” … there is something really screwy about this administration’s admonitions to Iraqis to get with the program. As though Iraq ever had it together; Saddam’s reign was one of the more peaceful periods in the history of this fractious people. What a shame it’s too late to dust Saddam off, give him a sponge bath, and beg him to restore law and order to Iraq.
Secretly, that’s what anyone with a head and a heart would want. We could promise solemnly never to mess with him again — just so long as he keeps his mitts off nukes, continues to check Iran (which he did splendidly), and minimizes massacres. To be fair, Saddam’s last major massacre was in 1991, during which only 3,000 Shiites were murdered. That’s less than the monthly quota under “democracy.”
No one is praising Saddam, yada, yada, yada. But even the Saddam-equals-Hitler crowd cannot but agree that Iraq was not a lawless society prior to our faith-based intervention. Even the war’s enablers must finally admit that under our ministrations Iraq has gone from a secular to a religious country; from rogue to failed state…â€?
The excerpt is from my latest WorldNetDaily.com column, “At Least Saddam Kept Order.” Feel free to comment.
Updated Again: Webb Wallops W.
Although “classless behavior” and George Bush are interchangeable (groping the German Chancellor was just one of many Bush vulgarities), the descriptive was applied, oddly enough, to his interlocutor, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). A “pathetic story of classless behavior” is how Webb’s recent retort to George Bush has been described by some. Reports the Washington Post:
“At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia’s newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn’t long before Bush found him.
‘How’s your boy?’ Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
‘I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,’ Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
‘That’s not what I asked you,’ Bush said. ‘How’s your boy?’
‘That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,’ Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.”
Let’s rewind. You’d have to be a dedicated Bush bootlicker to misidentify the ignoble savage in this interaction.
Give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume that, knowing Webb’s principled opposition to his invasion of Iraq, the president was still sincere in inquiring after Webb’s soldier son. (Bush is known as quite a spiteful and petulant man, so it’s not unreasonable to consider that he may also have been pushing Webb’s buttons.)
Webb then answered in a manner that comported with his convictions, yet still addressed Bush’s query politely (he was careful to call him “Mr. President”). What does the president do in response? He upbraids Webb and speaks down at him.
Append “boy” to end of “That’s not what I asked you,” and you get my drift ‘and Bush’s’ loud and clear.
Update: Here’s a likeminded appraisal of Jim Webb’s worth from Tom DiLorenzo, a man who has had the courage to take on a far more blood thirsty leader than Genghis Bush. My Mother, who doesn’t live on this continent, marveled the other day at how militaristic Americans are. That’s how foreigners experience us. Other American friends I have were aghast to learn that I think that, while Americans are very concerned about the well-being of fetuses, they are callous about the lives of fully formed human beings. Having experienced a couple of cultures during my life, that’s certainly been my abiding impression — there’s a glorification of death for the fatherland in the US. Scary.
Updated Again: It appears I was right. Being the bully he is, Bush was simply pushing Webb’s buttons. So reports ThinkProgress, which obtained its information from Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA):
“Bush was told that Webb’s son had a recent brush with death in Iraq and was warned to be ‘extra sensitive’ when talking to the Sen.-elect. ThinkProgress yesterday spoke with Moran’s office and confirmed the congressman’s statement, first reported by hcc in VA: Not only did Bush know about it, he was specifically briefed on the incident before meeting with Webb, and was cautioned to be extra sensitive in speaking with Webb about his son.”
I’ve always been a good judge of character. I don’t need to look into those beady, dead eyes to see the barren soul. A survey of Bush’s utterances and actions will suffice. Once again, Bush was being Bush.
Canada Joins Running of the Jew at U.N. for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Canukistan*
Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Canada, Israel, Media, Middle East, UN
I received this from the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. The information is well good, as Ali G. would say, but the title is even better. Big up to the CCD for the title (and also for standing up for justice).” ILANA
CANADA JOINS RUNNING OF THE JEW AT U.N. FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF CANUKISTAN*
Toronto, Thursday, November 30, 2006, The Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is disappointed by the voting of the government of Canada in yesterday’s slew of anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations.
“Canada has again legitimized the use of UN resolutions to demonize one nation, while ignoring the truly serious human rights violations of other member states,” said Alastair Gordon, president of CCD. “Until resolutions are applied evenhandedly to all UN members, Canada must express its condemnation by voting ‘no’ on all such resolutions.”
In its first 42 years, the UN tabled 370 resolutions condemning Israel and zero resolutions critical of the PLO or any Arab state. When Syria slaughtered 20,000 of its own citizens at Hama in 1982, or when it sponsored the destruction and occupation of Lebanon, or even when Iraq massacred its Kurdish citizens with poison gas, there were no UN resolutions criticizing the perpetrators. In recent years, a handful of resolutions have targeted other Middle Eastern states, but the lion’s share is still reserved for Israel.
In October 2005, former Prime Minister Paul Martin referred to “the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions” at the UN. In November 2004, Canada’s then ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, announced to the General Assembly that “resolutions [against Israel] are often divisive and lack balance.” Yet even with this recognition, both our past and present governments’ anti-Israel voting pattern has barely changed.
The Fourth Committee yesterday tabled nine ritualized resolutions targeting Israel for criticism. Canada voted against Israel on seven, and supported Israel on two. The only change from last year’s voting pattern was the change of one abstention to a ‘no’.
“The Stephen Harper government has taken a number of principled foreign policy positions that Canadians can be proud of. Yet it is choosing to continue the despicable bullying of one nation, a travesty that was identified by our former Prime Minister and UN ambassador,” added Gordon. “Until UN resolutions are an unbiased tool applied equally to all member states, Canada’s response to all ritualized anti-Israel resolutions must be NO.”
* With apologies to Borat
Founded in 2003, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) is a non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-denominational organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to national security and the protection and promotion of democracy at home and abroad. CCD focuses on research, education and media publishing to build a greater understanding of the importance of national security and a pro-democracy foreign policy.
Cirque du Islam: The Airborne Imams
Courtesy of Power Line comes coverage of the Flying Imams’ tricks. The latest is a staged prayer protest at Reagan Washington National Airport, with the token Dhimmis in tow (a Rabbi and a minister). (A doff of the hat to Dr. Frank Zavisca for keeping me in the loop). These are the gentlemen who were led off a US-Airways flight after acting suspiciously.
How suspiciously?
1) They requested seat belt extenders, but were not overweight. Then, “Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor.”
2) They moved, without permission, from their assigned seats to first class. After the self-initiated shuffle, “the six imams were positioned on the plane from front to back,” covering all exits, in a configuration “associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks.”
Before boarding, the six had prayed loudly, shouting “Allah,” like You Know Who. Quoting a man of impeccable pinko credentials (“former Minnesota Senator and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Commission on Human Rights Rudy Boschwitz,), Scott of Power Line asks:
There you are at the gate about to kiss your wife and kids goodbye and the imams begin praying. Would you walk away and let the family go forward? Or would you be much relieved if the airline said: hold on, we ought to check these guys out. Give me a break and not this liberal bullshit. The airline acted prudently just as it should have.
What all these pinkos collectively ‘and conveniently’ choose to forget is that federal anti-discrimination laws make it practically impossible for airlines to get away with the type of vigilance US Airways demonstrated. The federal government doesn’t really want airlines to be free to protect the flying customers, because this would invariably mean angering the noisy minorities they prize.
For their efforts on behalf of their customers after 9/11, four airlines were made to pay hefty sums to the federal goons because of so-called discrimination based on race or ethnic background. With airlines being only nominally private, they have fewer and fewer incentives to offer the kind of security service flyers desperately want–and need.
Meantime, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has not wasted any time. According the Washington Post, it has already complained to the Transportation Department. “The Homeland Security Department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties said last week that it was investigating the incident.” This is the intrusive apparatus that ought to be the focus of complaints from “conservative” screechers.