NYTIMES: Roberts's views on privacy must be made public

NYTIMES HEADLINE: "Roberts's View About Privacy Is Still Unclear"

They want to make his views on privacy PUBLIC. How sickeningly IRONIC. Especially when added to the fact that the NYTIMES is prying into the adoption of his two children.

The NYTIMES - like the rest of the "Hypoquiddick" Left* - has no shame.

[*Read hypocritic, but as if (a) Elmer J. Fudd said it, and (b) as if he meant to tie it into the shamelessness of Teddy Jo Kopechne and BJ Clinton and Bobby "KKK" Byrd. As in: "The Left, they're nothing but a bunch of hypoquiddickal socialists!"]

A HEARTY WELCOME TO THE ANCHORESS READERS!

BIBI RESIGNS OVER GAZA - like Sharansky

YAHOO/"Reuters" (hat tip JJ at POLIPUNDIT) - The resignation of Netanyahu, Sharon's main rival in the right-wing Likud party, sent local markets reeling and showed the depth of division in the cabinet over the plan for "disengagement" from conflict with the Palestinians. But the departure of the highest-ranking minister yet to go over the pullout was too late to prevent approval for the forced evacuations of settlers, due to start after Aug. 15.

JPOD at NRO's THE CORNER thinks Bibi is a crass opportunist positioning himself for a run at Likuyd Party copntrol IFF the withdrawal fails to leads toward more security and a better chance at a two-state settlement. CLIFF MAY (scroll down at NRO) intimates he agrees with Carloine Glick of the JPOST and Bibi. WARREN BELL (scroll down at NRo, again) is hopeful that the withdrawal is a good PR move for Israel - regardless of the outcome in the Gaza: if it leads to more terrro than israel's hardline position is vindicated. If it leads to greater security, then a two-state solution and peace are more likley. WIN-WIN, according to WB.

ROGER L. SIMON thinks Bibi is taking a moral stand based on deeply held belief that the unilateral withdrawal sends the wrong signal and will lead to more terror, (and Roger has MORE LINKS!).

JJ at POLIPUNDIT believes that this is a power-play for copntrol of the Likud.

Here's my "gut-read":

I will never understand why Sharon didn’t INSTEAD announce that he would withdraw from Gaza ONLY CONDITIONALLY (and in six months time) AFTER - and only 6 months after - the “militants” in Gaza disarmed. It seems to me that Barak’s unconditonal withdrawal from Lebanon encouraged more terror, and that this withdrawal from Gaza will too.

The only plausible explanation (as far as I can surmise) is that perhaps Sharon (who must know how Barak’s actions strengthened Hiz b’Allah) felt he needed to redeploy the troops to more important positions (where they could more readily/powerfully defend larger population blocs in Israel proper) in advance of some impending major event or operation which might foment a huge violent anti-Israel response by Arabs within and without Israel (and by the anti-Semitic weasels of Old Europe) - as in the case of a preemptive strike against Iran -- one which which would annihilate their nuclear program and their offensive military assets (air force, air-strips, and navy).

As for Bibi: I think he is motivated by high morals (and NOT “crass opportunism” as JPOD at NOR’s THE CORNER belives) - as was Sharansky andeven the late Robin Cook (who each also resigned cabinet positions toprotest their government’s decisions).

BRITAIN WILL CHARGE BRITISH BORN RADICALS WITH TREASON

BBC: [British born] Islamist radicals who express support for terrorism may face treason charges, the Attorney General's Office has said. Lord Goldsmith and the Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald have discussed action against three individuals, a spokeswoman said. The Crown Prosecution Service's head of anti-terrorism will meet Scotland Yard officers in the next few days.

We here in the USA need the same laws and the same powers; we should be deporting foreigners who incite jihad, and charging Americans who do so with TREASON.

Um.... this is WAR, after all.

IRAN, IED'S AND BOLTON AND THE UNSC

NYTIMES: WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents. ... "These are among the most sophisticated and most lethal devices we've seen," said the senior officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate intelligence reports describing the bombs. "It's very serious." ... Pentagon and intelligence officials say that some shipments of the new explosives have contained both components and fully manufactured devices, and may have been spirited into Iraq along the porous Iranian border by the Iranian-backed, anti-Israeli terrorist group Hezbollah, or by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. American commanders say these bombs closely matched those that Hezbollah has used against Israel. ... American officials say they have no evidence that the Iranian government is involved. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the new United States ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, complained publicly this week about the Tehran government's harmful meddling in Iraqi affairs.

If this it is true, then BOLTON should demand and emergency session of the UNSC and provide the world with evidence, and then demand that the Iranian government close it's border with Iraq or we they will be hit with UN sanctions, and a USA ultimatum: if there is another shipment of IED's into Iraq, then we will attack Iran militarily - destroying ALL their military assets.

On October 25th, 1962 JFK authorized Adlai Stevenson to present photographic evidence on the Russian nukes and to be VERY tough with the Soviets when we discovered the USSR missiles in Cuba. Bush should authorize Bolton to be just as forthcoming (and also to show proof of the claim) and just as tough: by issuing an the above ultimatum to Iran.

Why have a rottweiler like Bolton if we don't use him!?

PAKISTAN HIGH COURT STRIKES DOWN TALIBAN LAWS - will Shias in Iraq get the message?

BBC: Pakistan's Supreme Court has said that various clauses of a bill introducing a Taleban-style moral code in North-West Frontier Province are unconstitutional. It said the provincial governor was not obliged to sign the bill into law. It has been passed by the NWFP assembly. The court said its opinion was advisory and it could not strike down the bill. President Musharraf says the bill is a breach of fundamental human rights. The NWFP government says it was mandated to pass the bill and will revise it.

Let's hope this ruling sticks - and that it also sends a clear message to the Iraqis who are writing their constitution, and debating the extent of Islam's influence/control over their government. If the Pakistan High Court ruling doesn't stick - (if the Muslim radicals flount it), then Musharraf must have the courage to enforce it. It will be another moment of truth for Musharraf.

BOTTOM-LINE: Muslims all over the world will soon determine for themselves if their religion is truly compatible with pluralism, democracy and the rule of law. I have my doubts. SURE: Indonesia and Turkey are democratic (and Egypt and Lebanon and Iraq ARE making progress) - but they are ALL also seemingly held hostage by their fanatical fringe. IOW: The moment of truth is approaching for all of Islam... I hope that Muslims choose well - and choose to move forward and join MOST of the rest of humanity. This could end the "Glo-WORM" sooner rather than later. If they do not, then WW4 will be a doozy - a long treacherous doozy.

NYCLU WANTS THE JIHADOTERRORISTS TO ATTACK NY SUBWAYS

YUP: the NYCLU is suing the NYPD to make them stop random searches. There can be The ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION is that this Leftist organization wants New Yorkers to suffer a subway attack just like the ones on London.

Why do I make this charge?!

Well, they oppose both PROFILING (so police can logically target searches), and they RANDOM SEARCHES. What option does that leave? Only one: NO SEARCHES. And therefore no deterrence. (UPDATE: this -- "no deterrence" -- actually overstates my case; there can be additional some deterrence without resorting searches: bomb-sniffing dogs (thanks to a commenter for pointing this out). CCTV will NOT deter anything; it just makes apprehending the perp' more likely. London proves this. Nevertheless, I stick by my charge: if the NYCLU were to succeed it would make us less safe. This makes them scum in my book.)

As the wise man once said - and as I have often repeated: "They're not anti-war; they are on the other side!"

UPDATE: A few Leftie commenters have suggested that either the NYPD should search everyone or no one. I think that they prove my point: rather than take a few measured and logical civil-defense measures in a time of war, when the threat is VERY serious, the Left would leave us defenseless but "constitutionally pure." For to search nobody is foolish, and to search everyone IMPOSSIBLE. So you see, it is exactly like I said it was: the NYCLU/ACLU/Left take deliberate actions which make us less safe than we might otherwise be. This aids and abets the enemy. Which is treasonous. Par for the course for the Left: they've been treasonous since the late 1960's. FDR, Truman and JFK - who would certainly be called neocons today - must be rolling in their graves!

WELCOME SALON/DAOU REPORT READERS!

AL QAEDA THREATENS MORE LONDON ATTACKS, AND BLAMES BLAIR

The Egyptian jihadoterrorist Zawahiri has surfaced on a video tape aired by al Jazeera, threatening more attacks against London, and blaming the attacks on Blair and his involvement in the war in Iraq. (Just as self-described socialist and anti-Semite MP George Galloway did!)

This attack is like the wife-beater who blames the battered-wife for her beatings: "It' her fault; she doesn't effin' listen!"

Which should surprise NO ONE; after all, Islam condones wife-beating. Oh. Excuse me. That is NOT "true Islam." Yeah. Right.

[BTW: what do wacky Arab and Muslim and Leftist conspiracy theorists make of statements like this from al Qaeda? How do they maintain that the terrorist attacks are the work of Zionists/Likudniks/Bushies/and neocons when the jihadoterrorists take credit and promise more of the same? Do they think that al Qaeda is a Mossad/CIA/GOP front!? And if they do, HOW DO THEY SQUARE THIS WITH THEIR WACKY THEORY THAT BUSH IS CONTROLLED BY THE HOUSE OF SAUD AND HALLIBURTON!? And Rove. Sheesh. They are either nuts, or the enemy's Fifth Columnh - OR BOTH!]

NRO's IAIN MURRAY AGREES: having separate standards for Israel is anti-Semitic

Iain Murray (from today's NRO/Corner, describing George Galloway's most recent derisive use of the word "Israeli"):

There is a word for the belief that you should judge something more harshly when you discover that it is produced by Jewish people. It’s simple anti-Semitism. I’m sure George will want to denounce it the next time he hears it."

This also goes for the Vatican and Pope Benedict 16 - whose recent statements on terrorism were as anti-Semitic as those uttered by George Galloway and Ken Livingstone (HERE and HERE and HERE).

The Vatican should recant and repent for its recent anti-Semitic statements. If the Pope and the Vatican fail to do so, Pope Benedict will neutralize his moral authority, authority he needs in the urgent battle against moral relativism and in the struggle to save the Church. If he fails to recant and repent, he condemns his Church certain to extinction - for a Pope with no moral clarity has no moral authority, and becomes merely a seat-warmer with no noble mission leading a Church with no transcendent purpose.

The Pope's currrent position would lead the Church in the anti-Semitic path of the Presbyterians and the Anglicans. Maybe this is what the Vatican wants. But the Pope's prior efforts at rapprochement with Judaism and his clear attacks on moral relativism would have argued against it. That's what is so puzzling about his recent statements. And why it is a moment of truth for the Church. I am praying for the best result.

EXPLAINING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY & THE LEFT-WING "DEATH SPIRAL"

A perfect little essay from Santiago at Red State (hat tip DISSECTING LEFTISM); EXCERPT:

The Democrats do not have philosophies, they have constituencies. And the Democrats and their constituencies are coming apart at the seams. ...

The Democratic "platform" has several odious components. Primarily, the Democrats are totally lacking on ideas on governance. They are unwilling or incapable of stating the simplest political position. Of the many important problems facing the nation, the Republicans are left to carry on alone: Social Security, foreign affairs, War for Democracy, reform of the UN. You name it, and try to find a coherent Democratic position on any of these matters. No such position can be found; no such position exists. In place of considered policies on governance, the Democrats have adopted an unrelieved negative position on all political questions. For example, Social Security is a known problem area, and has been for years; President Clinton was warning about the need to address SS problems a decade ago.

Today, Democrats largely deny that any problem exists, and if they are willing to talk about Social Security at all, they want to raise taxes (of course!) In addition to being extremely negative, Democrats are dishonest in talking about political positions. Some of the Democrat dishonesty is farcical; Bush is stupid, Bush is a liar.

Beyond that, the Democrats have adopted three dubious propositions, elevated them to iconic status, and repeat them endlessly, long after they have been utterly disproven.

RTWT! NOW! The essay depicts why -- unless centrist adults re-take the Democrat Party from the deluded anachronistic Left -- the Party will disappear.

DERSHOWITZ AGREES: VATICAN IS HYPOCRITICAL AND ANTI-SEMITIC

Last week - on Friday to be exact - I posted on the outrageous hypocrisy of the vatican's anti-recent terror statements. NO ONE LINKED TO ME. And writers and editors of NRO - each of who had either posted my previous cticisms of Pope Benedict, or correpsonded on them with me - made nary a mention -- AS IF TRYING TO IGNORE THE INDEFENSIBLE VATICAN STATEMENTS.

I felt all alone and out on a limb. I thought: was I too harsh!? Now my momentary doubts are vanquished. Because Alan Dershowitz has NOW made the same crticisms that I made. Check them out at FRONTPAGE. Here's an excerpt: "The truth is that the Vatican has always had a Jewish problem. Today that problem focuses more on the Jewish state than on the Jewish religion. But the Vatican’s perverse refusal to condemn attacks against Jewish civilians in Israel raises even broader questions of discrimination."

RTWT.

GAZA: (1) the countdown to Judenrein; (2) a comparison to Pakistan and Afghanistan

Egypt and Israel have agreed to new post-Judenrein Egyptian troop deployments along Gaza's borders. BBC: ... Egypt has agreed to police the international border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt after Israel withdraws from the territory. Some 750 Egyptian troops will patrol the border, allowing Israel to pull soldiers out of the area, scene of frequent clashes with militants. Areas along the Gaza-Israel border have been the focus of fierce fighting throughout almost five years of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. ... Palestinian Authority security forces are due to take responsibility for internal security in Gaza, but face challenges from militant groups such as Hamas. A recent independent assessment said the Palestinian forces were weak, divided and outgunned by militant groups. ... Israel will maintain control over Gaza's borders, coastline and airspace after the pullout, and could respond if Palestinian forces fail to stop attacks against nearby Israeli towns and villages.

I first blogged on the Judenrein aspect of the Gaza withdrawal plan HERE (on March 5th, 2005) and HERE (on March 23rd). I have always been skeptical of a TWO-STATE SOLUTION because it requires that a "STATE" exist in the disputed territories - something that is NOT LIKELY to ever occur - especially if jihadoterrorists (like HAMAS and Islamic Jihad and al Aksa) are permitted to stay armed.

That's why I predict that Gaza - and the West Bank - will become JUST LIKE THE TRIBAL REGIONS OF WESTERN PAKISTAN: lawless. And NO "STATE." And hardly a good neighbor. As the Taliban and al Qaeda find refuge in the "tribal/lawless regions' of western Pakistan - free to cause havoc in democratic Afghanistan - so to will a LAWLESS GAZA and LAWLESS WEST BANK continue to cause havoc to Israel. (Gazastan and Westbankistan!)

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFGHANISTAN AND ISRAEL? At least the USA and NATO have troops on the ground HELPING TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN and helping Afghanis kill the jihadoterrorists. Israel must fight the jihadoterrorisists - who are closer to Israel's population centers than the Taliban are to Afghanistan's population centers - ALL BY HERSELF - accompanied only by the constant harranguing of the hyypocrites and the anti-Semites of the world.

BIAS ALERT: MANY BUSH CRITICS CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT THE WORD "EMBRYONIC"

The MSM does it. Even FOXNEWS does it. Even Glenn does it - when he links to a cartoon critical of Frist.

It seems to me that the controversy is complicated enough without critics leaving out the KEY word: EMBRYONIC.

Bush has authorized more money for stem cell research than any other president EVER - (which was easy because he was ther FIRST to ever pledge a penny for it)!

So the criticism he gets for "being against stem cell research" is totally uncalled for!

The only form of stem cell research Bush put any limits on - LIMITS ON FEDERAL FINANCING ONLY (and he has not put ANY limits on ANY research which is NOT funded by the feds!) - was EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH - a subset of the larger field STEM CELL RESEARCH, which studies uses for stem cells from many sources.

I do not think that every Bush critic is DELIBERATELY obfuscating the issue, though many undoubtedly are. It's merely sloppy and lazy criticism which is- ultimiately - a disservice to Bush AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO THE DEBATE.

ASIDE: Why is it that sloppy and lazy journalism ALWAYS seems to go against Bush? COULD IT BE BIAS? Yup. Even Glenn is BIASED against Bush's position, so he uses (and links to) a cartoon which obfuscates the issue by using of the overly broad term (sans "embryonic") - when ONLY the narrower term is truthful. Shame on you, Glenn!

Stem cells from non-embryonic sources have just as much - or more - potential as the controversial embryonic stem cells. So the bias is uncalled for.