Monday, January 29, 2007

Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq


BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush Administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew
Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

Yeah, right. They just want to "help" the Iraqis reconstruct. If you're not living in fairyland, I think that it's clear that Iran's interest in Iraq clearly lies in the failure of Iraqi democracy and by extension the failure of the Bush Doctrine.

It's funny how their ends seem to coincide with those of many Democrats.

Ah yes, I am sure there is some degree of satisfaction being felt in some leftist circles - "Bush gets a well-deserved poke in the eye!" Seeing the U.S. as the house divided that those on the left have so so assiduously tried to portray, Iran not only rejects our call to stop meddling in the affairs of Iraq, but they announce plans to step up the process. They have effectively slapped President Bush, and by extension, the U.S., in the face and dared us to do anything about it. Far from being reticent about being overly hostile to the world's remaining superpower, (that, it so happens, occupies the country right next door) they ratchet up the hostility.

So thanks, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and all of the rest of the old and new drinkers of the leftist koolade - including the media. Special thanks should go to former President Jimmy Carter and "Would-Be President" (thank God) John Kerry for some of the most shameful behavior and remarks during the "debate" over Iraq. You have sought to torpedo every chance of victory at every turn and in those cases when victory was achieved despite your efforts, you spun it as failure. In doing so, you have disgraced your country and seriously jeapordized its very future.

Did you not realize that the virual promise of capitulation you made prior to the elections would embolden our enemy and almost ensure failure? I think you realized exactly that. I think that your hatred of George W. Bush outweighs all other matters and shoves the concept of "the common good" from your field of vision. If you are not traitors, then you are so obsessed with regaining your power and so intoxicated with Bush-hatred that your actions and words are indistinguishable from treason.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

PEACE: WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
Absolutely Nothing!

I hear a lot of the word "peace" lately, and I hear it in the context that if we would just choose peace that we would have it, if we would just "end the war", we would usher in a time of peace. And the so-called "intellectuals" who embrace this warmed-over 60s pap have the temerity to call people like me "simplistic".

For us, it's not a choice between war and peace, it's a choice between survival and oblivion. Peace means many different things to many different people and that difference determines whose civilization lives, and whose dies. If you don't believe that the situation is at least that dire, then I'm afraid that you have not been paying attention.

To the Islamists, peace means the destruction of the United States as well as Israel and the imposition of global Islamic law. The means to that end is war and that is a choice that they have made. Don't take my word for it, take theirs. Exactly how does one make peace with people whose goal in life is the destruction of your way of life? Are we prepared to give up all we hold dear for peace, or should we think that the central theme around which they have built their life is somehow, negotiable?

Perhaps appeasement is your chosen avenue toward peace. If so, you may not realize that this was the road most traveled up to the morning of 9/11/01 at which time a massive detour sign was erected. It was written in Arabic and began "Allah Akbar". These signs have been erected all over the world since the 1970s and are still being erected on a daily basis. They are written in blood so that their meaning is unmistakable, yet you seem unwilling or incapable of heeding them.

The fact is that peace does not spring from the loins of pacifism and it is not achieved through appeasement. The world is a dangerous place where the unscrupulous prey upon the scrupulous and the unprincipled feast upon the principled and the only way to maintain honor as well as safety is through strength. The one and only reason that this country has enjoyed relative peace and safety within our shores is the terrible price that awaited anyone who dared disturb that peace or threaten our safety. Now that our peace and safety has been disturbed, the price must be paid and those who propose that we discount that price threaten not only our short-term safety but that of generations to come.

Choosing peace when your opponent has clearly and vociferously chosen war is a strategy for fools and unworthy of a great nation. Choose peace if you will, but don't be surprised if you get something far more terrible than war in the bargain.

Monday, January 08, 2007

RHETORICAL FLATULENCE

An apparent gas leak in Lower Manhattan has caused justifiable concern. As teams of people who do such things spring into action in an effort to correct the situation, Mayor Bloomberg hastens to reassure the public:

Bloomberg also said there was no indication the air was unsafe to breathe. "It may just be an unpleasant smell."

"We are waiting for the gas to pass," the mayor said.


Perhaps "dissipate" would have been a better choice of words, no?