Ground State

An opportunity for clarity is being presented to the President and the country. Eighteen Democratic congressman have called for an independent probe into the 'domestic' spying program undertaken by the President. Quoting Reuters:

Democrats and some Republicans say Bush may have overstepped his constitutional authority and violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants for all electronic eavesdropping.

There is not much left in the way of questions of fact about how the program got started. The President ordered it. The NSA did it. Americans want it done. The ACLU says its illegal. Let's take it to the Supreme Court. I don't think FISA trumps the Constitution - but some would argue we weren't formally at war. Good, let's clear it up, we are or we aren't. If we aren't - what exactly do we intend to do about Islamic fascism? Is 9/11 a freebie? Let's get everyone on record.

More importantly, there is a traitor in Washington. Someone leaked a classified program to the New York Times. It's an act of treason. There's not a lot of suspects. A few Congressman and Senators, some White House staff, and some NSA personnel. I think the President should indeed ask the attorney general to appoint an independent counsel. The scope of the investigation should include how the program was initiated - which we all know - and how the program was leaked to the press.

Someone should be in prison. I suspect it's a person now sitting in one of the houses of our legislature. Why don't we flush him out.

Here's an essay worth reading from David Warren, (Hat Tip: LGF). Here's the money quote for me:

While we must not forget that the Muslims are the first victims of “Islamism”, and may suffer most from its triumph, we are beyond the point where we can do more for them than destroy the tyranny by which they are enthralled.

If watching Bode Miller party in Italy has ruined your taste for "amateur athletics", you should check out this basketball video. It's from CBS - but it appears to be undoctored.

It is time for Islam to fight back against the decades of disrespect heaped upon the Prophet (PBUH) by Porky Pig. This unclean animal was created by a Jew as a caricature of the Prophet (PBUH). The stuttering pig is a reference to the Prophet's words , "no people can attain the degree of sanctity and freedom from defect until they reach a position where the weak stand against the strong and claim their right without stuttering." The Zionist propaganda factory - Warner Brothers - calls this symbol of disrespect a Looney Tune. They blaspheme the Prophet.

Fellow travelers - I call on you to:

1. Destroy Porky Pig DVDs at your local Blockbuster.

2. Hack all web-sites which display an image of the pig (except this one).

3. Burn down Warner Bros studios.

Do not let this offense against the Prophet (PBUH) continue another day. Show them the power of Allah. Islam - Stand Up!

Quick investigative work of the Iranian anti-terrorism experts reported at the Tehran Times:

TEHRAN – The serious crime of the terrorists who bombed the holy shrines of the tenth and eleventh Shia Imams, Imam Hadi (AS) and Imam Hassan Askari (AS), on Wednesday in Iraq was an insult to the sanctities of all Muslims.

Undoubtedly, it is a new plot which first of all can be considered as the continuation of the disrespectful move of the European newspapers’ that published cartoons of the Prophet of Islam.

In fact - I can now reveal that my exclusive sources report the bombing was carried out by a squad of Danish car-boomists.

Another issue that should also not be ignored is the fact that the occupier U.S. regime, which has turned Iraq’s security to insecurity with its 150,000 troops and military equipment, is the main element responsible for these criminal acts.

My sources confirm this as well - the Americans drove the Danish carboom squad to the Mosque in a Stryker vehicle emblazoned with an image of Porky Pig. This is reprehensible - the entire Islamic world recognizes that Porky Pig cartoons were created to teach American children to hate Islam. Still - hard to imagine a dastardly plan like this could be cooked up by the Americans and the Danes on their own...

“This is a political crime and its roots have to be traced in the intelligence organizations of the Iraqi occupiers and the Zionists. The aggressive powers that perceive the political and social conditions in Iraq as contrary to their objectives devise ominous plans in their heads, some of which to intensify insecurity and create sectarian strife.

I suspected as much, the hidden hand of the Jews again.

Leading Lebanese Shia cleric Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah accused the United States of deliberately stoking communal tensions in Iraq in a bid to maintain its "occupation". "The American occupation is trying to keep its grip on Iraq by benefiting from these crimes that she encourages directly or indirectly," Fadlallah said.

Well - there you have it. The case is solve-ed.

I had intended to post on how counter-productive it is to jail someone for denying the holocaust - but there is no need - Captain's Quarters has already posted - and I agree completely. The only point I would add is that if one is applauding European states for upholding principles of freedom of expression with regard to cartoons of Mohammed, it's not reasonable to then support jailing people for freedom of expression with respect to the holocaust. It's not a good idea to have one's legislature defining thoughtcrime.

There is substantial coverage of the decision to allow the UAE to run six major ports in the MSM and the blogosphere. It's just starting - the issue will be run to the 'ground state' -- so to speak -- and that is good. There are two things which stick out to me now:

1) There is no hesitation in Republican circles to question their President in a matter of this importance, even if it means siding with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, something I find personally painful. The opposite would not be true, if Bill Clinton were proposing this, the Democrats would keep their concerns to themselves and accuse any Republican critics of race-baiting. Conservatives are not morally superior - they are just basing their opinions on principles - and these principles are grounded in reality, what works, what doesn't work. What we call liberalism today, far removed from the original meaning of the word, seems to mean only that President Bush is wrong. In all honesty, without meaning to belittle anyone, I can see no other common thread to their concerns. If they were worried about the UAE why weren't they calling for special searches of passengers from the UAE at airports? No - can't do that - profiling - but they are all-in on profiling the country for port operations. This is not principled opposition from the Democrats.

2) I admire President Bush immensely, but there is some kind of blind spot with respect to domestic security issues in the administration. We have hundreds of armed incidents at our southern border every year, and the number is growing. In January we uncovered an 800 yard tunnel under the border in California, loaded with drugs. In Laredo Texas, in January alone, three weapons caches were uncovered. Items included explosives, automatic weapons, grenades, silencers, bulletproof vests, police scanners, and cash. We have people making bulk purchases of unregistered cellphones in California. We have no idea where the 'students' from UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., are in the country. If the Islamic terrorists link-up with the narco-terrorists, there will be hell to pay in America. We have enough enemies and material inside the country to have IED's in American cities next week.

In the wake of the Michael Brown FEMA fiasco, tinged with cronyism, we have the appointment of a completely unqualified Julie Myers as the director of ICE, the new INS. Julie Myers qualification is that she is General Myers daughter, retired head of the Joint Chiefs. That is not a serious appointment. Heading ICE is as important to American national security as heading the DOD. Compare Julie Myers with Donald Rumsfeld. Read Debbie Schlussel's blog - she follows the ICE issue with the attention it deserves - it is an appointment that will cost American lives.

America is in a worldwide counter-insurgency war - that means their will be a domestic economic impact, and border security is not optional. Perhaps PortGate will kick-off serious debate on domestic security, controlling our borders, finding and deporting illegals, and serious scrutiny to visitors and immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. To date, I find responsible leadership from my President in these areas to be dangerously lacking.

This is the design of the Flight 93 memorial at the crash site in Pennsylvania - The Crescent of Embrace, otherwise known as the Crescent of Islam. It is offensive beyond words - the passengers of Flight 93 died fighting Islam for a chance to see their husbands, wives, sons and daughters again.

This cannot stand.

Please go to Error Theory and take action as recommended at the bottom of the post.

What's important to the UN is that the UN be important. The UN is composed of representatives of the member nations and its own bureaucracy. That bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, has evolved to its terminal state - where the real purpose of its existence is to protect its existence. When there is a choice to be made between what makes the UN bureaucracy more - or less - important - they will reliably recommend the former. Seemingly nonsensical UN positions can often be understood in this light.

The IAEA is a UN organization that began in 1957. It has a budget of well over $250 million, and a direct staff of over 2200 people (as of 2004). It's Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, has been working at the IAEA since 1984, 22 years. His view on how problems are solved is not nuanced - see his quote above: "A global approach to our problems and our future is the only approach." Dr ElBaradei will not take a position that results in the IAEA being irrelevant to a nuclear proliferation problem - it would deny the last 22 years of his working life and his world-view that only the IAEA could be the instrument of the global solution to nuclear non-proliferation problems.

From the IAEA perspective, this UPI report is quite rational (Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs):

Iran welcomes Baradei proposal on nukes

TEHRAN, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Iran welcomed Saturday a proposal by the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency for Tehran to carry out a limited enrichment of uranium.

Foreign Minister Manushehr Mottaki described the suggestion by IAEA chief Mohammad Baradei as a "step forward."

The official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted the minister as saying his country was ready to negotiate "with our friends to reach a comprehensive formula to implement this proposal."

The IAEA job is to verify NPT compliance. In Iran - they have verified non-compliance, abrogation of the NPT treaty. The IAEA however, is irrelevant once the NPT is abrogated - they cannot force compliance. To verify non-compliance is to admit the IAEA is serving no further puropose in Iran. That could mean a budget cut, and less reporters at their press conferences. That's all too painful for Dr. ElBaradei to contemplate - the IAEA will put up with any charade to pretend that Iran is still a party to the NPT, such that Dr ElBaradei remains a player in the search for the global solution.

Iran understands how this works. They pursue their program of nuclear weapons development - but continue to give occasional encouragement to the IAEA about talks they'd like to have in the future. This allow's Dr. ElBaradei to delude himself into believing that the IAEA will still be relevant to preventing nuclear weapons development in Iran. Dr. ElBaradei has been clear that he believes the global solution (i.e. his agency) is the only possible remedy. We can expect more of the same as the Iranian nuclear weapons program proceeds. Dr. ElBaradei will further lower the bar for "NPT compliance" in an unprincipled and fundamentally fraudulent effort to keep his agency relevant. This will continue until, and perhaps after, we have a mushroom cloud over Israel.

Update Feb. 20: Today Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki pays for Dr. ElBaradei's concession, from Al-Reuters via Yahoo News: Iran denies wanting to "wipe Israel off the map"

"Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament.

and

Mottaki also acknowledged the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, despite Ahmadinejad saying in December that it was a myth.

Note he's speaking in English - this drivel is strictly for the Western dopes. Dr. ElBaradei has been paid - this is his success for overlooking abrogation of the NPT. A week from now, President AhWantMyJihad will overrule the foreign minister and Dr. ElBaradei will be back to offer more concessions, perhaps IAEA assistance with the actual weapon design.

Update #2 for Feb. 20: Here's the message at home in Iran, in contrast to the message for European consumption. From the Jerusalem Post, (Hat Tip Clarity & Resolve). This is a University lecture - wherein the students are asked what is their first choice as a target for suicide bombing.

There is a great post on "SnowGate" at at The People's Cube. The whole site is a crack-up. Some other quotes:

UN issues report on human rights abuses by the US; also purchases a large glass house and a bag of stones

Cindy Sheehan to cartoon protestors: "It's 15 minutes, not 15 days!"

These folks are going to the BlogRoll.

The Western Standard is one of the very few print outlets in North America to publish the Danish cartoons. The Standard is published in Calgary, Canada every other week. They are paying a price for their courage.

A Calgary Muslim leader has reported the Standard to the police, trying to get them to charge the publisher with "hate crimes". He has also filed a complaint against the paper with the human rights commission for "intellectual terrorism". The publisher reports that many Canadian magazine retailers who normally carry the Western Standard have caved in, announcing they won't carry the Standard on their shelves. (It's out back - in the dumpster - on top of the cheese.)

The Western Standard is interesting reading, it reflects a set of values not so uncommon in western Canada - that perhaps the multi-cultural super-nanny state isn't going to work out. I first read it in my mission to never miss a piece by Mark Steyn, but my interest has since grown.

Canada has an interesting parallel to the ongoing debate in the U.S. over what is law the legislature should be writing, and what is a principle a court should be divining. In Canada the courts are divining from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which came into effect in 1982. When Canadians want to know the original intent of their framers, they can ask! Turns out - a lot of them aren't all that interested. In "The Framer's Revolt" Paul Bruner checks with some of the authors of the Charter on some of the law deduced therefrom; including

Sunday shopping. Unregulated abortion. Voting rights for convicts. Restrictive evidentiary rules. Legal protection for non-citizens. Redefinition of pornography. Judicial salaries set by unelected commissions. No extradition for criminals facing capital punishment in other countries. Import exemptions for S&M products. Expanded defence for child pornography. Lower age of consent for sodomy. Criminalization of 'hate speech.' Separate schools for francophones. Equality rights for homosexuals. Protection for gays in the military and police. Spousal benefits for same-sex couples. Adoption rights for homosexuals. Legalization of same-sex marriage.

Criminalization of hate speech is a wave coming in the United States too. It is sold under the banner of protecting victim groups. It is always a mistake to protect group rights, because their aren't any. There are individual rights, and we're supposed to all have the same ones. If we define a group that has a right not to be offended...

Paul Bruner continues:

After the charter, however, federal and provincial parliamentarians increasingly retreated from their elemental role as the primary authors of Canadian law. By default, the job fell to the courts.

This is, I believe, is exactly what happened in the United States as well, except the point at which the legislature defaulted en banc in America was facing abortion. There being no answer without high costs, the legislatures, federal and state, by and large refused the question.

The Western Standard is a good read - you may want to subscribe, and you may want to express your support for their decision to publish the Danish cartoons by e-mail. If you frequent a newstand you might encourage them to carry it. There hasn't been a lot of courage in the print media on the North American continent - it's something we should promote.

The Financial Times is a national daily newspaper in Great Britain. It is, more or less, the Wall Street Journal of the U.K. It's first focus is business. It is not conservative by Wall Street Journal standards, but it is a lot closer than, for example, the Guardian - another major national daily. The Guardian is reflexively and universally opposed to anything the Bush administration does. The FT spends alot of column-inches advising the Bush administration, but it does not despise President Bush like the Guardian does. In as much as Europeans have taken to defining themselves by their reaction to the U.S., presumably the consensus in Great Britain lies somewhere between the two.

In the Comment and Analysis section (the editorial page) of the Feb 13 FT is an opinion piece from Faisal Devji, Assistant Professor of History at New School University, New York - "Islam offers a role model of the most modern kind". If you're paying for someone's tuition at the New School University - I feel your pain. Professor Devji's thesis is that liberal democracies are failing, and the future is being defined for them by the peaceful trans-national jihad.

These Muslims are inventing a new global politics. Such are the peaceful and individual boycotts of Danish goods, which operate through trans-­national capitalism to create a global politics outside the cognisance of states. Muslim protests over cartoon caricatures in a Danish newspaper do not threaten freedom of expression in liberal democracies. They challenge liberal democracy itself as a political form that is becoming parochial within a new global arena.

I might take umbrage with the 'peaceful and individual boycotts of Danish goods' part - but - you have to admit - it takes chutzpah to even write that down when embassies are burning and people are being beaten to death in the streets. The second sentence is hard to figure - it seems pretty clear that threatening freedom of expression is exactly what's happening. The third sentence is more interesting - in fact - I agree with the Professor - that nation-states as liberal democracies is a political form that is in danger of being overrun. The question of whether freedom of expression in a liberal democracy is more 'parochial' than trans-national jihad might be a point of contention - but there can be no doubt that the Professor sees the future - the trans-national jihad is threatening to remake liberal democracies. The 'new global politics' may end up being more modern, in the literal sense - it may survive to the later date.

The course of action recommended for us parochials?

It is because global Islam comes to us from the future that it exposes so clearly the limits of liberal democracy. Instead of defending their freedoms dressed in the wigs and breeches of liberalism's past, the critics of Islamic fanaticism must think about the limits of liberal democracy in new ways.

Yes of course! I didn't see it. Since global Islam comes to us from the future, those of us who would like to live in the future should prepare liberal democracies to accept global Islam! Otherwise they'll cut off our heads. Enough with these recidivist fools that think global Islam comes to us from 1100 years in the past. These concepts - freedom of expression, unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, - they aren't modern, they're parochial - because we won't need them in the future of global Islam.

Now you are, no doubt, wondering how do we get started on our transformation; particularly here in the U.S. - we are so far behind the Europeans. Not to worry! Al Gore has always been looking ahead to our global future. He has taken time off from reading his thermometers to visit Saudi Arabia - the center of our future - and express our apologies for fighting Islamic fanaticism. From Yahoo news, (hat tip LGF):

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia - Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses"” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

and further...

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Perhaps you didn't know about the massive mistreatment of Arabs in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 - I didn't - but that's O.K. Al Gore knew, and he knows what the temperature will be in 2020 too. He'll prepare us for the future.

I got this note from a friend of mine - I do not know where the Australian editorial was published - but it is awesome:

To Kill an American

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is, so they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America.

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

and for the curious - a special issue of 'What's under that Burqa?' on Atlas Shrugs.

If Bill Clinton could have run for a third term in 2000, he would have won. It is only because Al Gore was such a bad candidate that George Bush won - or - if you prefer - that George Bush was handed the Presidency by the Supreme Court in order to further disenfranchise blacks.

By that time - the 2000 election - I suffered from Clinton insanity. I could no longer act in my own best interests. The cloud of anger was too great. I had supported impeachment to make him pay. The attacks on women, lies under oath, feckless foreign policy, lightweight commitment in Somalia, tomahawks into an aspirin factory, bombings to divert the press from his scandals, the smooth, oh-so-sincere charm act, phone sex in the oval office, interns, molestations, sell-out to China, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is, ... hold on - I need my medication...

(Short Intermission)

OK - I'm back, all better now. So Clinton's gone (well, not really, but he's not my President any longer) and I can look back without having a seizure. The reaction of the Republicans to Clinton, comprised of equal parts anger, disgust, and frustration at his electoral success and never-ending media glitz - did nothing to improve the Republican's image. In fact, Republican reaction to Bill Clinton nearly sunk George W. Bush. We could not "move-on" - we were vindictive neanderthals.

Now the left is angry - and I can sell my meds on eBay. They have reached the state where nothing George Bush does can possibly be any good - and everything bad that happens is his fault. The BlameBush blog parodies this mind-set. Three things strike me about the site: 1) It's really funny, 2) It sounds exactly like Al Gore or Howard Dean in one of their two-minute hates, and 3) the comments in the "Bag o' Hate Mail" indicate that some of the readers do not understand it's a parody. (I knicked the Al Gore photo from his site too.)

The leading-edge of the Democratic party is beyond parody - the train is off the rails. Why is this happening? They are completely frustrated by George W. Bush's style - which they detest as anti-intellectual, his stumbling speech - which they believe proves he's an idiot, his overt faith in God - which can only be a sign of his weak character in comparison to their enlightened atheism, and his complete disregard for their Hollywood-approved opinions. Like Clinton to conservatives - despite these glaring flaws - he keeps ending up as President.

Meanwhile, the Democratic party pushes leftward. Michael Barone has written about this. The effect of the Internet for the right has been to puncture the mainstream media air-cover. Mainstream media cannot set the agenda irrespective of the facts - all of their assertions will be checked and reported on in near real-time. That is good news for conservatives. Rathergate as exposed on Little Green Footballs is the defining example of this trend. For liberals, on the other hand, the Internet has given voice to their committed supporters, NARAL, People for the American Way, the Daily Kos. They are demanding their party respond to their contributions without kow-towing to the mainstream view - and they are vitriolic about it, strikingly hostile. Damn the torpedoes - filibuster Judge Alito. We don't care if you slander him in front of his family. Have Senator Kennedy question his commitment to women's rights (Huh?). They have Bush Derangement Syndrome. They are using the Internet to whip up their impeachment drive (Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs). Now the Democrats are setting themselves up to be the vindictive elites, who can't "move-on".

Other commentators, Mark Steyn, Hugh Hewitt, have brought up that the madness on the left is not a good thing, that, learning from Canada, we should not be too gleeful about one party being the only electable party, because in the long run it breeds sloth and corruption.

I agree with them in the long run - but - in the short run, I want the Republican party to lead from the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and 2/3 of the Governorships. We have some tough days in front of us in the war on Islamic fascism. We will need to revisit parts of the Constitution before it is over. The definition of what constitutes a religion that can be freely practiced is going to have to be addressed. Deportations, internment, real border security - we'll be discussing all of these in the next 5 years. I want Republican leadership, federal and state, until we have organized ourselves in a manner that will allow us to preserve Western civilization.

That being my view - I am hoping for a Democratic majority to take the House in 2006 and begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I want them to try to remove the President from office for doing an end-run around judges to wiretap Al Qaeda. There is nothing the Democrats can do that would more thoroughly convince the nation of the basic failure of their party - a failure that many now suspect. They cannot stop fighting the battles they won 30 years ago and face the battles we have today. They cannot get out of the courts and into the real world. Our problem in America is not that we are suppressing blacks, women, liberals and clean energy - it is that we are insufficiently suppressing those who would kill us or have us submit to their rules.

The impeachment cannot result in President Bush's removal from office because the Senate will remain Republican in 2006. It will be seen as a publicity stunt. To the extent that it is successful - i.e. that a case is made that some laws were broken to protect Americans from an enemy who would kill 3000 innocents in one day - the reaction of most Americans will be that it is something they damn well expect their President to do. The war against Islamic fascism will not be over in 2008 or 2012. The Democratic party cannot be taken seriously in these conditions. Impeachment will make that abundantly clear.

Democrats, to thine own selves be true - Go for it!

This cartoon is copyright J.J. McCullough - and he has a bunch of good ones at his website, Filibuster Cartoons, particularly entertaining for those who follow politics in Canada. I first saw it at Debbie Schlussel's excellent blog.

John Keegan is arguably the preeminent military historian of our time. I have enjoyed his work - The Face of Battle - is an amazing book - I've read nothing else like it. I had, therefore, high expectations for 'Intelligence in War: Knowledge of the Enemy from Napoleon to Al-Qaeda'.

The book is a remarkable piece of scholarship; a review, in substantial detail, of a number of engagements. It follows Admiral Nelson in 1798, Stonewall Jackson in the Civil War, the German airborne invasion of Crete, SOE (Special Forces) in WWII in Europe, Midway, the Falklands, and some discussion of the first Gulf War. In each case, there is an attempt to distill the quality of the intelligence available and how it affected the outcome, for example:

The events of 20-21 May 1941 in Crete demonstrate one of the most important of all truths about the role of intelligence in warfare: that however good the intelligence available before an encounter may appear to be, the outcome, given equality of force, will still be decided by the fight; and, in a fight, determination, again given equality of force, will be the paramount factor.

This is a repeated theme, intelligence is important, but often over-rated historically, and perhaps not as important as random chance (Keegan's example is Midway) in conventional force-on-force battles.

I read the book through my post-9/11 lens - what does it tell me about the battle we are facing, and that my kids are likely to have to face? From this perch, I found the book unsatisfying. A conventional force-on-force battle is not anything America is likely to face in the next 30 years. There is no comparable force - China may become one, or it may not, but that will be decades from now.

I find little in the way of useful hypotheses from this sweep of history relevant to Al Qaeda. In that sense, I feel a bit cheated - I think the subtitle, "Napoleon to Al Qaeda", is over-selling the contents. The book was published in 2003, and contains a brief discussion of the "war on terrorism" at the end:

Muslim fundamentalism is profoundly unintellectual; it is, by that token, opposed to everything the West understands by the idea of "intelligence." The challenge to the West's intelligence services is to find a way into the fundamentalist mind and to overcome it from within.

I believe that is in some sense a good statement of the long-term problem. The short-term problem might be better summarized as 'targeting' in my view - but in either event, I did not find much in the book to lead one toward a solution.

The Jawa Report has an excellent photo log of moderate Muslims protesting violence against women - oops - wrong photos - these Muslims are angry about the kidnapping of journalist Jill Carroll, no - wait - that's not it - it's about the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11, err, no - that's not it either - ahh yes - it's about the cartoons of Old Mo'. For those of you pretending this is not a war with Islam - do yourself a favor - look at the photo's - make a headcount. Do you think this is a few thousand extremists?

Michelle Malkin has an encouraging post on the reaction of at least some of the Danish media to the World Rage Tour being put on be the Imam's. Remember - it's not about the cartoons. I think the Danes are going to try to save themselves - and I applaud them. I hope they begin deporting people - and I hope America stands with them when they do.

This is not the first time in history that the Danes have shown the courage to face oppression in the defense of civilization, something of a rarity in Europe. If you're not quite convinced this is civilization versus barbarism (to paraphrase Clifford May) - you should look at this post from Pamela.

It is interesting to note the force of women's voices in defense of civilization. They have no blinders on about what Islam means. In Islam women are chattel. In the West - women are the beacons of freedom. Look at this quote from the Queen of Denmark from the Telegraph via Atlas Shrugs:

"We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

Well - that's enough for me - I'm planning my next vacation in Denmark.

Readers of this blog may appreciate the Drum & Cannon - also in the links on the left. I particularly like today's quotes of the week.

I have to apologize - again - to the Drum & Cannon - as I have now twice lost comments from Jack on the Cartoon Jihad. This is a result of trying to install a blogger add-on to enable trackbacks. The installation appears to have taken this time - but comments were tossed. That's not so slick - but since Blogger and Haloscan are free - it's hard to complain.

Get your own fatwa here, via the Jawa Report.

Mayor Nagin has some new sponsors for Chocolate City rebuild - from MyWay News via the Drudge Report:

Nagin, who has hosted a steady stream of foreign dignitaries since Hurricane Katrina hit in late August, says he may seek international assistance because U.S. aid has not been sufficient to get the city back on its feet.

"I know we had a little disappointment earlier with some signals we're getting from Washington but the international community may be able to fill the gap," Nagin said when a delegation of French government and business officials passed through on Friday to explore potential business partnerships.

Jordan's King Abdullah also visited New Orleans on Friday and Nagin said he would encourage foreign interests to help redevelop some of the areas hardest hit by the storm.

"France can take Treme. The king of Jordan can take the Lower Ninth Ward," he said, referring to two of the city's neighborhoods.

Now I know many of you right-wing kooks out there will be offended that Mayor Nagin is ready to cede US territory to foreign countries - after completely failing to lead in every possible way in the face of Hurricane Katrina.

I suggest a moment's reflection - we may not want to look a gift horse in the mouth.

The culture of New Orleans, where the police force was the first to evacuate in the face of the crisis - stopping only long enough to steal the Cadillacs - may be more compatible with France than with the United States. When it comes to managing large numbers of people in confined spaces without facilities for bathing - surely the French lead the world. And King Abdullah may well be able to get the buses moving before the water level reaches 15 feet.

If we can reshape the Mississippi river delta to maintain a small waterway that separates New Orleans from the CONUS, I think gifting it to France is a capital idea. It will be underwater in 20 years, and in the meantime - it'll drain about 500 BILLION DOLLARS from the treasury. If Mayor Nagin can convince Jacques Chirac and King Abdullah to step up to the plate and support the next two decades of unlimited theft of public funds - maybe that's not such a bad deal.

In fact - we could sell it to them, for say, $20. We could call it 'Nagin's Folly'. They'd think they were getting a deal. Once we have the $20 bill - we could tell them there's a rare species of mud-crawling leech, the kleptocrat, now roaming through the swamp that was New Orleans - and we'll refer them to the UN if they don't do something to maintain it's natural environment. What the hell - let Mayor Nagin keep the $20 - and if he feels obligated to renounce his U.S. citizenship - well - C'est la Vie!

Sharp changes in civilization's path have a defining event - an event where anyone who's paying attention becomes aware of the change. This defining event occurs after the tipping point, the point where the change in the path is irreversible. Tipping points are hard to see - they are usually deduced historically. They are a matter of judgment, and they may not be singular. The defining event, on the other hand, is a the first big road-side sign on the new highway - a real-time marker.

Looking back at the collapse of the Soviet Union one can make the case for a number of transformative events, or tipping points, afterwhich the collapse was irreversible. In "Reform, Coup and Collapse: The End of the Soviet State", Professor Archie Brown identifies a sequence of such events - including the agreement of the communist party to hold democratic elections in the summer of 1988. The myth of the proletariat wisdom being expressed singularly through the communist party was abandoned. That did not stand out at the time, however, there was no great acclaim.

No one missed the Berlin wall coming down, however, at the hands of the very people it separated. That was the defining event - a real-time marker. It was not a matter of fundamental change in and of itself, it was symbolic. The frontier from East Germany to Hungary had already been opened. The prison walls of the Soviet empire were breached before the Berlin wall came down. It was the defining event because no one could watch the wall coming down and not realize that the Soviet empire was finished.

Within days of 9/11 it was clear that the President Bush and his administration were asking themselves how we can prevent this attack, and our response to this attack, from becoming a war against Islam. The formulation they came up with - the war against terrorism of global reach - is a lame statement of purposes - but completely understandable. We did not want, and have not sought, a war between Western civilization and Islam. That's what Osama wanted - we wanted an Islamic reformation away from the vision of the world-wide caliphate under Sharia.

In the end of course, it takes two parties to decide not to have a war, and the decision of the United States, the EU, and the Anglosphere not to have one with Islam is not going to stand - for it was never our call to make.

The defining event, the real-time marker, that Western civilization is in a war against Islam is happening now, it is the cartoon jihad, a moniker coined by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch so far as I know. No thinking person can watch demonstrations of 50,000 people, embassies being burned, and open calls for murder in European capitals - all in response to offensive cartoons - and pretend that Western civilization and Islam can coexist. One of them is going to give-out. The war is underway. The cartoon jihad is a largely symbolic event, but the meaning could not be more clear.

Some see the cartoons as a stupid and unnecessary provocation, and they may be all of that, but they were published in September of 2005. This is February of 2006, the decision to use the cartoons to inflame Islam is being made by Imams. Their call is being heeded.

David Duke, Tom Metzger, and their ilk have been trying to ignite a race war in America by preaching white supremacy for years. The neo-nazis speaks to a culture which, in the main - consider them to be irrelevant freaks. A small number of people, either raised to hatred, or abject failures in society, buy-in because it provides meaning to their small lives. There will always be provocative events and hate-mongers waiting to seize on them. That's not the critical variable - the critical variable is whether the culture the hate-mongers speak to has any interest in what they say.

In Islam, we have a huge number of people raised to hatred - perhaps a majority. The more democracies we promote - the more direct evidence we get. The electoral success of Hamas, the celebration of a Palestinian woman as a bomb-baby breeder, the rise of the violent Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. The Imams are the David Duke's of their world - but they are speaking to a very large number of Muslims - particularly outside the U.S - who buy-in to the story. Look at this photo in the Jihad Watch post. This a baby girl being taught to love Al Qaeda and kill infidels - growing up in London. If she's loyal to the culture her parents instill in her - she'll blow-up, rather than grow-up. Either she has the future her parents want for her, or Great Britain has a future as a democratic country. Choose one.

About one month ago, Mark Steyn wrote an article published in the New Criterion and in the Opinion Journal, entitled "It's the Demography, Stupid". Mark Steyn is a phenomenal columnist - but this piece was extraordinary even for him. I put aside a copy - and read it again a month later - to see if the impact was diminished by time. It has not. The article explains the fatal calculus of the post-Christian birth-rate in Westernized democracies, and the inevitable drift towards the rule of Islam in the EU states. The Imams have read it - they get it. They believe Europe needs them more then they need the Europeans. The westernized post-Christian democracies cannot sustain themselves.

Why would the Imams choose to push now, when they need only sit back and let the population dynamics do their work for them? I believe the reason is that the Arab Islamists are not happy about the Persians moving to the front of the pack in the race to have a full-blown Jihad with the infidels. If there's anything Islamists hate more than infidels - its another group of Islamists.

The cartoons are incidental. If they were not available another cause would be found. The Islamic culture is ready to kill to demonstrate the power of Allah over the West. This video by Michelle Malkin is a reminder - the cartoons are not the first time Islamists have been incited - it doesn't take much. Western civilization, a free press, equality of women, religious freedom - these things cannot exist in a manner that does not offend Muslims. The fundamental change, the tipping points for irreversible change have already occurred. What were they? Who knows? The formation of Israel, the failure to support the Shah, the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, there are a multitude to choose from. Fundamentally - Islam has failed to develop a culture compatible with individual freedom and modernity.

This failed culture has a billion believers. They have been largely held at bay in the abject poverty that their culture consigns them to - or in hyper-violent, oil-fed police states. They have been unleashed - through democratic reforms - and emigration. No honest person can watch the cartoon jihad and believe we are headed towards an Islamic reformation. Indeed - the Imams are with Osama, they believe this is their hour of supreme triumph. If there is to be an Islamic reformation - it will happen after the war with the West - not in place of it.

What I would ask every American, Dane, Swede, Norwegian, Australian, Brit, German, Italian, Dutchman, Spaniard and Frenchman is this: The Islamists will kill to see their world vision succeed, will you kill to see that stopped, or submit to Sharia?

Update Feb. 8 Claudia Rosettt has a piece on Cartoon Jihad in National Review Online here. One point she emphasizes is that this is not about cartoons - with which I agree. She also notes that "in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives." Precisely.

Update #2 for Feb. 8: Little Green Footballs has a picture from an Egyptian newspaper publishing the very same cartoons in October of 2005. No day of rage. It's not about cartoons - the Imams want a war. In the LGF posting immediately following the Egyptian newspaper note, there is a 'moderate' cleric from Qatar telling Muslims they must rage for the prophet.

Update Feb. 9: The Jawa Report is following the sad but predictable collapse of the will to fight for freedom in the EU in response to the Cartoon Jihad protests. See Creeping Facism in Europe: Press Regulation Coming. The Imam's have chosen their targets well - the age of Sharia in Europe is nearly here.

The Cartoon Network is Captain Ed's title for the Islamic insanity of the month. There is great coverage at the Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin (with the best quote - 'No, you go to hell.'), Atlas Shrugs - pretty much everyone on the blogroll. Little Green Footballs reports that the Ansar Al-Islam leader hanging out in Norway has declared that "the war has begun", and it's too late for apologies.

That's funny to me - in a sick way - what were 9/11, the London bombing, the Madrid bombing? Are those pre-war scrimmages? I'm glad we have folks on their side declaring it out loud - so those who should be on our side get the message - to quote Mark Steyn:

Speaking of which, if we are at war -- and half the American people and significantly higher percentages in Britain, Canada, and Europe don't accept that propostion -- then what exactly is the war about?

Now we know - cartoons.

On to the photo - which I stole from Yahoo news - of a protest in Lebanon. They've draped the donkey in a Danish flag. And what is that on the ass's head? A Hezbollah bandana? I must say - looking at this photo - I feel sorry for the donkey. Who knows his true feelings? Maybe he enjoys Muhammad cartoons. Where is PETA?

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs has been named Infidel Babe of the Week. This is why we must struggle to keep Western Civilization - we don't want this to get wrapped up in a burka. Imagine - a Superbowl under Sharia - burka-clad cheerleaders with AK-47's instead of pom-poms.

Some readers have made note of the Steeler's logo in the blog-roll linking to Hugh Hewitt's blog. Some history of the Steeler logo is in order, from the official Steelers web-site - the logo's origins:

In the 1950s, when helmet logos became popular, the Steelers added players' numbers to either side of their gold helmets. Later that decade, the numbers were removed and in 1962, Cleveland's Republic Steel suggested to the Steelers that they use the Steelmark as a helmet logo.

Remarkably, the Cleveland's Republic suggestion is the only notable contribution to professional football from Ohio.

I have seen the best in receiver history at Pittsburgh, Lynn Swann and John Stallworth - but I have never seen a receiver tougher than Hines Ward - and if your name sounds like Heinz - you have to play in Pittsburgh. Sunday's score? Steelers 24, Seattle 10.

Update Feb 3. Big Ben has his own blog - you can get inside details of big game preparation. You can make all the Muhammad cartoons you like - if you want to start a fight in Pittsburgh - make a Ben Roethlisberger cartoon.

The 18'th amendment to the Constitution, ratified in January of 1919, prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. It was repealed by the 21'st amendment in 1933.

One does not require legal training to read and understand both the 18'th and 21'st amendments. They mean what they say. The 18'th amendment passed because of a massive grassroots effort to stamp out the evils of alcohol, and the 21'st, in recognition that these particular evils were pretty popular. Making liquor criminal turned the country into a place with a lot of crime.

Neither the 18'th or 21'st amendments were mistakes. They do not suffer from lack of legal scholarship. There are no Federalist papers. It is not possible to misinterpret the original intent. It is an example of the mechanism by which the country is governed by the people. The people own the Constitution. The Constitution defines and limits government.

It is crucial to have an originalist judiciary - not because the founding fathers foresaw all the needs of the American future - but because without judges sworn to uphold the Constitution as it is written today - we have no governing document, and no limitations on the powers that government can assume.

When the judiciary takes on the role of divining 'higher principles' from the written words and reapplying them in our time - they are destroying the Constitution. It does not belong to lawyers and judges - it belongs to the people. If the wording needs to be adjusted to the times - then let it be adjusted in the prescribed manner.

We often hear that the Constitution must be a living document, we cannot take it at face value because the men who wrote it lived 230 years ago, we need men who've studied law for 20 years to tell us what it means today. That's hogwash. The Constitution is a living document because the people can amend it when they need to. From the judiciary - we need them to read the plain words.

It's time for a new amendment - I have some personal preferences as to what it should be - but that's not my point - it's time for a new amendment to remind the government who runs the show. The idea that, for example, the Constitution precludes defining a marriage as between one man and one woman is, to me, insane. But I have no doubt it can appear perfectly rational after a sufficient number of years reading case law. The judges are getting confused - let's give them some plain words.

There is an excellent analysis of the State of the Union Speech being given now by Dennis Prager on KRLA radio. You can listen live on the internet here. There was also excellent live blogosphere commentary on The Corner last night.

The only comment I'll add was my amazement - and anger, that an American General would slander American troops on national television. On the Hannity & Colmes show - Gen. Wesley Clark said that American soldiers were "roughing-up" women in Iraq. He spent a career with American troops, he should know them. In large numbers, they have given their lives to protect Iraqi women and children. If there is anyone reading this who doubts that - and would like to see evidence of it - you should take a look at Michael Yon's reports from Iraq.

Undoubtedly Al-Jazeera will be quoting General Clark, to justify the taking of American journalist Jill Carroll - part of the cycle of violence against women. The Americans started it - just listen to their General.

Wesley Clark has disgraced himself. I am glad he's retired and not leading any troops today.

I also have to say Sean Hannity was amazingly cool and composed as he deliberately inquired on the General's theory of American soldiers terrorizing Iraqi women. It was such an offensive statement - I do not know how he contained himself - but I was impressed.

Update Feb. 2: Here's a quote from General Clark's transcript of his post-SOTU interview on FOX - from his political action committee website:

When you use phrases like offensive. You know, we're not going to go down, I hope we've gotten over the sort of kicking in the doors and roughing up the women that some people said that we did some of over there…

What a pathetic man - passing on unsubstantiated rumors to rundown soldiers, the people he served with, so he can score a few points against President Bush. If you'd like to get in touch with General Weasel Clark - to let him know how much you appreciate his support of our troops - you can send him an e-mail here. The name of his web-site is 'securingamerica.com' - isn't that rich. Weasel wants us to lose - so he can look smart - and he's giving Al-Jazeera money-quotes to do it.