Friday, March 31, 2006
The picture above reminds me of our departed, but not forgotten blog-friend Goomba. Oh, what fun the Goomba News Network would have with this one.
Just so we are clear, the Boston Herald wants full credit for that marvelous photograph. Credit given. And in case you haven't heard about the flap, Justice Antonin Scalia (pictured above) made an Italian hand gesture at a nosy Boston Herald reporter/photographer when he was coming out of mass. The reporter went nuts and said that Scalia was flipping him off.
Scalia then wrote a letter to the editor in which he pricelessly asserted that the Herald's reporters are watching too many Sopranos episodes. Always faithful reader Mark was kind enough to email me Scalia's letter to the editor. It's vintage Scalia.
The hapless Herald, though, is hot on the trail. Yesterday, it posted this sizzling story. Note that the Herald gushed how this was a "growing national controversy". Note, too, how offended the Herald is that Scalia's gesture was "inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross". Oh, please. I mean, how did these vampires even get inside there to take the picture ... and in broad daylight?
Really, it sounds like the high school paper staff got a hold of the Herald's computers. What's next? No meat loaf on Thursdays? The horrah. The mashed potato lady spit in the gravy? Move her to peas.
These people are unequivocally morons.
Unfortunately, more people don't know about this episode. Otherwise, Scalia might get to rock star status. He apparently didn't do "the deed". Frankly, I am disappointed. Can you imagine a picture of Justice Scalia on the front of the NY Times flipping off some reporter? He coulda been a contendah.
But some might think he did in fact do it, so he gets credit for doing "the deed". But no "punishment". It's plausible deniability of an act that most normal people would love to do. Great stuff.
Scalia for president. And cheers to Goomba, wherever you are.
Have a great weekend, every one.
Update: Successful hit by Don Scalia on mischievous photographer. The Herald's morning edition is set to report that Scalia phoned the Pope himself to get authority for the hit. Apparently, Scalia reminded the Pope that the reporter dared ask how he could be fair in church-state cases since he was not a godless socialist like the Herald staff. Let that be a lesson in Italian to all of you lefties who would dare venture into a church in broad daylight.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
When some one enters your country illegally and hoists the flag of the country they came from, and hoists that flag above your own, and then uses the American flag as a distress signal (albeit, probably unwittingly ... they likely meant worse), what does this mean?
Looks like an invasion by a hostile force to me.
Good to know this. I will treat it accordingly.
Note: The photo above was taken at a California protest within the past week and is provided courtesy of Michelle Malkin.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
You know, the principal problem with the Senate immigration proposal as I see it is that lawbreakers can stay here and be "on the road to citizenship". If illegals were forced to return or undergo some process to equalize the playing field with those who go through normal legal channels, then we might be getting somewhere. However, there seems to be an unholy alliance between mega-business and mega-liberals at work. One wants to build wealth for itself, the country be damned. The other wants to import constituents, the country be damned.
It's a conundrum, for sure. These interests surely have plenty of representatives in D.C. For all the hand-wringing about Republicans (and this is not to say that some of this angst is most deserved, i.e., that directed at McCain and his ilk), it will be conservative Republicans who take down proposals for amnesty.
Every Demo on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted for the Senate bill.
Remember, people with a hankering for a perfect church should stay away from Washington.
Finally, I note that students are supporting "immigration rights" by breaking the law, i.e., playing hookie. And we have councilmembers here in Houston applauding their passion. Surprise. No respect for the law by those who advocate continued disrespect for American laws.
French Authorities Determine no Germans in Crowd; Fire on Protesters, Use Cannons
Okay, so they fired paintballs and used water cannons. You know it must be serious. And no, I am not kidding. All of this to protest a proposal that make it easer for employers to fire people under 26. France sounds like a great country ... for late-night comic material. Nightly fires and riots. Militant immigrants demanding that the culture be remade. Economic disaster. Cultural rot. Never forget: This is what leftists here want America to look like.
Thoughts and Prayers with Sharon StoneFinally, on a sad note, it appears that the lovely Sharon Stone has gone blind, or is she suffering from dementia? You be the judge.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Here's the story. Note the hilarious headline: "Afghan Court Dismisses Case vs. Alleged Christian Convert." The AP treats converting to Christianity like child molestation ... wouldn't want to tag poor Rahman with the "Christian" label, after all, without a trial. I mean, he only confessed to converting to Christianity after working with a Christian aid group about 16 years ago ... allegedly.
In following this ordeal, it seems that the Afghans are getting the hang of this politics thing. Islamic clerics were demanding the execution of Rahman for his rejection of Islam. President Hamid Karzai was caught in the middle, with numerous allies (most notably the U.S. and Britain) calling for Rahman's release.
So, the Afghanis did the smart thing politically. They did release Rahman, but they said they were doing so because of insufficient evidence of this "crime". Purportedly, family members came forward to claim that Rahman was mentally ill.
So, I got it ... Radical Islam will lop off your head for being an infidel but a crazy who commits the crime of the century gets to completely walk. If I were Rahman, I think I'd head for Kabul with a big "Jesus Saves" sandwich board and a collection of John Tesch CDs. Clearly, he'd continue to beat the rap.
So, the punch line to this little tale is the following: The civilized world knows what happened here. The uncivilized world of Radical Islam can continue to claim this to be the crime of the century. But they would have done so, and revolted, if Karzai and Company had addressed the controversy forthrightly.
So a Christian lives, and the radicals can claim (at least in their backward worlds) that their view of justice prevails.
Still, this episode probably inches the world more toward an understanding of Radical Islam as compared to authentic Christian faith.
The light of truth ... and the New Media ... shining on this episode is instructive.
For instance, some questions might come to mind, even in Afghanistan: Why must an unbeliever be killed? Can't Islam stand on its own merits? What is so wrong about worshiping Jesus, whom Islam reveres as a prophet? What can be the harm of an open discussion of such issues, if one is confident in the outcome?
Does the Koran sanction such savagery as that routinely advocated by so-called "clerics"?
How can one man's conversion to Christianity threaten a whole nation of Muslims?
Is there that much power in a solitary Christian life?
Rahman, for his part, appeared ready to meet his fate and his Maker:
"I am serene. I have full awareness of what I have chosen. If I must die, I will die ... Somebody, a long time ago, did it for all of us," he added in a clear reference to Jesus.Sounds pretty sane to me.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Of course, the MSM missed much of the good stuff that makes the world go 'round in the story of the rescue of the three Christian "peace activists".
My immediate reaction to the freeing of the "peace activists" in Iraq was, of course, joy. We all rejoice when an innocent is spared from jihadis. Notwithstanding what follows, this still holds true.
Yet, this episode has me wondering: Don't the warmongering British and American troops get any credit for the rescue? Apparently not. It appears that the reward for the good deeds of these Samaritans was to get another moralizing lecture. Indeed, it took Doug Pritchard, co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams, no time at all to bluster: "We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq."
Doesn't the Bible say something about thanks?
Also, the "Christian Peacemaker Teams" apparently weren't moved by the immense pain and suffering in Iraq before the fall of Saddam. Or were they? Were they "making peace" in Iraq when Saddam was sawing off limbs and filling mass graves? Perhaps a peacenik "point of order" would not have been permitted in those times. Yet, it seems there was no one there to ask this question at the presser after the rescue. I don't know. I was working. Where was Gregory? Still upset over the quail hunting accident?
In case any one bothered to notice, these "peace activists" were taken hostage by a group of crazies who laughingly call themselves the "Swords of Righteousness Brigade". Now, this is good comedy. Surely, the SRB takes themselves quite seriously, but ... swords? Who needs swords to "capture" a bunch of pacifist leftists? This "operation" could have been done with a pop gun. Or a lit paper bag full of dog excrement on the front porch. Now, you might need a sword if you wandered into Camp Victory looking for some action. But hey ... jihadis aren't much for that stuff.
And "righteousness"? I just love reading the linked story and noting how the writers just fly right over that. One must be crazy-evil-stupid to do such things and be brazen enough to claim to be acting in the name of "righteousness". But such is the nature of Radical Islam. It tolerates no "unrighteousness" or independent thought.
And finally ... "Brigade?" As in a military unit? Enough said.
Oh, the irony. But it just keeps coming. For Christian "fundies" like me are willing to let the Christian "peace activists" of the world reap what they sow with their lunacy. Even though such misguided souls would not only turn their cheeks but would turn mine and my family's ... I still won't lop their head off. Yet, the jihadis would ... even though they're on the same side as the "peace activists" in Iraq. Go figure.
The MSM's leftist template is so deeply embedded in its consciousness as to not note a tiny fraction of the foregoing humor/drama/irony that unfolded this week.
They wrote a good book. And didn't know it.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
After all, there's not much for some one like me to say. I mean, we're committed and I know what side I am on. So, making inane statements like "this is Viet Nam" that simply emboden the enemy isn't an option. Regarding operations, I certainly don't know near what our commanders do. So, in spite of the fact that every military operation in the history of the world could have been done better if only the PFCs had been in charge, I will refrain from sharing my superior knowledge on the subject.
As for those who look back now, kick the dirt, and say "The world would have been much better off if I had been calling the shots," my retort is: Indeed, the world is full of clip-on-badge-wearing bureaucrats whose greatest achievement is their SAT score. Those who have never tried anything bold don't understand, and generally envy, those who do.
So, let us stipulate that the mission hasn't gone with the ease that we confort-addicted Americans are accustomed to. And further let us agree that we didn't foresee all the evil and difficulties that were ahead of us three year ago. Okay, you're right. I had no idea that crazed jihadis would saw off the heads of Americans while cameras rolled. You got me. And let's even go farther and say that, yes, we would have done some things differently for an operational standpoint, such as not disbanding the Iraqi Army.
Yes, Virginia, hindsight is 20-20. So, what?
Then, let's also state the positives which are also apparent if we would but look: First, our military has been remarkable, and casualties have been held to historic lows for such an operation. Next, whether one agrees with the objectives or not, the Iraqis are establishing a democracy that will in all likelihood not threaten America or support terrorism. That this is happening in the middle of the Arab world would have been as unthinkable as the Berlin Wall coming down in the mid-80s. Now, look at the world. There are other clear indicators of hope ... in Libya, in Lebanon. So, there is reason for optimism. Not polyannaism, but optimism.
And American casualties are down of late. Thus, it appears that the war critics now harp on the "civil war" mantra. I thought this was what they wanted, no? Iraqis killing other Iraqis? This was success to them a few months ago. Ah, but the full-time critic is never held to account. He has only things to tear down. Building is far too complicated and frustrating.
Part of the problem here is that much of the progress going forward is really out of our hands. Ultimately, Iraqis will have to fend off jihadis and establish a working democracy. We have given them the opportunity, and now they must seize it.
The perpetual anti-American critic spends all of his time arguing about the limitations of America and then refuses to admit the truth of this proposition when it doesn't suit his political ends. America can't cause or alleviate all of the suffering in the world.
And America can't make Iraq a success. Ultimately, all we can do is give Iraq a fighting chance. We are more than doing that. All the while, American security has been enhanced as the jihadi template of the weak infidel has been smashed over and over. It seems that more than Burger Kings stand in the way of the global caliphate.
America has a lot to be proud of, in particular of its amazing, resourceful young troops. God bless them and give them continued success.
But for the perpetual critics ... to those who offer no support, not even advice, only criticism, hand-wringing and regret ... their pontifications are as lost as they.
Pontification lost, indeed.
Friday, March 17, 2006
First, be sure to put a huge board behind you with a descriptive phrase that is actually far more descriptive of you than your political opponent. Having colors on the sign match your clothing so as to accentuate that it is really describing you is a nice touch, as well.
Hey, I note that the good guys are playing offense again in Iraq. That's good to see.
And in Washington, Sen. DeWine of Ohio has introduced a bill to keep the debate going on the "domestic surveillance" aka "Is it okay to listen to jihadis while they plot to kill Americans?" program. This is a surprisingly smart move by DeWiner, an original member of McCain's Gang of 14.
How a guy named DeWiner, who was separated at birth from this guy, could make it in the Senate is beyond me. But hey, at least he has the good sense to run against Demos.
Have a good weekend. See you next week.
Photo via Drudge.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
When my wife and I were getting married about 20 years ago, we talked about having children. We were thinking four ... or gasp ... maybe even five. I remember back then hearing Christians talk about how coming demographics would be different because of the value that conservatives in general, and people of faith in particular, place upon life, our posterity, and in general living for more than just themselves.
Well, 20 years later, we do indeed have four children. And it appears others like us have been doing the same. Maybe you have noticed population trends in the U.S. and the world.
Check out this piece from USA Today by Phillip Longman. He observes,
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.This is one of a number of structural problems facing today's post-modern Left. Yes, it's true that conservatives have our own challenges. Yet, our challenges are met by remaining true to our convictions. By contrast, the Left's self-destructive narcissism requires it to abandon its philosophy to survive.
Monday, March 13, 2006
The latest? Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis) is supporting a resolution to censure Pres. Bush. Story here. It seems that his Demo pals, especially those up for reelection this year, can't stomach the resolution. What gives? No political muscle to spank the most evil man of the age?
1) Demos have a front guy carrying their water to provide refreshment and motivation to the base. Feingold is also a presidential contender, so he needs the support of the Demo cookoobirds. Remember: To get the Demo nomination, a sizeable number of crazy people have to support you. To win the election, however, a sizeable number of sane people have to support you. This is a tricky endeavor for a Demo, to say the least. It takes a really super politician and liar. You might recall an example from the recent past.
2) More than a little triangulation is under way here, as the Demos figure out how stupid this idea is. Feingold's lead trial balloon floated over and landed in Harry Reid's lap. Reid, though, said he hadn't read the resolution. This is such a lie it's hilarious. The Demos up for election and/or in leadership (i.e., Pelosi) are trying to sound reasonable while Feingold and other safe senators pander to the zealots. Won't work. I just whipped out my big ol' brush to paint all of 'em with the same color, at least on their bellies -- yellow.
3) This misguided effort just makes people rally around Pres. Bush. Plus, the Demos picked an issue (spying on jihadis) on which most people agree with Pres. Bush. They also helped remind people how the Dubai ports story was a diversion only. The Demos just can't be trusted on security. And the Demos really don't like it when America puts the hammer down on jihadis, or heck, even listens to their phone calls. Who reminded us of this? Russ Feingold. Thank you, Cheese Head.
Note: If all of this doesn't prove the existence of God ... conclusively ... then tell me what does.
4) If the Demos win the House this November, there will be a serious impeachment move afoot. Bank on it. They will be emboldened and will argue that all of their anti-Bush rhetoric and venom resonated and gave them the mandate they desired to investigate, investigate, investigate and then ... impeach. They are desperate to get even for Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and Clinton's impeachment.
The Demos are trying to keep it down, but ... I and my right-wing hachetmeisters will get the word out. Fear not. Plus, if they take the Senate, you can expect more shenanigans like Feingold's and no more conservatives on the courts.
This is what is at stake in November. Thanks again to Russ Feingold for the reminder.
Friday, March 10, 2006
To which I bitterly and disappointingly respond, "I thought it was."
But seriously, there are lots of reasons for pessimism in the news. You don't have to look hard. We could get bitter and mad. But hey, then we'd be on our way to being Leftists, would we not?
Ultimately, I stay on a fairly even keel because of the demonstrable but true (wishing the world is flat doesn't make it so) and the not so demonstrable but still true (God lives and reigns).
So, even when Pres. Bush's popularity hits a new low and the MSM continues to breathlessly report all that's wrong, but nothing that's right, in Iraq ... even as demagoguery in D.C. (not here, in Washington) reaches levels where it actually stands out from the norm ... still, we press on.
Why? Well, for one thing, although I remain a steadfast supporter of Pres. Bush, my world hardly begins and ends with his political fortunes. Fundamentally, the square pegs still don't fit the round holes and there is still a good portion of the people who know this. And in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, ultimately is the people ... it's us ... who keep it going. Enemies are defeated by the Brave (not cowering politicians) and obstacles overcome by the Free (not the monolithic, slavish MSM).
And speaking of "doom and gloom", did you notice (you probably didn't because the MSM is still crying) that Tom Delay easily won his primary challenge here in Texas? This was supposed to be the year he went down. People don't buy it. He will win reelection and go back to D.C. as one of the few Republicans who won't shrink from the Demos and tell the American public what they are.
Across Texas you can see it. You can see it in South Dakota, too. I am shocked to find that the public in that state is evenly divided over an anti-abortion measure that I personally believe goes too far at this time. I respect the principle behind it and would, push come to shove, support it, but ... still it seeks to turn a ship around so fast as to capsize it. I think there is a better way to advance the pro-life ball, but still half of S.D. supports it. What does that say? There is broad support for what the Left routinely characterizes as unthinking and unthinkable.
Bottom line: The Demo/Left/same things continue to put all their eggs in the Bush basket, and he's not on the ballot in November. It is a bit ironic and funny, too, that just when Bush finally looks vulnerable, the Demos still can't beat him. More conclusive proof of the existence of Rove's Hack-o-tron ... as if stealing two consecutive presidential elections wasn't proof enough.
Virtually everywhere that Republicans have problems nationally, it is because of scandal, or not being perceived as conservative enough. Think about it ... the ports deal, immigration, spending, etc.
Case in point: The President's numbers have fallen principally because of the UAE port deal. I don't agree that it's a bad deal, but there's a lot of grandstanding going on and it's worked. I chuckled to see the House Republicans stealing the campaign baton from the Demos in handing off their own amendment to block the deal. It's the Republicans by a nose on the ports deal!! And thieves are estopped from crying theft. So, be quiet Demos! Yes, it's good to have your own salesmen and lawyers, in case you ever need 'em, I guess.
People are rightfully focused on national security. Yet, Democrats are a generation behind on this issue. And they won't make it up in a year. They can't. They won't ever. Why? Defending this nation vigorously runs contrary to their base's deeply-held post-modern faith. It can't be done. They must abandon their religion, or worse, become Republicans themselves.
The issues in this long slog with Militant Islam are on the side of those whose faith is not vitiated by standing up for Western Civilization and defending America.
And for the Demos ... because of their faith, all they can do is fake. People notice. Remember: Given the choice between Republicans and politicians acting like Republicans, people will choose the real thing every time. The reverse is true, as well, and the Republicans would do well to remember this.
And ... and ... even if the Demos were to make gains or retake either the House or Senate this fall (I don't think they will retake either) we are still looking at only a "political market correction", so to speak. They are the square pegs that they are.
In sum, to the extent the Republicans are in trouble it is only because they are out of step with a public that continues to get it more and more on national security. Or we have the political equivalent of a "fumble", a scandal that presents the opposition with an opportunity.
Americans don't want to play Patty Cake. I mean, if we are going to play Patty Cake (like we did in the 90s) then we can just elect the Demos to do that.
So, fret not. The public is ahead of its politicians, per usual. Americans are smart. And good.
Have a good weekend, everybody.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Now liberalized, Hashemi opines that maybe, just maybe, women should be allowed to vote afer all. I mean, this is 20th-century stuff here. And you know, when a jihadi fast-forwards more than a millenium, the lefties swoon.
Much of the commentary on this issue points out how the Yale Taliban illustrates leftist hypocrisy. John Fund has a good piece on the subject in today's WSJ, via Glenn Reynolds.
But we know the Left is hypocritical. Or do we? Indeed, one has to wonder how committed the Left is to its various pet crusades. What superficially appears to be "hypocrisy" may be something far worse.
Never mind the fact that Hashemi advocated/approved of anti-Semitism, honor killings, genital mutilation and acid punishment for wayward women ... and crushing homosexuals with brick walls. Leftists still swoon over this unbathed swine.
Why? He hates America. And make no mistake: The Hard Left hates America. Plus, unlike most of these cowards, their boy Hashemi has the guts to do something about it. Heck, he did.
"Get over here, you big hunk of man in a dress." Swoon ... It's a steamy kiss and a revival meeting all in one. The Ivy League has found religion!!
In this sordid episode at Yale, we see again the neat ideological marriage between radically unconstrained, post-modern leftists and Militant Islam. Further, Yale's admission of a former Taliban official displays to all who would but look that the Ivy League Establishment/Left/same thing could care less about its various interest groups, i.e., feminists and gays. These interest groups are only tools to be used to bring down the real enemies -- America and the West. The Hard Left's goals are the same as Militant Islam's: Destabilize the social structure to defeat the Great Satan.
Still, an ironic question in all of this is: How long do you think the jihadis would put up with the Left's idea of sexual mores and women's rights if they took power? Long enough to slit the throats of all the leftists who advocated such burkha burning.
But rather than advocating giving the boot to the Yale Taliban, the Left spends its time beating up on its imagined boogeymen: men who remain married to the same woman all their adult lives ... men whose goal is to be their daughters' hero ... men who support the traditional view of marriage but are not inclined to murder homosexuals with brick walls ... men who open doors for women ... men who are business partners with women, etc. I mean, we're talking threats to the social fabric here.
Meanwhile, the Ivy League/Left/same thing cajoles, beseeches, befriends, and seeks to learn from the sage Yale Taliban:
"Speak to us, dear Hashemi ... Where have we gone wrong, o' great Swami? Tell us just how evil America is. Surely we made you err so. For a person so nice, indeed a man in a dress, can not be so bad. Can he? Ah, but we can forgive. We must. For, America certainly caused all of your missteps. Teach us, o' Wise Yale Taliban.
"Teach us the outer limits of your evil as we likewise explore the outer limits of our own depravity and hatred of the West. Amen."
Friday, March 03, 2006
Sent to me by a nice Demo in my office today, with a nice little story ... with adaptation by me:
It seems that President Reagan upon reaching the pearly gates was greeted warmly by St. Peter, et al.. Looking down on his memorial service, St. Peter remarked on how grand the entire ceremony was and also how great it was that the country could be brought together in such a time of loss. "It seems, for a time at least, Ronald, that your passing has united all Americans," St. Peter said. "Yes, Pete," the Gipper said with a wry smile. "Even the Clintons are sleeping together."
Of course, that was then. Given that Bill is pushing for the UAE ports deal and Hill is arguing that all ports should be run by American companies (in spite of the fact that the Chi-Coms and others have run American ports for years and that Bill approved such deals, etc.), it may take another big event to bring the Clintons together again any time soon. Stay tuned.
Now it's approved, 89-10. What happened? A floor vote in an election year, that's what. Leftists shrink from accountability and light.
Keep your spirits up out there. All the signs are that the public wants its representatives to clamp down on jihadis on all fronts. If the question is national security, the answer is never "Vote Demo." Indeed, the Demos are swimming upstream. They only behave when they fear the voters are watching. And remembering.
Oh, but some of us are watching all the time. And remembering.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
To me, some of the more salient points in the dispute seem to be:
1) Everyone other than those mindless "independents" who make up CNN debate focus groups knows that the Democrats will never be ... and can never be ... to the right of Republicans on national security. To understand this, one need only be reminded of the directions that the parties are constantly being pulled by their respective bases. For instance, just look how the Demo base is mounting a primary challenge to Joe Lieberman, one of the few remaining sane Democrats on national security. Make no mistake: The Kossacks will never allow their party to be more conservative on national security than George Bush and Co. Never. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure fantasy, put out for election year consumption only. Indeed, the lefties so despise vigorous efforts to defend this nation that they can hardly bring themselves to mouth such a party line, even for their own political advantage.
2) On Sunday, Newt Gingrich made what I thought was an excellent point -- one that conservatives should well understand -- that the deal should be held to stricter scrutiny because the UAE company is owned by a government rather than a business. That is, the UAE government could very well be subject to political pressures that a private company would not necessarily be. Of course, this could turn out to be a positive, too, provided that the right pressures continue to be applied to the UAE.
3) As Mark pointed out in the thread below, the opposition to the ports deal is principally being driven by congressmen and senators with ties to labor, in particular longshoremen. Thus, we have now-MSM darling Rep. Peter King (R) teaming with his fellow New Yorker, Sen. Chuck Schumer. As we, and all CNN focus group members know, Sen. Schumer has been ever-vigilant in defending American interests and has supported the Bush Administration every step of the way in its efforts to fight jihadis worldwide. Ahem.
Note, too, that Schumer and Co. are now taking the position that all American ports should be run by American longshoremen. Sounds principled on the surface, except for the minor detail that our ports have been run by numerous foreign companies (including the British predecessor to the company at issue in the ports deal) for some time. The Clinton Administration was all for this stuff, too, provided that the Chinese got in on the action. You will recall that Schumer and Co. managed to look the other way on those deals, though.
4) The President's communications department is horrible. Dan Bartlett should have been fired before the last election and replaced with me. Well, I didn't apply, but still ... he should have been replaced with some one as good as me. Never mind. You get the point. The Bush Administration has done a consistently horrible job at explaining itself as various crises have evolved. Bartlett and Co. constantly are behind the Administration's critics in defining issues, and they remain on the defensive every time that events surge. That the Bush Administration did not understand that the Demo(gogue)crats would be in full election year attack mode over this deal is inexplicable.
This deal presents a golden opportunity to explain again the identity and nature of our enemies -- Radical Islamists -- while contrasting them with our allies, including our Arab allies. The UAE is strateglically positioned to continue to aid our efforts in Iraq while also putting pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, the deal offers us an opportunity to rally parts of the Arab world to help us in taking on Radical Islamists. But are Dan Bartlett and Co. up to it? I very seriously doubt it. Like most PR battles in the Bush Adminstration, this one will likely be left to conservative pundits and talk radio.
Speaking of which, Charles Krauthammer wrote an excellent column on the port debate. Krauthammer makes the point that even hypocrites can be right, and he further proposes a potential solution for the Bush Administration. Still, I think the money quote in the piece is the following:
... If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother.Remember: When the hypocrites are scoring political points, it must be an election year.
Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys [a company that operates certain U.S. ports], Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. ...