Monday, July 31, 2006

Israel and Hezbollah

Like most of the rest of the world I have been watching, listening and reading as the fight has progressed over these last few weeks. Like most of the rest of us I have not had access to any secret source of information that gives me any special knowledge on the subject.

A few things have become obvious, even to those of us with only a view from down here;

1) The UN continues to be an anti-American, anti-Israeli and largely anti-Semitic organization. Mr. Annan wasted little time in condemning the "apparently"(his word) deliberate Israeli bombing of a UN observer post in south Lebanon. In his never-ending myopia he "apparently" didn't bother to consider how unlikely it would be that a civilized nation, a UN member in fact, would deliberately bomb a well known UN observer post.

I haven't heard anything on the subject from Mr. Annan since it was disclosed that emails from a Canadian soldier killed in the bombing informed higher-ups that Hezbollah was maintaining a presence so close to the post that it was endangering the UN observers. As usual, the blame for the incident lies at the feet of those brave and courageous Islamonuts who get as close as possible to unarmed non-combatants to protect themselves from us. Given their craven nature, the Islamonuts actually can't lose, thanks to the hapless western media. If the use of human shields works, the Islamonuts win and live to fight another day. If the human shields die the western media is only too pleased to show the graphic photos of yet another Zionist massacre.

2) During the run-up to the Iraq war we were encouraged to view the French as reliable allies with a different tactical view of the situation, not the cheese-eating surrender monkeys that they so obviously are. Today the French Foreign Minister is touting Iran as a great and good country that can help stabilize the neighborhood. How much more do you need to hear? Please tell me that this will finally convince you to stop buying anything French.

3) The million stories about the "new" Hezbollah that is giving the Israeli's fits is laughable. I can think of no better cover story for the Israeli's to put out. It serves their every purpose.

a) Makes Iran and Syria look even worse than they are by asserting that they have given the bad guys even more weapons and other equipment than we had thought;

b) Makes the inevitable complete destruction of Hezbollah an even greater triumph than it would otherwise have been;

c) Exposes the UN for the fraud that it is. Sooner or later, probably later, someone is going to ask what, exactly, UN observers are for. I don't think any of us assumed that their purpose was to watch Hezbollah import rockets by the 1000's and train fighters by the 1000's and build bunkers and tunnels by the 1000's all in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution #1559 which demands the DISARMING of the people the UN Observers watched arm themselves to the teeth. Did they tell anyone? If they did why are the Israelis so "shocked" at the amount of infrastructure and weaponry they are encountering? If they did relay that information to UN authorities did those authorities share the info with anyone? If so, who, and what did those they shared it with do with the information?

4) The great Qana Massacre will prove to be much like the great Jenin Massacre. Unfortunately, it appears people really did die in Qana. See Human Shields above. The Islamonuts win whether the shields live or die. That win, however is shortlived. The Israelis appear not to care anylonger what the silly western media thinks and I applaud them for choosing to largely ignore the editors and talking heads who refuse to see what is immediately before them: Good guys are fighting bad guys. Good guys are doing everything within their power to get the innocents out of harm's way. The bad guys insist on keeping the innocents in front of them. Some of the innocents get killed. This is hardly the fault of the Good guys. We are the Good guys.

5) Democrat politicians are so stupid that it is unlikely that they will return to power in the near future.

Howard Dean, in a speech calling for an end to divisivness, calls Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki an anti-Semite (also called Katherine Harris a crook and compared her to Stalin, but that is another story)for refusing to condemn the Hezbollah attacks on Israel. I guess he didn't know that 5 Dem Congressmen voted against the House Resolution condemning Hezbollah. He didn't call them anti-Semites.

On the otherhand, maybe this was just Dem pander politics as usual: the speech was in Palm Beach. I wonder what percentage of the audience was jewish?

Mr. Moron, John Kerry made one of his incredibly stupid comments. I quote, as nearly as possible from memory, "This would never have happend under a Kerry Administration". What an idiot.

Monday, July 03, 2006

NY Times Treason Cont'd

It has now been 10 days since the infamous publication of National Security Secrets by the NY Times and the LA Times. In that time the furor over the exposure of our secret funds tracking program has, thankfully, not died down.

The editors of the NY Times, LA Times and the reporters who wrote the story have been forced to defend themselves several times over. Although they have declined to appear on any critics' shows, they have appeared on friendly ones and the editors have issued serial written justifications of their traitorous decision to publish the story.

There are two possible explanations of the clumsiness of their collective defenses:
1) They are so unaccustomed to being challenged that they don't know how to respond;
and/or
2) They can't possible admit that they published the story because they hate this country and our committment to the GWOT so much that they knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

All the parties involved are asserting the same justifications;

1) Everyone knew what the USA was doing and
2) That the press has an obligation to expose government programs that might be illegal.

They appear not to have noticed that their story insists that the program was secret ( the headlines screamed it) and was effective. Obviously if the bad guys knew what we were doing they wouldn't have been caught through this program.

They appear not to have noticed that their story reported that the program was legal and subject to appropriate congressional disclosure.

How, you ask, is it possible for them not to have noticed these obvious points that discredit their defense? Its not, of course. Therein lies the reason they won't face critics directly. They wouldn't be able to continuously assert positions refuted by their own story if the interviewers were persistent in their questioning.

They seem very fond of comparing this case to the Pentagon Papers case although they know(or should know) full well that the cases are completely different. In the Pentagon Papers case SCOTUS decided that the government couldn't restrain in advance the publication of classified material. SCOTUS also said that the ruling on the injunction to prevent publication in no way constrained the government from prosecuting the leakers and the publishers for publishing classified material.

In this case, as the parties know, prior restraint is not the issue. The issue is responsibility for publishing classified material from a legal and effective program. Hopefully, prosecutions will ensue.