Pajamas Media reports Vindication For Marine Charged in Haditha Cover-up. Tag line:
Lt. Andrew Grayson has been acquitted of charges that he helped cover up the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha. With charges dropped against five of the eight Marines involved the incident and only two more trials to go — apologies may soon be in order.
Update: Best headline dealing with this story comes from Investor's Business Daily:
Another Marine 'Murderer' Goes Free; No Apologies From Murtha Or Media
The Strategy Page has a fascinating list of reasons why Arabs fail, time after time (e.G., the Six Day War). Given our efforts to train Arabs in Iraq, I highly recommend reading the entire article as it will help you understand what we are up against. A taste:
Why do Arabs so often lose wars against non-Arabs? Why has so much of the terrorism activity for the last few decades been carried out by Arabs? Why are Arab societies so corrupt, so uneducated and lacking in economic or scientific progress? Even raising these issues is considered un-diplomatic, provocative, racist or worse. But there is something going on. . . .
At lot has been written about why Arab armies so consistently lose wars with non-Arabs. These reasons also explain why Arab nations, and many other Third World nations as well, also have trouble establishing democratic governments or prosperous economies. A lot of it has to do with culture, especially culture influenced by Islam. Some of the reasons for these failures are;
Cuba's Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque demanded today that the US return Guantanamo Bay, claiming that suspects held there have been subjected to torture.
Meanwhile in other news, an al-Qaeda video has surfaced that shows horrifying images of what appear to be prisoners in Iraq being doused with an inflammatory liquid and then burned alive.
As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning -- think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain's poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I'm getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don't like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won't vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That's right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards' and Hillary's speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I'm joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can't find a militia then I'm going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama's speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn't leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don't think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let's see if we can't have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together -- a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary's side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won't come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
Washington Post's Peter Carlson starts off by telling us how great it is in Ramadi. I mean, how really, really great it is:
When David J. Morris returned to Ramadi in October, he was mobbed by Iraqis. But this time they weren't trying to kill him, they were trying to sell him bars of Dove soap.
Street vendors in Ramadi? It blew his mind. For years, Ramadi vied with Fallujah as the toughest, deadliest hellhole in Iraq and now, Morris writes in a brilliant piece in the Virginia Quarterly Review, you can walk the streets like a tourist, fearing only "the platoons of vendors assaulting you."
Of course, Carlson's real purpose for the entire article is to praise a fellow journalist and direct readers to peruse the Virginia Quarterly Review. He even goes as far to try and question the "surge" (scare quotes included):
The Bush administration and its supporters tout the turnaround of Ramadi as proof that the "surge" is working. Antiwar critics wonder how long the sheiks will remain friendly.
Still, you can't come away from the article without feeling that things are going well in Iraq. And the thoughtful reader will know that whatever the reason, it certainly isn't due to Democrat's forced withdrawal deadlines.
"I'd rather be waterboarding", from ThoseShirts.com.
Now that's funny, I don't care who y'are.
Holy cow, the situation must actually be proving in Iraq because even the Associated Press admits that the first signs of hope are appearing in Iraq:
Thousands of Iraqis who fled the country are now returning. Areas of Baghdad that were ghost towns only a few months ago are reviving. Shoppers stroll the streets with their children.
"I think next year will be better because the situation is improving every day," said Firas Adel, a Shiite clothing merchant. "More people are returning to their homes and businesses. There is sense of safety and stability, and this will boost the economy."
The AP article even credits success to President's Bush's decision to implement the surge. How times have changed!
Changing times indeed in Iraq, as the NY Sun reports the other Iraqi surge:
According to the not-quite-closed record book for 2007, Iraqi sovereign bonds, the Iraqi currency, and the Iraqi stock market have each logged astounding, not to mention politically provocative, gains.
General Petraeus penned a letter (reproduced in totality by the IBD) that was distributed to the men and women under his command. In it he congratulates them for their successes and cautions that the fight will continue to be one fought on a daily basis for some time.
In places like Ramadi, Baqubah, Arab Jabour and Baghdad, you and our Iraqi brothers fought — often house by house, block by block, and neighborhood by neighborhood — to wrest sanctuaries away from al-Qaida-Iraq, to disrupt extremist militia elements and to rid the streets of mafialike criminals.
Having cleared areas, you worked with Iraqis to retain them — establishing outposts in the areas we were securing, developing Iraqi security forces and empowering locals to help our efforts. . . .
As you and your Iraqi partners turn concepts into reality, additional progress will emerge slowly and fitfully. Over time, we will gradually see fewer bad days and accumulate more good days, good weeks and good months.
Oliver North tells us that we should be thankful for the Christmas present that our fighting troops have delivered to us:
So, your Christmas present — the triumph we now witness in Iraq — is not quite finished, but the troops are sending it to you anyway. This country's neighbors are less than enthusiastic about a democracy next door. We have seen the sophisticated IEDs and rockets that Iran builds and sends into Iraq to kill and maim. Though Iraqi oil production now exceeds pre-2003 levels, the democratically elected government in Baghdad isn't doing enough to rebuild the country's crumbling infrastructure. From the ground up, this country is being transformed more rapidly than anyone believed possible and America is gaining a new ally in the struggle against radical Islamic terror.
Is North's assessment accurate? Will democracy prevail in Iraq? To answer that, I offer an article penned by one in academia:
For the past two years, I have taught a course on the Iraq war -- first at the graduate level at The New School university in New York, and now at the undergraduate level at my new home at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. . . .
And while my students are usually skeptical about the prospects of success, my own view is more positive: Iraqi democracy is on the right track. As it continues to develop in the decades to come, George W. Bush's war will be vindicated.
I highly recommend the analysis that the professor goes on to lay out.
As for the soldiers that are fighting "Bush's war", some will soon have two bowling lanes laid out on Iraqi sands:
Doyle Claxton owns United Bowling Center in Yulee. "We were approached a couple months ago by email by a soldier in Iraq and he asked us how he could get some bowling lanes."
Not only is Claxton sending two lanes to Iraq from his warehouse, he's doing it for free.
"When I heard they were going to put plywood on the sand to bowl, it broke my heart."
As for me this Christmas season, I am proud of my country for deposing a bloodthirsty tyrant, and grateful for the men and women who volunteer to give their all for their country. I'm also more than a little pleased that people like Doyle Claxton exist, taking the time to bring a little bit of home to those so far away during this time of year, usually reserved for families.
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard points out that the 2007 Man of the Year should have been General David Petraeus.
Time ludicrously chose to make Russia's ex-KGB agent-turned president Vladimir Putin its cover boy. They just couldn't make Petraeus man--oops--person of the year. Our liberal elites are so invested in a narrative of defeat and disaster in Iraq that to acknowledge the prospect of victory would be too head-wrenching and heart-rending. It would mean giving credit to George W. Bush, for one. And it would mean acknowledging American success in a war Time, and the Democratic party, and the liberal elites, had proclaimed lost. . . .
The reality is also this: The counterinsurgency campaign that Petraeus and Odierno conceived and executed in 2007 was as comprehensive a counterinsurgency strategy as has ever been executed. The heart of the strategy was a brilliant series of coordinated military operations throughout the entire theater. Petraeus and Odierno used conventional U.S. forces, Iraqi military and police, and Iraqi and U.S. Special Operations forces to strike enemy strongholds throughout Iraq simultaneously, while also working to protect the local populations from enemy responses. Successive operations across the theater knocked the enemy--both al Qaeda and Sunni militias, and Shia extremists--off balance and then prevented them from recovering. U.S. and Iraqi forces, supported by local citizens, chased the enemy from area to area, never allowing them the breathing space to reestablish safe havens, much less new bases. It wasn't "whack-a-mole" or "squeezing the water balloon" as some feared (and initially claimed)--it was the relentless pursuit of an increasingly defeated enemy.
The latest proof of progress in Iraq comes from al Qaeda itself:
The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq called on militants in a new audiotape Saturday to kill Sunnis who have joined forces with the U.S. to battle extremists in the war-torn country.
When Muslims call on Muslims to kill Muslims and not readily available Americans, you know things have changed.
And by the way, the radical terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq has posted a confirmation of Abu Maysara's death on their web site. Maysara is just one of the nine senior al Qaeda members that the US military killed in Iraq during November.
Finally in today's news from Iraq, Christians are returning to celebrate Christmas in a section of Baghdad that was recently a self-declared al-Qaeda caliphate.
Now, in a significant success for the US troop surge, al-Qaeda has been rooted out of Doura and the hundreds of Christian families who left the area are returning. On Christmas Day, they will congregate in battle-scarred St Mary's Church, where part of the crucifix on its tower is still missing after being shot at by terrorists. . . .
Major Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, confirmed that Christian families were returning. "What is more important is that the Muslim tribal leaders are openly showing support for their Christian neighbours," he added.
As time goes on, tales like this will become the norm. And in turn, Iraq will become every bit a symbol of progress and freedom in the Middle East as is Israel.
It may have taken Bush three long years to find his general, but find him he did. And Petraeus is indeed the 2007 Man of the Year. No matter what Time says.
Fred Thompson took time out from his campaigning to say that he is skeptical of the recent US intelligence report that says that Iran stopped its nuclear weaponization program way back in 2003. As I can remember the myriad of conflicting reports in the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq, I am skeptical as well.
Amir Oren, writing for Haaretz, sums it up when he writes:
The document's eight pages, which include embarrassing instructions on how to differentiate between different yet related terms ("it is possible," "it may be so," "one must not remove from the equation," and "it's reasonable to assume"), enable the Ayatollas' nuclear and operations officials and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards to reach this soothing conclusion - from their point of view: The Americans have no understanding of what is really happening in Iran's nuclear program. They have no solid information, they have no high-level agents and they have nothing more than a mix of guesswork and chatter. The dissemblance and concealment have succeeded, and the real dispute is not between Washington and Tehran, but within the U.S. administration itself.
The CIA was once one of the top three spy agencies in the world (Russia's KGB and GRU being the other two), but democrats mounted a five-year campaign against our intelligence capabilities and effectively destroyed it in 1978. It was a blow from which it has never recovered.
So color me skeptical. In 2005, the CIA was certain that there was a nuclear program in Iran. In 2007, the CIA thinks there isn't. In spite of the fact that Iranian terrorist President Ahmadinejad takes every opportunity to tell us that Iran wants one and deserves one.
Bottom line is that we don't know what the hell is going on in the Middle East any country. The CIA is politicized and handcuffed by regulations and congressional oversight.
So I have no choice but to believe Ahmadinejad. Here's hoping our next president will too.
That didn't take long! Via NRO comes the news that this little guy can be yours for only $17.99.
From the website, here's the product description:
Our plush bear is a cutie in his own message-bearing t-shirt and festive red ribbon. He’s a great gift for Valentine’s Day, baby showers, birthdays, get well-wishes, a pair of wedding bears, or any reason you dream up. Put a smile on someone’s face. Just grin and bear it!
- Soft plush fur
- 11 inches tall
- Red bow and t-shirt included
HT to Advised by Wolves
British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons has a kind heart. She has to. After all, volunteered to go to war-torn Sudan to teach children. She just wanted to help.
Today, riot police surrounded her to protect her from an angry mob as she was escorted into a court room where she will learn whether she will be subjected to 40 lashes, six months in jail, a stiff fine, or even all three.
Her crime? She is charged with insulting Islam, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs because she allowed her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad":
Gibbons was teaching her pupils, who are around age 7, about animals, and asked one of them to bring in her teddy bear, according to Robert Boulos, a spokesman for Unity High School in Khartoum.
Gibbons asked the students to pick names for it and they proposed Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad, and in September, the pupils voted to name it Muhammad, he said.
Each child was allowed to take the bear home on weekends and write a diary about what they did with it. The diary entries were collected in a book with the bear's picture on the cover, labeled, "My Name is Muhammad," he said. The bear itself was never labeled with the name, he added.
A spokesman for the Sudanese embassy in London said that Gibbons was "unlikely" to be convicted, even though Sudan's top clerics are calling for the full measure of the law to be used against Gibbons because her actions were part of a Western plot against Islam (some groups are even calling for Gibbons to be put to death and urging believers to pray for that very outcome). Worse yet, even some in Sudanese academia insist that the British teacher was wrong to name the bear Mohammed because the animal does not exist in Sudanese folklore and "if you call someone a bear they will be angry". It was the school secretary, Sarah Khawad, who filed the first complaint.
This case comes on the heels of last week's conviction of a 19-year-old newlywed girl who met with a high school friend (a male) to retrieve a picture. Seven men kidnapped her and her companion and gang raped them both. For the crime of being alone with a man that was not her husband, the teen was initially sentenced to prison and 90 lashes. An appeals court doubled the lashes to 200.
The seven men convicted of brutally gang raping the woman and her companion were given prison sentences of two to nine years.
All this just makes me want to view the MoHamster Dance again, and maybe buy something totally politically incorrect from Aaron. I'm particularly drawn to this shirt.
Update: Sure enough, Gibbons was found guilty by the court and is to serve 15 days (including time served) and then deported from the country.
Following the verdict, prosecutor Babikr Abdulatif said: "I think that the verdict is in accordance with the law because the objective is to reassure the Muslim community who felt the sanctity of their Prophet had been attacked."
Best headline: Hardliners and soft toys: a bad mix
Best analytical comment is from the UK Times:
Yet the Sudanese decision to punish this blameless woman over something so apparently trivial has little to do with rival gods: it is a political manoeuvre, a calculated gambit by a regime under stress that has every reason to want to play to the Islamic gallery.
Best documentation of hypocrisy:
But Adel Darwish, the political editor of The Middle East magazine, says that Muslim children - "like children everywhere" - give their pets the names of characters they liked, be it a religious figure, sports hero or pop singer.
"Millions of Muslim children in Muslim nations give their dolls, pets and teddies Muslim names of the Prophet and his mother, daughters and wives."
Best reaction from a Muslim comes from Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari representing the Muslim Council of Britain:
This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities.
They grossly overreacted in this sad affair. Gillian should never have been arrested, let alone charged and convicted of committing a crime.
We hope that Gillian will be able to return home without much further delay.
Reaction from the UK Foreign Office:
"We are extremely disappointed with the sentence," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.
The Sudanese ambassador, Omer Mohammed Ahmed Siddig, was called to the Foreign Office on Thursday night.
Reaction from the White House:
"Obviously, it's an outrage," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said after a judicial source in Sudan said Gillian Gibbons, 54, would be jailed for 15 days for insulting Islam and then deported.
"We stand with our UK allies in trying to make sure that this woman is protected from the court that says that they want to impose this sentence on her," said Perino.
"Anyone looking at this on its face would have to conclude that it was outrageous."
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards says that Iran is "ready to defend itself."
It won't be long before it will be time to give the opportunity to do so.
Tehran will fall faster than Baghdad and order will be restored in a year. After all, Saudi Arabia has a limited supply of foreign terrorists they can ship in and no one will step into Iran's terrorist leadership role.
Quote of the day comes from the NY Sun:
The big news out of the most recent Democratic presidential debate was that two of the leading Democratic candidates, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, endorsed the Bush Doctrine that is at the core of our current president's foreign policy.
A private intelligence company provided the administration the latest Osama bin Laden video before it was released to the world. Within hours the video and a transcript had been leaked to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.
"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.
When someone accepts a position of trust, and then abuses that trust, there should be severe repercussions. And not the Sandy "slap-on-the-wrist" Berger type repercussions. More like Rosenberg style repercussions — and members of Congress should not be immune. That would put a stop to it.
A detailed look at how the military has attempted to rise to the challenge of the deadliest component modern urban warfare. For once, WaPo impresses.
Liberals often like to say that "violence is senseless."
That’s wrong.
Violence isn't senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there's a profound moral difference between the two.
Read it all, straight through to the money quote.
I generally have no use for philosophers (those living today, anyway), nor Frenchmen. In fact, if I could go back in time and kill one individual I would have a hard time coming up with a better candidate than Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (Yes, he was Swiss, but he adopted France and they embraced him to the point of having a revolution and there are statues of the crazy old pervert in town squares all over France to this day.)
So you can imagine what my opinion of a living French philosopher would normally be.
But a commentary by André Glucksmann has me reconsidering that position. His work is too good to excerpt, so go read You said 'war', Mr Kouchner, and you were not mistaken...
Brilliant.
The last UN Resolution demanding the Iran stop enriching uranium expired in May, and Iran remains defiant. This is different that Saddam's behavior before the liberation of Iraq, as he at least pretended to cooperate while leading Hans "Inspector Clouseau" Blix on wild goose chases across the countryside.
This time the member of the axis of evil is out-and-out thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, making just enough concession to draw out the "diplomacy" while continuing to add centrifuges for enriching uranium.
Yet many people put their trust in the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and it's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.
Newsweek interviewed IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei about his efforts, and ElBaradei made two very concrete claims.
Newsweek: When the plan was announced, critics said it could undermine the Security Council's efforts to pressure the Tehran government.
ElBaradei: There was a lot of commotion and misunderstanding about this plan. It's a litmus test for Iran. In two or three months we'll know if Iran is serious about coming clean. If they do, that obviously will create better conditions for negotiations. If they [don't], then of course we will be in a different ball game altogether.Newsweek: What if in three months Iran hasn't delivered? If this diplomacy isn't backed by a credible threat of force, the Iranians can stall and keep enriching and eventually they will have the material that could go into a bomb.
ElBaradei: If Iran were to prove that it was using this period for delaying tactics and it was not really acting in good faith, then, obviously, nobody—nobody—will come to its support when people call for more sanctions or for punitive measures. That is a point that has been made very clear to them by everybody, including myself. If we come [back] with a negative report after three months, I don't see that anybody will come and say, well, give them another chance.
There you have it. If Iran has not revealed all by the first day of the new year, it is time for action.
After watching "diplomacy" and international politics for a few years, however, there is no doubt that by the first of the year Mr. ElBaradei will be singing a very different tune. One that acknowledges a lack of success but praises imaginary progress and calls for more time and further inspections. We've seen this play out before and I have no doubt that ElBaradei and Blix are cut from the same cloth.
Wait. You'll see.
Quote of the Day:
Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war.
— French President Nicolas Sarkozy to UN General Assembly
The back story:
In mid-September, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner was almost Bush-like as he used plain language to warn against a nuclear Tehran, warning the world "to prepare for the worst... and the worst means war". Who would have thought a French diplomat could be so, uh, un-Frenchly plain spoken?
Of course, Kouchner started taking flack immediately. Russian Acting Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confronted Kouchner, saying that neither military force nor unilateral sanctions were acceptable in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema said sanctions must be given time and a war in the region "wouldn't resolve the problem and would only create new tragedies and new dangers." (Coincidently, Italy is Iran's leading trading partner in the EU.)
The head of the French Foreign Affairs Commission declared Kouchner's statement was "inappropriate and untimely" as there are still many economic sanctions that can be imposed before making dire threats (i.e., there's a lot of cajoling and appeasement "diplomacy" that can make it look like they're not total cowards before the stern talk has to start and somebody ends up looking like a "cowboy").
Meanwhile, Middle East pundits are labeling Sarkozy the "new poodle," taking Tony Blair's place (read the article, it's actually quite funny).
Last week, Sarkozy went on French television and appeared to back away from the war-drum beating rhetoric of his foreign minister, stating that while a nuclear-armed Iran was "unacceptable", he hoped a mix of negotiations and sanctions would persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. But he ratcheted up the sanction rhetoric, declaring that if the UN Security Council can't apply sanctions, then the EU should come up with their own.
The US has been pressing for additional sanctions since June, as the previous UN resolution (demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment) expired in May. So the addition of the French voice to this demand is welcome.
The Economist declares that the French are "palpably impatient" with the Security Council as Russia and China are stalling, supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency's agreement with Iran to complete inspections. This plan, by the way, is really just a series of talks that could stretch into December even as Iran adds centrifuges to its Natanz enrichment plant, nearing the 3,000 needed to start producing usable quantities of nuclear fuel. Nice plan, eh?
Yesterday, Sarkozy gave a long interview to the NYT and IHT, again downplaying the possibility of war. But he again put tough new EU sanctions on the table.
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the UN General Assembly today, he defiantly declared that Iran would ignore any further UN resolutions. He said that Iran would continue to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [Thinking back to the months preceding the liberation of Iraq, I recall my amusement at the IAEA being led around the Iraqi countryside like the Keystone Cops chasing Buster Keaton. No wonder Ahmadinejad wants to work with them.]
When French President Sarkozy addressed the UN General Assembly today, he made a wide-ranging speech, but again stressing the need for action in the form of firm sanctions. While reiterating Iran's right to nuclear energy (he even offered to help Iran achieve that goal), Sarkozy added there would be no world peace if the international community "shows weakness in the face of the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
Newsweek describes recent events as a "revolution in [French] foreign policy that could transform the transatlantic relationship."
What is really playing out is that lines are being drawn in the sand, and they aren't exactly new lines. Gordon Chang at Contentions says it well:
Russia and China this week have made it clear they will side with Iran until the theocrats announce they have the bomb—all the while saying they are defending the concept of joint action. As Thomas Friedman says, we are entering the post-post-cold-war period. And in that period the West has no choice but to realize that the world’s authoritarian nations are banding together, and Russia and China are undermining the concept of collective security. Whether we like it or not, we are now engaged in a series of global struggles, with neither Beijing nor Moscow on our side.
As for me, I'm starting to like France again. I may even start buying French wine again.
Fredrick Kagan writes about the tide turning in Iraq and GW's visit today, calling it the Gettysburg of This War:
Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield, west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. He brought with him his secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi. In other words, Bush called together all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency, this was it.
In writing this article, Kagan hints at a comparison between Lincoln and GW Bush. Given that our nation is bitterly divided, as it was during the civil war, and given the number of souls freed by each man, the comparison may be more apt than most will admit.
A collection of Nazi board games for children has been discovered in which points are earned for blowing up British towns and cities.
Historian Richard Westwood-Brookes said:
These games are testament to Hitler's total domination of propaganda.
It's an interesting reflection on how the Nazi propaganda machine made its way all the way down to children as young as four or five.
Meanwhile in Palestine, Hamas produces cartoons featuring Nahool the Bee:
Speaking in a recent episode, Nahool vowed to help ta