution with a majority estimated at between 55 and 60 percent. Earlier in the day, Fox News also said that it is likely The Netherlands will follow suit on Wednesday.

The constitution will take effect on November 1, 2006 if approved by all 25 EU states. So far nine have ratified.

President Chirac has been seriously embarrassed but refuses any talk of resignation. It has been suggested that he may instead, fire the unpopular Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

Fox adds; A No Might Not Be A No
The treaty says EU leaders will discuss what to do if, by October 2006, four-fifths of member states have ratified the treaty, but one or more others have "encountered difficulties" getting it accepted. It is not impossible that countries would be asked to vote again.

Meanwhile, The Herald suggests that "France's diminishing influence in an ever-expanding Europe" and the growing resentment of the Brussels Elite has excacerbated the distaste of less affluent French workers; the so-called Polish Plumber problem.

The newspaper adds: "Mr Chirac was said to be letting it be known that a French rejection was Tony Blair's fault for making the constitution appear too Anglo-Saxon. Recriminations are likely to last beyond July 1 when the UK takes over the six-month presidency."

Time to put the boot in, Tony.

"Oh That..."

Breaking announcement from Rooters. Here is the headline:

Militant leader Zarqawi wounded in Iraq - Web  - one hour ago

Here is the teaser.

A U.S. Army Humvee burns after a car bomb attack in Baghdad May 24, 2005. Insurgents killed three U.S. soldiers and two Iraqis in car bomb attacks in central Baghdad on May 24, a day after a wave of suicide attacks and bomb blasts that killed at least 56 Iraqis. A sharp escalation in insurgent attacks since Iraq's new Shi'ite-led government was announced four weeks ago has killed more than 600 Iraqis and deepened sectarian tensions,... (Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters)

There are practices that bias and non sequitur don't begin to describe.

"We report; you decide"

Indeed.

More Media, Less Sense.

Do not miss this. Rusty, over at the Jawa Report links to a breaking story: Linda Foley, President of the International Newspaper Guild, accuses the US Military of targeting journalists. Yes, there's a tape.

Check this out over at Dagney's, in light of what you have been reading in the papers lately.

Sissy Willis posts on a Virginia Postrel article describing pandering in the MSM. We're surprised?

Beth has the ultimate summation of this atrocity.

I'm Not Dead Done Yet

In an interview published this morning in the New York Whines, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld states it is far too early to define his legacy.

"...Hold off on it. There will be plenty of time. I don't think of myself as a short-timer," said Mr. Rumsfeld.

The Secretary has given no indication that he is backing off from his program initiatives to restructure the American military as a leaner, more focused force and rein in the Defense Department's budget.

He has indicated that 'everything is on the table', at this summer's congressionally mandated Quadrennial Defense Review, due in early 2006. This can include the further reorganization of command structure, deployment policies and "big ticket" items such as the F/A-22 Raptor air superiority fighter, the DD(X) destroyer and new aircraft carriers.

Of course, it's new "fair and balanced" policy notwithstanding the Times sees Flak in the air.

"One set of overwhelming questions remains: whether the American public and the Congress are exhausted by Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether enough money will be available for transformation to a high-tech military while still supporting a conventional force to combat zones"

Hmm, do I get the impression that maybe they don't think (or wish) that there will be substantial victory in the current active theaters by 2008. Maybe so Hellery can secure "Peace" by a bug-out and jump up and down on the Republicans in horrid glee.

Or do they think that the administration is reshaping policy to fight a non-conventional war. Could that mean the Nuclear Option? Oh. Sorry, that must mean Special Operations Command.

A Flak flinger weighs in:

"He doesn't have the money to do it," said Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a senior Democrap on the on the House Appropriations Commitee.

Right, move on, nothing to see, no Vote here. Let's wait and see if a base in his district is mentioned for closure.

On the whole, this article manages to get through about 48 column inches with only about ten incidents of bushwhacking, but a number of those could actually be termed investigative journalism. I said that? I am shocked, Shocked. For those, and I hope they are many, who wish to read it all; go here to the original.

Addendum: Curiously, much of the negative slope in this piece makes reference to Mr. Rumsfed's reported abrasiveness and manner rather than metrical policy issues. Is someone doing a Bolton here?

Or maybe he just doesn't give enough Barneys. "snork"

H/T to Tom v G via SondraK (for a good time, see "Barneys").