Sunday, March 28, 2004
Ignorical Historance
"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge."
-- Cicero
Textbooks flunk test By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Social studies textbooks used in elementary and secondary schools are mostly a disgrace that, in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, fail to give students an honest account of American history, say academic historians and education advocates."
..."Historian David McCullough, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for his biographies of Presidents John Adams and Harry Truman, also calls school history and social studies textbooks "deadly dull."
"It is as if they were designed to kill anyone's interest in history," he said in an interview. "A child made to read these books would ask, 'What did I do wrong today that I am being so punished?'"
Further evidence of "something that's eating away at the national memory," Mr. McCullough says, is a survey last year of seniors at 50 top colleges and universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
"It's astonishing. More than half didn't know George Washington was the commanding general of the Continental Army during the American Revolution who accepted Brig. Gen. Charles Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown.
"Thirty-six percent thought it was Ulysses S. Grant," commander of the Union Army during the U.S. Civil War. "Six percent said it was Douglas MacArthur," U.S. commander during the Korean War. "Thirty-two percent said Washington. It was a multiple-choice question. They were winging it.
"If you don't know what Yorktown was all about, and that Washington was the commander, you don't know ... a lot about American history that you ought to know," Mr. McCullough said."
..."Better yet, Mr. McCullough said, teachers should abandon textbooks altogether and use other books and resources instead to teach history and geography.
Textbooks written to be "politically correct" do not tell the truth about struggle and conflict through the ages in order to avoid offending minorities, ethnic groups, women and other advocates, he said.
"History is a story, cause and effect. And if you're going to teach just segments of history, women's issues, these youngsters have almost no sense of cause and effect," he said.
Mr. McCullough said, "I would do away with the textbooks. ... Get rid of all the state commissions that write the textbooks" because they fail to instill in students a sense of gratitude for the country's leaders over the centuries and what the American people endured and accomplished in order to pass on a legacy of freedom and prosperity.
"I think that to be ignorant or indifferent to history isn't just to be uneducated or stupid. It's to be rude, ungrateful. And ingratitude is an ugly failing in human beings.""
-- Cicero
Textbooks flunk test By George Archibald THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Social studies textbooks used in elementary and secondary schools are mostly a disgrace that, in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, fail to give students an honest account of American history, say academic historians and education advocates."
..."Historian David McCullough, who won two Pulitzer Prizes for his biographies of Presidents John Adams and Harry Truman, also calls school history and social studies textbooks "deadly dull."
"It is as if they were designed to kill anyone's interest in history," he said in an interview. "A child made to read these books would ask, 'What did I do wrong today that I am being so punished?'"
Further evidence of "something that's eating away at the national memory," Mr. McCullough says, is a survey last year of seniors at 50 top colleges and universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
"It's astonishing. More than half didn't know George Washington was the commanding general of the Continental Army during the American Revolution who accepted Brig. Gen. Charles Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown.
"Thirty-six percent thought it was Ulysses S. Grant," commander of the Union Army during the U.S. Civil War. "Six percent said it was Douglas MacArthur," U.S. commander during the Korean War. "Thirty-two percent said Washington. It was a multiple-choice question. They were winging it.
"If you don't know what Yorktown was all about, and that Washington was the commander, you don't know ... a lot about American history that you ought to know," Mr. McCullough said."
..."Better yet, Mr. McCullough said, teachers should abandon textbooks altogether and use other books and resources instead to teach history and geography.
Textbooks written to be "politically correct" do not tell the truth about struggle and conflict through the ages in order to avoid offending minorities, ethnic groups, women and other advocates, he said.
"History is a story, cause and effect. And if you're going to teach just segments of history, women's issues, these youngsters have almost no sense of cause and effect," he said.
Mr. McCullough said, "I would do away with the textbooks. ... Get rid of all the state commissions that write the textbooks" because they fail to instill in students a sense of gratitude for the country's leaders over the centuries and what the American people endured and accomplished in order to pass on a legacy of freedom and prosperity.
"I think that to be ignorant or indifferent to history isn't just to be uneducated or stupid. It's to be rude, ungrateful. And ingratitude is an ugly failing in human beings.""
One Man's Freedom Fighter
IS ANOTHER MAN'S ROOT CAUSE IS ANOTHER MAN'S CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IS ANOTHER MAN'S BRUTAL AFGHAN WINTER IS ANOTHER MAN'S QUAGMIRE IS ANOTHER MAN'S 'ALL ABOUT THE OIL' IS ANOTHER MAN'S
Richard Clarke:
"In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us."
What makes you so sure they hate you, Richard?
Richard Clarke:
"In addition to placing more cameras on our subway platforms, maybe we should be asking why the terrorists hate us."
What makes you so sure they hate you, Richard?
It's Official
Kerry/Chirac in '04!
TIME: "Do you think America's role as the sole superpower is a problem?"
Chirac: "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. That's why I favor a multipolar world, in which Europe obviously has its place. Anyway, the world will not be unipolar. Over the next 50 years, China will become a global power, and the world won't be the same. So it's time to start organizing. Transatlantic solidarity will remain the basis of the world order, in which Europe has its role to play."
Any community with France as the dominant power is a dangerous one.
France seeks to help put China in space, sell them arms and just interfered in the Taiwanese election.
Time to start organizing, indeed.
TIME: "Do you think America's role as the sole superpower is a problem?"
Chirac: "Any community with only one dominant power is always a dangerous one and provokes reactions. That's why I favor a multipolar world, in which Europe obviously has its place. Anyway, the world will not be unipolar. Over the next 50 years, China will become a global power, and the world won't be the same. So it's time to start organizing. Transatlantic solidarity will remain the basis of the world order, in which Europe has its role to play."
Any community with France as the dominant power is a dangerous one.
France seeks to help put China in space, sell them arms and just interfered in the Taiwanese election.
Time to start organizing, indeed.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Ends & Odds
The First Man on the Moon backs the Prez's space program.
Neil Armstrong: "Our president has introduced a new initiative with renewed emphasis on the exploration of our solar system and expansion of human frontiers. This proposal has substantial merit and promise."
John Glenn, who's about as cheery as Wilford Brimley without his oat bran, recently dumped all over the idea, but with the Chinese heading to the moon, we may not have much choice. They want nothing more than to position anti-satellite weapons there.
Frank J. interviews John Derbyshire. (He said "thuggery". heh. heh heh.)
Mr. Brokaw now appears on an additional media outlet.
"When guns are insurged, only insurgents will have guns." Claremont looks at the Iraqi Constitution.
Walter Olson's "The Threat from Lawyers is No Joke".
Frontpage interviews Richard Perle & David Frum on their excellent book, "An End to Evil".
The Glory of Blaze: Annika tells the tail.
Melanie Phillips: "While non-Christian nations can indeed subscribe to human rights -- and it is to be hoped that they do -- fundamental human rights (as opposed to the politically correct doctrines being laid down by European institutions) are emphatically not secular. They are based on the precepts originally laid down by Judaism and embellished and developed by Protestantism -- that individual behaviour must be constrained by moral laws, and that all human beings are equal in the image of God. Take this Judeo-Christian God away, and equality disappears too."
Neil Armstrong: "Our president has introduced a new initiative with renewed emphasis on the exploration of our solar system and expansion of human frontiers. This proposal has substantial merit and promise."
John Glenn, who's about as cheery as Wilford Brimley without his oat bran, recently dumped all over the idea, but with the Chinese heading to the moon, we may not have much choice. They want nothing more than to position anti-satellite weapons there.
Frank J. interviews John Derbyshire. (He said "thuggery". heh. heh heh.)
Mr. Brokaw now appears on an additional media outlet.
"When guns are insurged, only insurgents will have guns." Claremont looks at the Iraqi Constitution.
Walter Olson's "The Threat from Lawyers is No Joke".
Frontpage interviews Richard Perle & David Frum on their excellent book, "An End to Evil".
The Glory of Blaze: Annika tells the tail.
Melanie Phillips: "While non-Christian nations can indeed subscribe to human rights -- and it is to be hoped that they do -- fundamental human rights (as opposed to the politically correct doctrines being laid down by European institutions) are emphatically not secular. They are based on the precepts originally laid down by Judaism and embellished and developed by Protestantism -- that individual behaviour must be constrained by moral laws, and that all human beings are equal in the image of God. Take this Judeo-Christian God away, and equality disappears too."
Profiles in Discourage
President Bill speaks
On the first WTC Bombing:
"I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this."
On Osama on a silver platter:
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
As has been said,
"After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished."
"Against All Enemies", Mr. Clarke?
Really?
On the first WTC Bombing:
"I would discourage the American people from overreacting to this."
On Osama on a silver platter:
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
As has been said,
"After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished."
"Against All Enemies", Mr. Clarke?
Really?
Friday, March 26, 2004
Taking Out the Trash
The able Peter Cuthbertson on the knee-jerk condemnations of Israel's moral right--and obligation--to defend itself from the likes of a Yassin:
"Conservatives are usually somewhat defensive of hypocrisy, noting that in a world of fallible people the only alternative is the deliberate endorsement of wrong acts. But this sort of hypocrisy - a coy modesty about righteous and utterly defensible executions - only serves to foster an immoral climate in which even the worst of mass murdering terrorists are seen as sympathetic, as possessing a right to life. They don't. Terrorists no more have an abstract right to live than bureaucrats have an abstract right to be employed in the civil service. From the moment anyone becomes involved with a terror group and devoted to the murder of a country's citizens to the moment they sever all such links, they have a right to life only in so far as their opponents see advantage in granting it. The killing of terrorists, like the hiring and firing of bureaucrats, is a proper function of the state. We all need to start saying so."
So.
"Conservatives are usually somewhat defensive of hypocrisy, noting that in a world of fallible people the only alternative is the deliberate endorsement of wrong acts. But this sort of hypocrisy - a coy modesty about righteous and utterly defensible executions - only serves to foster an immoral climate in which even the worst of mass murdering terrorists are seen as sympathetic, as possessing a right to life. They don't. Terrorists no more have an abstract right to live than bureaucrats have an abstract right to be employed in the civil service. From the moment anyone becomes involved with a terror group and devoted to the murder of a country's citizens to the moment they sever all such links, they have a right to life only in so far as their opponents see advantage in granting it. The killing of terrorists, like the hiring and firing of bureaucrats, is a proper function of the state. We all need to start saying so."
So.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Back in the U.S.S.R.
A while back we excerpted Tatiana Menaker's excellent 'Hate America Poetry Class'.
The Stalinist administration at San Francisco State University tried to exile her from campus because she took exception to the pogroms--and I use those words carefully. They backed off after pressure was brought to bear.
Read about it here and here.
More of her top-notch work is found here and here.
An excerpt:
"Immediately before the war in Iraq, I watched two different kinds of professors at SFSU: both of them, naturally, antiwar. Some of them did their work with professional integrity even though their hearts were on the antiwar side, trusting students to make their own political decisions. Some others not only served as ideologues to the anti-American mob organized under their patronage, but also agitated and incited students to leave classes for antiwar demonstrations.
This pointed out the major difference between my education in the Soviet Union and my education at SFSU. When I wanted to transfer credits from my Leningrad University degree to SFSU, I was told by the International Admissions Office that it couldn't be done, because as a professor of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, I had only gone through "indoctrination." I find this fascinating, because the difference between Leningrad University and SFSU is that my professors in Leningrad were forced to teach socialist propaganda for fear of brutal punishment; here a bunch of aged hippies, who put students through forced indoctrination instead of academic work, were materially rewarded for their radical activism.
Not only am I as amazed as Alice in the Socialist Wonderland of San Francisco State University, but I feel as though I need to attend a third university to receive a real education. At SFSU, I've merely had my second Marxist indoctrination."
Welcome home, sister. We're glad you're here.
The Stalinist administration at San Francisco State University tried to exile her from campus because she took exception to the pogroms--and I use those words carefully. They backed off after pressure was brought to bear.
Read about it here and here.
More of her top-notch work is found here and here.
An excerpt:
"Immediately before the war in Iraq, I watched two different kinds of professors at SFSU: both of them, naturally, antiwar. Some of them did their work with professional integrity even though their hearts were on the antiwar side, trusting students to make their own political decisions. Some others not only served as ideologues to the anti-American mob organized under their patronage, but also agitated and incited students to leave classes for antiwar demonstrations.
This pointed out the major difference between my education in the Soviet Union and my education at SFSU. When I wanted to transfer credits from my Leningrad University degree to SFSU, I was told by the International Admissions Office that it couldn't be done, because as a professor of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, I had only gone through "indoctrination." I find this fascinating, because the difference between Leningrad University and SFSU is that my professors in Leningrad were forced to teach socialist propaganda for fear of brutal punishment; here a bunch of aged hippies, who put students through forced indoctrination instead of academic work, were materially rewarded for their radical activism.
Not only am I as amazed as Alice in the Socialist Wonderland of San Francisco State University, but I feel as though I need to attend a third university to receive a real education. At SFSU, I've merely had my second Marxist indoctrination."
Welcome home, sister. We're glad you're here.
Veetnam Vamps
John Kerry attended an anti-war meeting in which the assasination of Senators was debated. He was against it and quit the organization in protest, the correct decision. Unfortunately, he can't take credit for it because for years he lied about being there. Now come the FBI records that put him at the scene. He's reduced to lying again, saying he doesn't recall (yeah, right) and blasting the Hoover-era FBI for spying. Uhhh, 'scuse me but wouldn't spying on a group that would seriously consider killing US senators be, uhh, THE FBI's JOB?
And forget 30-plus years ago...this is a candidate for President who, when caught in a tricky spot, resorts to lying through his teeth to you and me in real time. He doesn't remember the event that caused him to quit Vietnam Vets Against the War? Please.
Paul Beston writes in the Spectator:
"Kerry has little to fear from the Kansas City story. Even if there is a bombshell revelation yet to come, the story is already playing out on the familiar terrain of "gotcha" personal campaigning, devoid of genuine historical context. Kerry faces an opponent who has no desire to discuss Vietnam-era politics and a public that has long-since accepted the liberal narrative of Vietnam as a wrongful war. And he operates in a political culture in which a Democrat's sins are easily forgiven, if in fact they are viewed as sins in the first place."
"All of this is to be regretted, because the election of 2004 offered one of the last chances to have a meaningful national debate about the merits of the Vietnam War. Unless I was out of the room the last 30 years, I don't think we've had it yet. As an interested non-expert who grew up in Vietnam's aftermath, it seems to me that Vietnam in the context of the Cold War and Iraq in the context of the Terror War have many points of comparison."
"Chief among them is the concept of the Twilight Struggle against an implacable global adversary, where the rules of engagement cannot preclude elective interventions that are part of a long-term strategy. But the only discussion about Vietnam we tend to get is of the quagmire variety whenever an American soldier dies in Iraq; only then is the war in Iraq said to be "like Vietnam.""
"The Right lacks confidence in its Vietnam arguments and the Left has no moral authority, so the two sides have agreed to a silent truce on the matter. But it's not a truce that serves the interests of the country, any more than VVAW did then or John Kerry does now."
I think that's right. 'Nam was where the liberals decided that America was always wrong, always to blame, incapable of wielding power justly and in need of constraint by trans-national elites.
I was surprised to hear the late Rick Rescorla, a true hero, say we should have intervened on behalf of Gen. Giap at the very beginning, presumably so as to steer him away from Communist alignment. Kerry, of course, intervened on behalf of Gen. Giap at the end.
So much of what we "know" about the war is false, having been written by liberals. Tet was a victory, not a defeat. We were on the verge of winning when the campaign on the streets of America by John Kerry and co. finally guaranteed defeat. Even then, South Vietnam might have won with just some air-support and equipment, but many Democrats had decided not just that we should leave, but that the Communists should win.
I believe the war was worth fighting. And, worth fighting, worth winning. LBJ's dithering half-measures & "sending messages" doomed the effort from the start and gave the Left its opening.
Today's Democrats still see everything through those eyes. Osama is Ho Chi Minh. America is still wrong, still to blame, still incapable of wielding power justly and still in need of constraint by trans-national elites. The Ghosts of Vietnam still rule their night.
And for Kerry, it's also a personal metaphor. It was his first political issue...and he was on both sides of it, a way of life for him. While this latest revelation may not kill him, his veteran status won't help him either; when you've successfully run down service in that war, including your own, how do you then run on that service record?
The defeatist has defeated himself.
And forget 30-plus years ago...this is a candidate for President who, when caught in a tricky spot, resorts to lying through his teeth to you and me in real time. He doesn't remember the event that caused him to quit Vietnam Vets Against the War? Please.
Paul Beston writes in the Spectator:
"Kerry has little to fear from the Kansas City story. Even if there is a bombshell revelation yet to come, the story is already playing out on the familiar terrain of "gotcha" personal campaigning, devoid of genuine historical context. Kerry faces an opponent who has no desire to discuss Vietnam-era politics and a public that has long-since accepted the liberal narrative of Vietnam as a wrongful war. And he operates in a political culture in which a Democrat's sins are easily forgiven, if in fact they are viewed as sins in the first place."
"All of this is to be regretted, because the election of 2004 offered one of the last chances to have a meaningful national debate about the merits of the Vietnam War. Unless I was out of the room the last 30 years, I don't think we've had it yet. As an interested non-expert who grew up in Vietnam's aftermath, it seems to me that Vietnam in the context of the Cold War and Iraq in the context of the Terror War have many points of comparison."
"Chief among them is the concept of the Twilight Struggle against an implacable global adversary, where the rules of engagement cannot preclude elective interventions that are part of a long-term strategy. But the only discussion about Vietnam we tend to get is of the quagmire variety whenever an American soldier dies in Iraq; only then is the war in Iraq said to be "like Vietnam.""
"The Right lacks confidence in its Vietnam arguments and the Left has no moral authority, so the two sides have agreed to a silent truce on the matter. But it's not a truce that serves the interests of the country, any more than VVAW did then or John Kerry does now."
I think that's right. 'Nam was where the liberals decided that America was always wrong, always to blame, incapable of wielding power justly and in need of constraint by trans-national elites.
I was surprised to hear the late Rick Rescorla, a true hero, say we should have intervened on behalf of Gen. Giap at the very beginning, presumably so as to steer him away from Communist alignment. Kerry, of course, intervened on behalf of Gen. Giap at the end.
So much of what we "know" about the war is false, having been written by liberals. Tet was a victory, not a defeat. We were on the verge of winning when the campaign on the streets of America by John Kerry and co. finally guaranteed defeat. Even then, South Vietnam might have won with just some air-support and equipment, but many Democrats had decided not just that we should leave, but that the Communists should win.
I believe the war was worth fighting. And, worth fighting, worth winning. LBJ's dithering half-measures & "sending messages" doomed the effort from the start and gave the Left its opening.
Today's Democrats still see everything through those eyes. Osama is Ho Chi Minh. America is still wrong, still to blame, still incapable of wielding power justly and still in need of constraint by trans-national elites. The Ghosts of Vietnam still rule their night.
And for Kerry, it's also a personal metaphor. It was his first political issue...and he was on both sides of it, a way of life for him. While this latest revelation may not kill him, his veteran status won't help him either; when you've successfully run down service in that war, including your own, how do you then run on that service record?
The defeatist has defeated himself.
Apologize this
Richard Clarke:
"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
Would those be the "facts" you told us last year or the "facts" you're telling us now?
Spare me your insincere apology, Mr. Clarke. I want someone who will hunt down my enemies and kill them. And drag those societies into the 21st century. That is what President Bush is trying to do...and you are trying to undermine him in that effort with these crocodile tears. While selling a book. Richard Clarke as Paul Revere:
"The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming...that'll be $27.95, please!"
The failures to protect this country run deep. We were unprepared to fight half the wars we ever fought, starting with the Barbary pirates. We failed to eliminate Castro when he held international terrorism conferences. We rescued and funded Arafat--after Beirut! We failed in Iran. Why did we allow Khadafy to live after Lockerbie, let alone the earlier disco-bombings? Why didn't we finish the job in Desert Storm? The Clinton Administration was failure upon failure upon failure, starting with Mogadishu. The first World Trade Center bombing was just as serious as 9/11; they just happened to fail.
And in a republic, citizens have a duty to inform themselves and raise hell. We all need a look in the mirror. Hell, look at those two women who complained about Bush's 9/11 ads; the terrorists killed their family members--and they went to Afghanistan to hold the Talebans' hands! What kind of people are we producing?
And while Congress and the Media are asking the questions now, they have plenty to answer for themselves.
So apologize to the person next to you and I'll apologize to the person next to me and then, when we are all feeling really good about each other, let's get on with the business at hand.
By the way, the title of Mr. Clarke's book is 'Against All Enemies', meaning he'll protect the Constitution against all enemies, whether George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden. If he wants to apologize for something, that would be a good place to start.
Sorry bastard.
"I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened, and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence.
I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11, to them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television.
Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter, because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
Would those be the "facts" you told us last year or the "facts" you're telling us now?
Spare me your insincere apology, Mr. Clarke. I want someone who will hunt down my enemies and kill them. And drag those societies into the 21st century. That is what President Bush is trying to do...and you are trying to undermine him in that effort with these crocodile tears. While selling a book. Richard Clarke as Paul Revere:
"The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming...that'll be $27.95, please!"
The failures to protect this country run deep. We were unprepared to fight half the wars we ever fought, starting with the Barbary pirates. We failed to eliminate Castro when he held international terrorism conferences. We rescued and funded Arafat--after Beirut! We failed in Iran. Why did we allow Khadafy to live after Lockerbie, let alone the earlier disco-bombings? Why didn't we finish the job in Desert Storm? The Clinton Administration was failure upon failure upon failure, starting with Mogadishu. The first World Trade Center bombing was just as serious as 9/11; they just happened to fail.
And in a republic, citizens have a duty to inform themselves and raise hell. We all need a look in the mirror. Hell, look at those two women who complained about Bush's 9/11 ads; the terrorists killed their family members--and they went to Afghanistan to hold the Talebans' hands! What kind of people are we producing?
And while Congress and the Media are asking the questions now, they have plenty to answer for themselves.
So apologize to the person next to you and I'll apologize to the person next to me and then, when we are all feeling really good about each other, let's get on with the business at hand.
By the way, the title of Mr. Clarke's book is 'Against All Enemies', meaning he'll protect the Constitution against all enemies, whether George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden. If he wants to apologize for something, that would be a good place to start.
Sorry bastard.
Monday, March 22, 2004
It Lives!
Sorry 'bout the dearth of posts, but I've been taking advantage of a little-known provision of the last Farm Bill--the new Blog Subsidies program. The Gubmint pays me not to blog, so as not to flood the blog-market and reduce the per-word price that is paid to all bloggers. To sign up, dial 1-800-BLOATEDNANNYSTATE.
In the news, Israel has killed the spiritual leader of Hamas. This comes just a few days short of the anniversary of the death of Heinrich Himmler, who was, of course, the spiritual leader of the SS.
President Bill yesterday explained his inaction when a CIA drone spotted bin Laden:
"It was a tall bearded figure in a dress--I thought it was Janet Reno."
In the news, Israel has killed the spiritual leader of Hamas. This comes just a few days short of the anniversary of the death of Heinrich Himmler, who was, of course, the spiritual leader of the SS.
President Bill yesterday explained his inaction when a CIA drone spotted bin Laden:
"It was a tall bearded figure in a dress--I thought it was Janet Reno."
Friday, March 19, 2004
He's right, naturally
"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."--Samuel Adams, 'The Rights of the Colonists'.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Remember '...or the terrorists win'?
WELL, THEY JUST WON.
al Qaeda just successfully toppled its first Western government. The voters of Spain have just removed a pro- U.S. tough-on-terror party and installed the soft-on-terror Socialists.
In a fit of national Stockholm Syndrome, the voters have just complied with their murderers demands. Nor will it be the last demand, either. Spain drove out their Muslim overlords some 500 years ago, and it is an article of faith among the train-bombers that this can never be allowed.
It is bad enough when Socialists come to power in ordinary times. Spaniards can probably say 'adios' to an economy that had been revived by tax-cuts, for example. But under these circumstances, the terrorists can only draw one conclusion; Western democracies can be rolled by strategically-timed attacks. Allies can be divided. Populaces can be bullied. Election outcomes can be altered. In short--Terrorism Works.
Its as if the cowardly townsfolk in "High Noon" have just fired their sheriff and hired one who promises not to upset the arriving outlaws. A European country is once again trying to appease the Unappeasable. How did that work out for you last time, anyway?
This tells me that other democracies--including America--had damn well better tighten up security preceding elections; Spanish capitulation has made them windows of opportunity.
Muchas gracias, dhimmigos.
al Qaeda just successfully toppled its first Western government. The voters of Spain have just removed a pro- U.S. tough-on-terror party and installed the soft-on-terror Socialists.
In a fit of national Stockholm Syndrome, the voters have just complied with their murderers demands. Nor will it be the last demand, either. Spain drove out their Muslim overlords some 500 years ago, and it is an article of faith among the train-bombers that this can never be allowed.
It is bad enough when Socialists come to power in ordinary times. Spaniards can probably say 'adios' to an economy that had been revived by tax-cuts, for example. But under these circumstances, the terrorists can only draw one conclusion; Western democracies can be rolled by strategically-timed attacks. Allies can be divided. Populaces can be bullied. Election outcomes can be altered. In short--Terrorism Works.
Its as if the cowardly townsfolk in "High Noon" have just fired their sheriff and hired one who promises not to upset the arriving outlaws. A European country is once again trying to appease the Unappeasable. How did that work out for you last time, anyway?
This tells me that other democracies--including America--had damn well better tighten up security preceding elections; Spanish capitulation has made them windows of opportunity.
Muchas gracias, dhimmigos.
