WHY EUROPEANS LIKED POWELL MORE THAN THEY LIKED BUSH - AND MORE THAN THEY WILL LIKE CONDI

Old Europe always disliked Bush. They loved Clinton. But always hated Bush. Bush is a cowboy - and to Old Europe - and the Left everywhere - that's a bad thing.

Old Europe liked Saddam more than Bush. But it wasn't just personal. We all know why Old Europe fought in the UNSC to save Saddam: they were on his payroll - either directly through Oil-For-Food bribes, or indirectly through lucrative business dealings with Saddam's socialist regime.

What is slightly less understood is why Powell remained relatively popular among the Old Euorpeans - even as Bush wallowed in their irrational vitriol.

Powell did, after all, deliver the infamous UNSC WMD speech. Perhaps Old Europe forgave Powell this lapse because they think they "played" him - suckering him into thinking he had, in 1441, what amounted to a "declaration of war," when in fact they knew they wouldn't allow any such thing. (Of course, Bush out-smarted them all, by daring to act on his belief that "final chance or else" meant exactly that!)

The REAL reason that Powell remained popular in Old Europe was basically the same reason that Clinton WAS so popular in Old Europe. (HINT: Clinton met with Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader.)

YUP: Powell was so popular in Old Europe because he was the most pro-Arab member of the Administration; Powell - like most of the bureaucrats in the pro-Arab/Arabist State Department - always publicly sought to buttress Arafat and the Arabs and to undermine the hardline taken by Sharon - (a hardline that - it turns out - was very effective: the Second Intifada is over, and its use of terror failed miserably; this result strengthens all the free nations in the West who seek victory in the GWOT, and not merely appeasement and containment. Bush supported Sharon; Powell did not).

Old Europe has had two reasons for their accommodationist policies toward to Jihadoterror: first, Old Europe has a long and deep heritage of anti-Semitism; second, Old Europe has found decades of relative peace from Arafat and his minions by paying them blood money and obesiance - (Chirac gave Arafat's casket a full State send-off, and France still refuses to agree with the USA that Hizballah and Hamas are terrorists organizations - which allows them to continue to raise money for their Jihadoterror in France!).

NEED MORE PROOF? Consider this: The Jihadoterrorists consider Israel to be Little Satan and the USA Big Satan (because Israel couldn't continue to exist without USA support, in their view). Old Europe is NOT called "Middle Satan." And for this, Old Europe is relieved. They shouldn't be. Because, to the Jihadoterrorists, Old Europe is instead thought of as the future colony of the Caliphate! (And many believe that full colonization of Old Europe by Jihadoterrorists may be - for demographic reasons - an irreversible trend.) Anyhow, Old Europe has deluded themselves into believing that sacrificing Israel and the Jews has bought them relative security and safety.

Well, it's NOT totally delusiona: it has to some extent.. They HAVE been relatively free of Jihadoterror attacks for decades - except for anti-Semitic attacks inside Old Europe which were largely perpetrated by Arabs, and which Old Europeans largely ignored (until only recently). This feeling of success reinforced Old Europe's stance on Saddam: they concluded that if they paid off Saddam - the way they had Arafat, then Saddam wouldn't target them either. This, of course, really amounts to nothing more than surrendering to the enemy, (but that doesn't seem to bother Old Europe - even as Islam becomes their second largest religion - maybe the largest if one considers weekly participating adherents...)

The French in particular have for centuries relied on surrender as their favored way to resolve conflict and avoid war! (America and the UK have always been a little bit more stubborn when confronted by blood-thirsty tyrants.)

The Left in Old Europe seems to have even decided that it is better to pay ransom to Jihadoterrorists than to become Americanized, or Anglicized - if you will. So-called "American Cultural Hegemony" mobilizes more proactive efforts on the part of Old Europe than beheadings by Jihadoterrorists. Well, this isn't new; as Seinfeld famously joked: the French fought harder to keep out EuroDisney than they did to keep out the NAZI's!

But back on topic:

If - in the post-Arafat era (thank God the day came!) - the Arabs do not play ball (and that is not assured; though there are many hopeful signs that things may indeed be leading toward a global settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict) then Condi will probably be tougher on the Arabs than Powell was, and in turn she'll be as popular there as her boss is - which is UN-popular. Well, that's all right with me!

NOTE: Clinton and Powell have sometimes been characterized as having been "more even-handed" in their approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict. But I believe people who want more pressure applied to Israel to make a deal with Arabs BEFORE Jihadoterrorism and anti-Semitic genocide is halted are making a false equivalence and are being anti-Semitic - and NOT just anti-Likud. Putting the IDF's defense of the sovereign state of Israel on par with the Palestinian Authority's lack of effort (at best) in fighting Jihadoterror (FATAH or HAMAS or any of the other Jihadoterrorist groups attempting to commit genocide against the Jews in Israel) is anti-Semitic.

This is not a side issue; this is the crux of the matter: Unless and until the P.A. makes an earnest effort to halt all Jihadoterror against Israel no bilateral deal - AND NO PEACE - is possible.

(ASIDE: Another reason that Bush is hated by many in Old Europe - one not to be ignored - is the fact that it is primarily the Left - the SOCIALISTS - of Old Europe who are most anti-American and pro-Jihadoterror: Zapotero and Schroeder are Socialists in name; Chirac isn't - but then: France is so far Left that even when Chirac thinks he's on the Right he's really on the Left!

Of all of Europe's socialists only Blair is a truly reformed socialist, and of all the Left-wing parties in Europe only New Labour is truly unwavering in its support for America, and its opposition to Jihadoterror. WHY? Because the UK and New Labour and Blair have been truly transformed by the Thatcher Revolution. The continent of Old Europe... well, they're still awaiting their "Thatcher."

I believe that the only hope for Old Europe is if they get their "Thatcher" before they become an Islamicized continent and a virtual colony of the Caliphate. The clock is ticking...)

SOCIAL SECURITY = PONZI SCHEME

INSTAPUNDIT linked to an article on Social Security by Arnold Kling at TECHCENTRALSTATION. The article is okay - but it really over-analyzes what's really a simple problem, and then profers a political analysis which is pointless and a solution which is stupid, unfair, and Statist.

The REAL problem is that Social Security is nothing more than a fraudulent scam - literally nothing more than a "Ponzi Scheme" run by the federal government. Always has been - always will be.

Simply put: a Ponzi Scheme is a type of fraud in which earlier "investors" are paid off with the investments of later "investors." This is EXACTLY how Social Security was conceived, and how it has run since its inception. (SEE COMPLETE OF PONZI SCHEME DEFINITION HERE.)

Shifting demographics mean that there will be fewer "new investors" coming on-line than "older investors" seeking their promised payments; that's the only reason that there's an impending crisis.

Solving the impending and inevitable demographic problem of this Ponzi Scheme is technically simple: either cut the amount of the outgoing payments/"benefits;" and/or raise the age at which those payments/"benefits" begin; and/or increase incoming taxes/"investments" by raising the tax rate or by raising the income ceiling at which those taxes currently stop. (Kling's suggested "solution" is nothing more than this type of adjustment).

In other words: make adjustments to Social Security in order to perpetuate the viability of the on-going fraud, and not by addressing the fundamental problem - the fact that the system is a form of FRAUD, a financial fraud that -- if it weren't perpetrated by the federal government -- would be busted by the likes of Eliot Spitzer!

Only gradual privatization can avert the crisis without perpetuating the fraud.

Gradual and partial privatization should lead to complete privatization at some point in the near future - a future when individuals will be responsible for their own retirement, as they are now responsible for their own employment and for their own eating, clothing, housing, bathing and everything else in their own PRIVATE lives.

The state should have NO ROLE in anybody's retirement - except to make sure that the privately placed investments are not subject to fraud and mismanagement.

KERRY: APPEARANCE OF RACISM OR BIGOTRY HAS NO PLACE IN SENATE LEADERSHIP

As the WASH TIMES pointed out today, in 2002, John F. Kerry made these remarks:

"Trent Lott's statements place a cloud over his leadership because there can never be an appearance of racism or bigotry in any high position of leadership, particularly in the United States Senate. It saddens me greatly to suggest this, but in the interests of the Senate, his party, and the nation I believe Trent Lott should step aside as majority leader."

I think Kerry was right about Lott in 2002, and that what was true about Lott then, is true about Reid today.

Reid must step down as Minority Leader of the Senate.

(See my earlier post HERE.)

MORE NORTH KOREAN DECEIT DISCOVERED BY JAPAN

BLOOMBERG:

"Japan may halt food aid to North Korea after genetic testing showed remains North Korea claims are those of Megumi Yokota, abducted by its agents in 1977, are those of someone else, Japan's government spokesman Hiroyuki Hosoda said. ``This is extremely regrettable,'' Hosoda, Japan's chief cabinet secretary, said at a regular press briefing in Tokyo. Japan may stop food shipments to North Korea and will lodge a strong complaint with the Pyongyang regime, he said. Some senior ruling party lawmakers including Shinzo Abe, deputy secretary general of the Liberal Democratic Party, want Japan to impose economic sanctions on North Korea because it has failed to provide information on its abductions of Japanese citizens. [...] Japanese lawmakers this year approved measures that allow the government to impose sanctions, including a halt to remittances to the communist country. Money transfers by Korean residents in Japan are among North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency. "

This report further proves that North Korea is ENTIRELY UNTRUSTWORTHY in all regards, and cannot and must not be trusted to uphold any treaty or agreement on any matter - including nuclear proliferation and nuclear disarmament. But "untrustworthy" only begins to tell the story - it's worse, really: HOW COULD THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THIS DECEIT!?!? It is utterly B I Z A R R E! Virtually INSANE! The Kim Jong Il regime is NUTS! Pursuing regime change - getting rid of Kim Jong Il and replacing him with a relaible leader - is the only viable policy. (See an earlier post on North Korea HERE.)

KING ABDULLAH: Coalition forces getting closer to capturing Zarqawi!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jordanian King Abdullah II said forces in Iraq are "getting close" to capturing terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "He's slipped through the net once or twice where we got closer to him than he would have liked," dullah told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday. "The Iraqis, Jordanians and coalition forces are working very hard to track him down -- and we're getting close."

ATTACKING SYRIA WOULD BE LEGAL - AND IT MIGHT SOON BE NECESSARY

Waging WAR against SYRIA NOW would be legal because if there is a connection between any nation and al-Qaida then the “Authorization to Use Military Force” of Sept. 14, 2001 authorizes the president to attack them. Here's the Congressional Resolution:

“S.J.Res.23 - One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION - Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The Jihadoterrorist known as Zarqawi is part of al Qaeda, and Zarqawi is getting aid from Syria (see below). Zarqawi is - in a legal sense - attacking the USA when he and al Qaeda attacks USA armed forces in Iraq and our consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

The president should issue Syria a public ultimatum now, and demand that they cease and desist all aid to all terrorist groups, and quit giving harbor to terrorist groups, and prevent the entry of all terrorists into Iraq by January 1, 2005 (in time to restore order in Iraq before the elections) or face serious consequences.

This is NOT over-reacting. Victory in Iraq is an essential part of the GWOT and we must not allow Syria - (or any other nation - like Iran if they don't straighten up and fly right!) attempt to prevent our victory.

SYRIA SUPPORTING IRAQI REBELS

Thomas E. Ricks of the WASHINGTON POST reports:

Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency. In some cases, evidence suggests that these Baathists are managing operations in Iraq from a distance, the officials said. A U.S. military summary of operations in Fallujah noted recently that troops discovered a global positioning signal receiver in a bomb factory in the western part of the city that "contained waypoints originating in western Syria." [...] Jeffrey White, a former Middle Eastern analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the Syrian role is part of what many intelligence officials believe are the increasingly organized attacks on U.S. forces. "In the last two months or so, this notion that this is a Baathist insurgency has gained dominance in the [intelligence] community," he said. Coupled with that, he said, "there is an increasing view that Syria is at the center of the problem."

The WASHPOST article is very good; RTWT.

I blogged on the Syrian connection last week (on 12/2) HERE.

BOTTOM-LINE: We MUST crackdown on Syria.

MICHAEL MOORE: INSOMNIAC?

THESE NEWS REPORTS (FROM LEFT-LEANING MEDIA OUTLETS) MAY EXPLAIN MOORE'S OBESITY:

Report Links Lack of Sleep and Obesity NPR (audio), D.C. - 1 hour ago: Two studies report that sleep loss can contribute to obesity.

Lack of sleep may cause obesity Xinhua, China - 2 hours ago BEIJING, Dec. 8 -- A recent research finds that people who don't sleep very long are more likely to be overweight.

Obesity linked to lack of sleep BBC News, UK - 21 hours agoA reduction in the time people spend asleep could partly account for soaring obesity rates, a study has revealed.

Sleep loss may equal weight gain USA Today, By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY. By John Zich, USA TODAY. Scientists discover that sleep deprivation increases levels of a hunger hormone .

Studies find lost sleep equals gained weight CTV, Canada - Dec 6, 2004 Two new studies suggest that what's not happening in the bedroom may be why so many gain weight. ...

Maybe if Moore stopped making deceitful anti-American propaganda he'd be able to sleep at night - AND HE'D LOSE SOME WEIGHT!

FOR HIS COMMENTS, REID - LIKE LOTT - SHOULD STEP DOWN

I just saw ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS on the Hannity & Colmes show on FOXNEWS. The segment was largely about the recent departure of Kwesi Mfume from the NAACP. At the end of the segment, Williams vehemently asserted that the Left is racist when it comes to Black Conservatives - Williams should know: He is a Black Conservative.

Williams said that Senator Reid’s comments about Justice Thomas - uttered this past weekend on Russert’s NBC show, MTP - were RACIST, and argued that Reid would have NEVER asserted that a white justice’s opinions were "poorly written." I agree, and I think that Reid should no more be the Leader of the Democrat Caucus in the Senate than Lott should have continued to be the Leader of the Republicans in the Senate.

Lott - after getting pressure from the blogosphere and his caucus - did the right thing and stepped down from the leadership position. Reid must do the same thing.

SPREAD THE WORD!

HERE WE GO AGAIN: COMRAD PUTIN GIVES MORE ADVICE ON DEMOCRACY & ELECTIONS

The last time Pooty-poot Putin gave electoral advice, it was to claim that (1) his puppet won the Ukrainian election; and that (2) the Ukraine election was fair; and that (3) there should be no new election in the Ukraine.

That was THREE STRIKES! Putin should be out of the electoral advice-giving game, but just he can't seem to keep his autocratic trap shut.

Now - during the visit of Iraqi PM Allawi - he is advising the world that he can't see how there can be an election in Iraq as long as it is occupied.

Putin would be listened to more seriously if he gave advice on matters he has 1st hand experience with: like (a) how to shut down free speech, and (b) how to use the State to steal private property, and (c) how to ride roughshod over governors, legislatures and human rights. Not to mention (d) how to sell nuclear reactors to Jihadoterrorists, and (e) how to garner bribes from the likes of Saddam as one perverts the UN Oil For Food Program and obstructs the enforcement of UNSCR's.

Seriously, this derogatory comment by Putin - and his stance on Ukraine - should make it absolutely clear to everyone that Putin is nothing more than a Russian Chirac - and that is someone who is NOT to be trusted.

WHY "CIA INTEL'" IS LIKE "A DICTATOR" TO THE OLD MEDIA AND THE LEFT

Today's big "gloom and doom" Iraq story in the Old Media is based on the leaked CIA cable written by the CIA's Iraq station chief. Apparently he-or-she desribes things there as going badly, and getting worse.

And this is reported in the Old Media as incontrovertible proof that... believe it or not (Heh!): (1) "Bush still lies (when he says things are not too bad in Iraq, and will get better"); and that (2) the Bush Administration is doing a bad job of managing the Iraq War and the GWOT.

(I wonder how TODAY'S Leftists in the Old Media would've reported on WW2 from D-day on - when we took the MOST casualties and had MANY setbacks?! They probably would've been calling for FDR's impeachment! Heck; today's Leftists in the Old Media would've said that FDR's decision to invade Europe before the 1944 election was a politically driven fiasco!)

Why doesn't it surprise me that the Left and the Old Media they dominate spin the "CIA CABLE" story this way!? Well, first because I find it so CONVENIENT that the Left - and the Old Media they dominate - trust any intel' from the CIA that is basically anti-Bush. When the CIA was 100% sure that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD - or when they NOW say that Iran has a surreptitious Nuclear Weapons Program, well then the CIA is an evil and untrustworthy and incompetent agency, to the Left and the Old Media. Like I say: it's so convenient.

It kinda reminds me of how the Left deals with dictators: any dictator that is anti-American is "okay" to the Left and the Old Media: Castro, Tito, Kim, Mugabe, Saddam, Qaddafi - (by the way: they're ALL socialists) - they're all okay, to the Left and the Old Media they dominate... merely indigenous expressions of self-rule and whose rigid policies are based on a reasonable fear of impending American invasion (or "American cultural hegemony!"); however, if a dictator is pro-American, then they're bad to the Left - like Marcos, Pinochet, Musharraf (before he restored democracy), and so on.

This inconsistency or hypocrisy reveals a lot about the Left - and the Old Media they dominate. And it is much more than (and deeper than) an anti-Bush sentiment - because so many of these characterizations pre-date the Bush presidency. It reveals that anti-Americanism is a core value to them - they use it as the basis to grade so much else... almost everything else. Even the GWOT - of the Jihadoterrorists, the Left asks; "how bad can they be if they are anti-Bush and anti-American?!"

Which is why so many people like me think the Left is "for all intents and purposes" a Fifth Column for the Jihadoterrorists - just as they were for the Soviets, (either as dupes or as willing fellow travelers - it matters not).

Which is why fighting Leftism is an important secondary front in the GWOT. We will never become united in the GWOT until the Left abandons their post-modernist aversion to the West and America as the leader of the West.

(As I have written many times before, I think the key to accomplishing this is demolishing the Left's cultural and moral relativism. Once exposed as a morally bankrupt ideology - once "deprogrammed" from their reflexively amoral positions - Leftists can rejoin the good fight to liberate all humanity from tyranny - and the poverty and ignorance that tyranny causes.)

BARGHOUTI FLIP-FLOPS: NOW, HE MAY WITHDRAW FROM RACE

GOOGLE NEWS has 297 stories posted on Barghouti's second FLIP-FLOP on this issue.

Which means he already has a lot in common with another Leftist & former candidate for the US presidency - John Flipflopping Kerry.

Maybe Barghouti will run when his own prison term is up? That would be fine with me: he's currently serving five (5) consecutive life terms for murder and terrorism.

Why the NYTIMES, RICHARD COHEN - and the rest of the LEFT - still just don't get it!

Greg over at the great foreign policy blog - The Belgravia Dispatch (BD) - linked to an article at the NYTIMES Week In Review by Richard Cohen - from Rio where the anti-Americans are gathering for another conference of some sort or another (this is what they do best).

Greg selected this quote (in part) from Cohen's article:

The United States has a strategic problem: its war on terror, unlike its long fight against Communism, is not universally seen as the pivotal global struggle of the age. Rather, it is often portrayed abroad as a distraction from more critical issues - as an American attempt to impose a bellicose culture, driven by the cultivation of fear, on a world still taken with the notion that the cold war's end and technology's advance have opened unprecedented possibilities for dialogue and peace.

Frank Godwin commented at BD:

The world never shared the American belief that the struggle against Communism was "the pivotal global struggle of the age." The Europeans and the Japanese might have shared some of our views because the Soviet wolf was literally at their door. They were, however, quite content to have America do the heavy lifing in that pivotal struggle. Most nations were largely consumed by the same set of domestic challenges all face today. In Latin America nations were either insulated from the struggle entirely or they saw it play out in their domestic politics with little sense of a world conflict.

Even an anti-Communist Latin American or African government did not automatically support any aspect of American foreign policy towards the Soviet Bloc or anywhere else. Much of Africa and some of Latin America was 'non-aligned' meaning that rhetorically they leaned toward the Soviet Bloc but expected most development assistance to come from the West. Today the functional equivalent of the 'non-aligned' myth is making variously disapproving noises about American foreign policy and strident anti-Israeli pronouncements. All the while they adamantly refuse to criticise any American or Israeli opponent, even those who are terroristic or who are a threat to the 'non-aligned' nation itself.

Believing that there was some idylic era where America had a common vision and purpose with the world anytime after World War II distorts the past and serves a partisan political purpose in the present. Are we to believe then that Bush and 'his' War on Terror had us cast out of some Eden of worldly consensus?

I add:

Richard Cohen is WRONG, and Frank Goodwin is right: the Cold War was considered bunk by the Left; when Reagan called the USSR what it was - "an evil empire" - the Left freaked out and thought REAGAN was the warmonger and that he was fomenting an irrational fear; to the Left the USSR - and most tyrants (unless they were in the USA' s sphere of influence) - were benign. Only the tyrants the USA used to in order to oppose USSR hegemony were considered bad by the Left; (i.e.: "Castro good; Marcos bad").

The source of this for the Left is their embrace of post-modernism and the "pomo" rejection of the West. Simply put: Post modernists blame white heterosexual men for all of history's ills; to the pomo Left white heterosexual men are the source of all bad things. All political movements which oppose the West and/or white heterosexual men are good - whether they be feminists, "anti-colonialists," nativists, Islamists, gays, open border advocates, or anti-globalists, greens, etc..

All the Left's "anti-USA, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, anti-neocon" positions can be seen as attacks on traditional culture and politics of the West - which has been a traditionally white male enterprise - at least until the second half of the last century.

Cultural and moral relativism are the post-facto rationalizations for the Left's insistence on supporting anti-West groups even though most these groups are anti-libertarian and even Luddite. The Left uses cultural relativism and moral relativism to argue that truly evil groups (in any universal sense - for example groups that commit genocide or traffic in slavery, for instance) are (to them) "merely alternative ways of living and behaving and judging."

This is why the Left so OVERVALUES the U.N. and OVERVALUE international unanimity/consensus as prerequisites for international intervention: the only source of universality for the Left is consensus among divergent appearing groups (nations, cultures, races, genders, etc.). Consensus is ersatz universality for the post modernist Left.

Proof that the Left's pomo moral and cultural relativism is in fact morally bankrupt is the fact that absent a cross-cultural consensus they have no basis for interceding to stop genocide when it occurs within a nation - as in the Sudan, or Rwanda - recently. If Hitler was around today, they'd watch him kill German Jews and just shrug their shoulders saying - in effect: "it's none of our business; it is an internal matter" - just as they have with Rwandans and Darfurians. They claim this is nuanced and sophisticated; it is actually morally bankrupt. Another example: cultural relativists have no moral basis for ending all slavery everywhere. To me this proves that the pomo Left is morally bankrupt - a philosphical dead-end, a poltical non-starter.

Further proof of their moral bankruptcy is the utter hypocrisy at the core of their creed: how could white male heterosexual civilization be "bad" (for women, non-Western nations & cultures, etc) if there is no such thing as "bad" - in absolute/universal terms!? It cannot really be "bad" because by their own definition there is no such thing as "bad.". How can Bush be "bad" if there is no such thing as "bad?"! YES: they simply want to have their cake and eat it to. This cannot be done, and it proves the the Left is a hypocritical, false and useless creed.

Neocons are merely universalists - not unlike FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt. Neocons believe that all humans everywhere deserve the same human rights. And neocons are willing to take on burdens and risks to help their fellow human beings achieve their human rights; in fact, neocons think it is the duty of the richest and freest and most powerful among us to help our poorer and less free and weaker brothers and sisters enjoy their rights, too.

Richard Cohen is still basically a Leftist trapped in a tired, hypocritical, vapid, useless and amoral ideology. When he and his fellow travelers at the NYTIMES and in the Left abandon their "pomo moral relativism" they will join us in he good fight to make all of our brothers and sisters everywhere be free. Until then, I expect nothing but hypocritical revisionist/fantasist sniping which does nothing but aid the enemies of universal human rights for all humanity everywhere.

SCOTUS FACT: Justices agree with each other - more often than not

An overlooked fact: according to recent surveys, NONE of the Justices votes with any other Justice less than half the time.

Think about that. NONE of the Justices votes with any other Justice less than half the time. It means that all of the Justices have more in common with each other, and agree with each other MORE than they disagree with each other.

I think we should keep this in mind as things heat up (as they are bound to) IF-AND-WHEN a Justice retires and Bush makes a nomination.

We shouldn't let the "one-issue hot-heads" make us lose sight of the fact that most distinguished jurists agree and disagree on many many things, and you can NEVER predict what issues will come before the SCOTUS, or how a person will judge once they become a Justice of the SCOTUS.

So, we should only insist that the nominees be highly qualified. That's all.

ANOTHER KEY POINT: the character of the court will not change if a conservative Justice retires and Bush replaces him with another conservative. So the real battle royales shouldn't occur until Stevens or Bader-Ginsburg retires. Or perhaps O'Connor - who has been a ket swing votes - swinging Leftward more often than not. Which leads me to my advice to the Democrats and the Left: if-and-when Rehnquist retires and Bush selects a qualified conservative - confirm him quickly. If you don't, you're just gonna look like a bunch of sore-losers.

FITTING PALESTINIAN POLL RESULT: "dead heat"

According to this article at THE GUARDIAN, Mahmoud Abbas - the favored FATAH candidate (whose NOM DE GUERE is ABU MAZEN) - is in a DEAD HEAT with Marwan Barghouti, the convicted terrorist and murderer now serving five (5) life terms, and who is "credited" (you should forgive the expression - I'm just momentarily adopting the Palestinian POV) with leading the 2nd Intifada until he was captured by the IDF.

A poll by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research shows Mr Abbas ahead by 40% to 38%. In the other poll, by Bir Zeit university, Mr Barghouti is one point ahead of the man who had been widely assumed to win January's election. The margin of error in both polls was 3%.

It says something about the Arabs in the occupied territories that these two men are their most popular leaders - now that Arafat and Yassin are dead... Yes, it says something, and that something is not very nice.

There was a bit of hopeful news in one of the polls: support for Hamas is declining.

RTWT. And: stay tuned...

"Annan is merely a symptom of the UN's sickness"

JEFF JACOBY (Boston Globe) :

There was no global uproar when the brutal regime in Libya was chosen to chair the UN's Human Rights Commission. Nothing happened to the UN after its troops allowed Serbs to slaughter 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the "safe haven" of Srebrenica. Sex scandals seem to erupt wherever the UN goes -- the latest involves charges of rape, child abuse, and prostitution by UN personnel in the Congo -- but they never cause heads to roll in Turtle Bay. Annan himself became secretary general despite his failure, when he headed the UN's peacekeeping operations, to pay attention to warnings of genocide in Rwanda. Why should anything be different this time? Oil-for-Food may be the greatest international rip-off of modern times, it may have strengthened one of the world's bloodiest dictators, it may have deprived countless Iraqis of food and medicine, but if history is any guide, the scandal headlines will fade from view long before the secretary general does. By week's end, in fact, dozens of governments, including all the permanent members of the Security Council save the United States, had publicly rallied to Annan's support. Scandal or no scandal, he will almost certainly serve out the remaining two years of his term. Which is just as well. Annan is merely a symptom of the UN's sickness, not the cause of it.

The U.N.'s FAILURES are famous, and Jacoby lists some of the worst - (many of which were on Kofi's watch - a few, like the Rwandan Genocide were tright under his nose!). It's a list of infamy: Tiannamen Square; the Darfurian genocide; the southern Sudanese genocide; Somalia; Uganda; Congo - the list goes on and on: the U.N. most often does nothing as member states commit horrific atrocities and crimes against humanity.

But it's worse than that. The U.N. hasn't just failed to stop most of the world's worst crises and acts of genocide; it has actually been on the sidelines when some little good - (and I mean little good) - was actually achieved in some of the world's crisies by mediation. YUP: Most of the peace accords (many of them somewhat dubious) that were reached over the last few decades have largely been achieved WITHOUT the U.N.'s help and outside their auspices. The Vietnam Peace Accords? No - they were bilateral. Dayton Accords? No - the USA brokered it. OSLO? No - Norway and USA, but mostly Israel and Palestinians. Libya disarmament of WMD? No, again - it was ther UK and the USA. The Armistice between Saddam and the UN Coalition that fought the 1991 Gulf War was negotiated by the USA; unfortunately, it was left up to the U.N. to enforce it - and we know what the result of that was: Saddam ignored the terms of the Armistice while bribing ther U.N. and many members of the UNSC.

Other times - when Human Rights and democracy were fighting to become realized - and the U.N. SHOULD have stepped to the fore it did nothing; Did the U.N. help the Ukraine resolve its recent election crisis? No - Kofi said nary a peep. Surely in Georgia the U.N. must have had a role? NO AGAIN. Does the U.N. have a role in defusing and settling the Kashmir crisis? No - the U.N. has done NOTHING.

It's rather startling when you really look at the record, isn't it? The U.N.: its record is pure failure; it has failed to act when the world stood by and did nothing; and it has even been on the sidelines the few times when negotiations were actually able to achieve something. It's record is U.N.believeably pitiful.

Here's The Astute Blogger U.N. Challenge: Can anyone anywhere name one dozen good things the U.N. has achieved since the Korean War? Enter a list in the comments. The contest will remain open until Kofi resigns...

SENATOR WILL INTRODUCE BILL WITHHOLDING U.N. DUES UNTIL CONGRESS GETS COOPERATION ON OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL INVESTIGATION

According to Kofi Annan's "hometown web page" (Ghana Web Page - themselves citing CBS) :

"Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., has stated that in January’s new Senate session he will introduce the U.N. Oil-for-Food Accountability Act, which would call for the United States to withhold 10 percent of its funding in the first year and 20 percent in the second year. Under former President Clinton the United States did refuse to pay some of its U.N. dues in protest."

FOXNEWS is reporting that this bill's introduction will certainly make the U.N. start to feel the heat - which is the intent of introducing such a bill: turning the heat up with the hope of getting cooperation. There's another news story on this bill HERE, (NY SUN). The SUN article relates thast Senator Lugar is being a little too accommodating to the U.N.:

"A spokesman for Mr. Lugar, Andy Fisher, told The New York Sun yesterday that Mr. Lugar was unlikely to take up the U.N. funding legislation until the United Nations completed its own investigation. Mr. Ensign yesterday said he was prepared to send his bill to the floor of the Senate."

THIS IS SOMETHING NEAR TO WHAT THE ASTUTE BLOGGER HAS BEEN CALLING FOR SINCE NOVEMBER. (THE ASTUTE BLOGGER ASSERTS THAT IT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE TO THREATEN TO WITHHOLD 100% OF THE FUNDS UNTIL THE CONGRESS GETS FULL U.N. COOPERATION.) SEE EARLIER ASTUTE BLOGGER POSTS DEMANDING THIS HERE AND HERE AND HERE AND HERE AND HERE AND HERE. BRAVO! SCORE THIS ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE BLOGOSPHERE, (albeit partial, so far.)

The US CONGRESS MUST MOVE ON THIS BILL; THE CONGRESS MUST TURN UP THE HEAT ON THE U.N.!

The U.N. must not be allowed to remain U.N.cooperative!

IRAN IN DEFIANCE OF VERIFIABLE INSPECTIONS ALREADY!

According to a Bahrain News Service, Iran IS ALREADY SAYING that it will not allow the IAEA to inspect military sites that are allegedly involved in illegal nuclear arms manufacturing. This - it seems to me - indicates that verifying any deal will be impossible - which EFFECTIVELY nullifies the value of any deal. We better have a "Plan B" and it better be ready to put in action SOON. Sooner - and "too soon" - is always better than later - or "too late" - especially when it comes to nukes in the hands of states that sponsor Jihadoterror - like Iran.

SYRIA TO HOST SUMMIT OF SORTS...

Today, FATAH's new leadership - Abbas, Qorei and Shaath - will be in Damascus to meet with Assad, and then HAMAS in an effort to bury the hatchet. It will be interesting to see just what comes from this - especially coming on the heels of the current thaw between Egypt and Israel (and their exchange of prisoners).

Perhaps - if all Israel's enemies begin sincere efforts to achieve a settlement - one will happen. It seems to me that the House of Saud should be involved at this stage, too. (After all: They're neighbors of Israel, and US alllies. It only makes sense that they would be part of a regional settlement.) STAY TUNED....

DOUBLE AGENTS IN THE FBI?

Ask the average American who is a greater threat to their security - Israel or Jihadoterrorism - and most would say Jihadoterrorism. Most Americans can tell the difference between an ally - like the UK and Israel - a phony/sometime/fair-weather ally like France, and an out-and-out enemy, like al Qaeda and their minions. Many pundits argue that the GWOT was the major reason that Bush gained 10,000,000 more votes this time than in 2000. SO... why is the FBI targeting Israel? ESPECIALLY: why is the Chief of Counter-intelligence targeting Israelis and Jews - as opposed to Jihadodterrorists, their state sponsors and their minions? POWERLINE linked to an article which asks just that. The FBI is aggressively targeting AIPAC - an Israeli lobbying group. FROM THE ARTICLE:

On Friday, Rep. Robert Wexler, a Jewish Democratic congressman from south Florida, sent a second letter to US President George W. Bush expressing "deep concern" about the FBI's ongoing investigation of the lobby group, and urging the president to provide members of Congress with detailed information about the AIPAC probe. Wexler called on Bush to immediately dismiss David Szady, the senior FBI counterintelligence official who is heading the investigation. Senior Jewish community officials have accused Szady of targeting Jews in the past by blocking or slowing their security clearances. As journalist and author Edwin Black reported for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in September, Szady headed a CIA counterespionage group, which tried to force the Jewish former CIA staff attorney Adam Ciralsky out of the agency, by documenting and probing his past contacts with Israel.

Joel Mowbray wrote a column about it in September; link HERE. EXCERPT:

The reported track record of the FBI agent in charge of the investigation, FBI assistant director of counterintelligence David Szady, is also troubling. Szady has for years "led investigations into Jewish American CIA employees believed to be spying for Israel that have also failed to persuade the Justice Department even to investigate the cases," reports Eli Lake of the New York Sun.That’s not all. Stephen Green, who reportedly was interviewed by the FBI for four hours relating to this case (the FBI refused comment), is a free-lance writer on a two-decade long quest to prove that Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and other Jews are actually embedded Israeli spies. Some twenty years of futility later, Green is suddenly all the rage with leftist blogs and "news" sites, as well as (frighteningly) some mainstream news outlets. Until his newfound popularity on the left and in the Arab press, Green’s staunchest support had come from Institute of Historical Review (IHR), which is perhaps best known for its denial of the Holocaust. Green’s two books that purport to document Israel’s vast network of Jewish spies working in the U.S. government have received rave reviews from the Holocaust deniers. And now, Green is being utilized by the FBI.

It could be as simple as anti-Semitism on the part of the FBI or some agents - including the Chief of Counter-intelligence. OR it could be worse. It could be that the Chief of Counter-intelligence is a double agent: a paid employee of the Jihadoterrorists or their state sponsors. SOUND FAR-FETCHED? Maybe. This is pure supposition - but it is also supposition based on recent history. FACT #1: the Chief of Counter Espionage in the CIA was Aldrich Ames - who, is turns out, was bought and paid for by the USSR. For a pittance, a few million bucks. FACT #2, the Chief of Counter Intelligence fore the FBI was Robert Hannsen - who, it turns out, was ALSO bought and paid for by our arch-enemy, also for a pittance - a few million bucks. If the Chiefs of counter-intel’ for both the CIA and the FBI could have been bought and paid for by the relatively hard-up/cash-poor USSR, than certainly a few of the oil-rich Wahhabist princes of the Ummah could have bought a few agents of their own (with their "walking around" money!) no!? Even the chiefs of counter-intel/counter-terrorism, no?!

A reasonable person must conclude that it is possible that wealthy Wahhabists have purchased the allegiance of either some CIA agents, some FBI agents - or both. One must also reasonably accept that the wealthy Wahhabists might have even purchased agents high up in the Agency food-chain - even a chief. The Ames and Hannsen cases prove this is possible - if not: likely.

I have NO evidence of this. How could I? But I find it very troubling that not a single person in the CIA or the FBI has ever been fired over the lapses which led to 9/11. This might be because the chiefs are compromised and covering up for themselves.

Also troubling: Before 9/11, the FBI received specific warnings from field agents about Arabs taking flying lessons - but the FBI HQ in DC ignored those warnings. At best, this was an error in judgement, but maybe it was worse - maybe the agent in the DC HQ was covering up for the Jihadoterrorists; maybe it was the deliberate effort of a double agent hired to cover things up? There’s even more trouble: The FBI has long had a shortage of Arabic speakers, but refuses to hire Israeli Jewish Arabic speakers. See HERE. (Or check out Congressman FJ Pallone's (D-NJ) website; he commented on this issue on 10/20/03.)

SURE, I know: this sounds almost "tin-foil hat conspiratorial." But the absence of any accountability, and the targeting of Israeli organizations coupled with the refusal of the FBI to hire Jewish translators can only be explained by one or the other. And, any FBI chief or supervisor who's an anti-Semite, would have to be have been a likely target for the Jihadoterrorists to turn into a double agent.

SO... WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THESE APPARENT PROBLEMS?!

I think we should demand that Robert Mueller step down and that Bush replace him with someone who will be willing to do to the FBI what Goss is doing at the CIA: clean house. Either these agents are anti-Semites, double agents, or both. In any case: They gotta go. It's all about accountability.