Cartoon

Good one.

Kristol Charges Ahead

A call to arms that speaks the unpalatable truth:

"As Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council observed last week, 'We are in the midst of a jihadist offensive. The bombing of [Iraq's] Askariya Shiite Shrine is another indication of the world-wide jihadist offensive against the West. From the cartoon jihad to the Hamas victory to the Iranian effort to obtain nuclear weapons to the attempt by al Qaeda to foment an Iraqi civil war--our enemy is taking the initiative. And the West is on its heels.' "

Although I must say that why a competent, aggressive counterattack entails approving the ports deal is beyond me.

Science And Atheism Wars

Derbyshire comments wisely upon Wieseltier's commentary upon Dennett last week in The Times-Democrat:

"The natural tendency of human beings is to think religiously. Science and math are deeply unnatural activities, favored by only a scant few, who could easily be rounded up and dispatched by a mob of more normal human beings. Scientistic triumphalism of the Dennett variety is therefore foolish. An attitude of respectful humility by the more-scientifically inclined towards the more-religiously inclined is not only intellectually proper (at any rate to those of us non-Dennettians who think that religious belief is intellectually respectable, and that the reality of human nature should be faced honestly), it is prudent.

"I feel somewhat the same way about conservatism, another unnatural and unpopular way of thinking....


BTW, I have not read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" yet myself, but I am familiar with Dennett's prior work which I think is great,* and, isolated as it is in books and the occassional op-ed, hardly "provocative" (in any dangerous way) in the wider culture.


*other than the "brights" business, which is idiotic.

Get It Yet?

Steyn wonders when the West will wake up:

"What, in the end, are all these supposedly unconnected matters from Danish cartoons to the murder of a Dutch filmmaker to gender-segregated swimming sessions in French municipal pools about? Answer: sovereignty. Islam claims universal jurisdiction and always has. The only difference is that they're now acting upon it. The signature act of the new age was the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran: Even hostile states generally respect the convention that diplomatic missions are the sovereign territory of their respective countries. Tehran then advanced to claiming jurisdiction over the citizens of sovereign states and killing them -- as it did to Salman Rushdie's translators and publishers. Now in the cartoon jihad and other episodes, the restraints of Islamic law are being extended piecemeal to the advanced world, by intimidation and violence but also by the usual cooing promotion of a spurious multicultural 'respect' by Bill Clinton, the United Church of Canada, European foreign ministers, etc.

"The I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmonee crowd have always spoken favorably of one-worldism. From the op-ed pages of Jutland newspapers to les banlieues of Paris, the Pan-Islamists are getting on with it."

True Liberalism

Nice examination of the liberalism of the Bush foreign policy - by Captain Ed in response to Bill Buckley:

"Now, almost a century later, Bush has launched a second Wilsonian effort to use democracy as a transformative agent to reduce or eliminate the radicalism borne of oppression and the terrorism borne of radicalism in the region. This is true liberalism, not the leftist/socialist tripe that hijacked its name (emphasis mine, ek) -- the effort to spread liberty and individual freedom as a forward strategy against the evils that oppression breeds. Buckley may be proven correct in the long run, but given that the traditional conservative impulse in this region led us to the century of war and conflict that culminated in the 9/11 attacks, we can afford to spend more time and effort to see if Wilsonian impulses fare any better."

Lurking Menace In France

Hope you didn't miss this story about anti-Semitic murder in France - it's been covered extensively in the conservative blogosphere. The so-called "statement" by the French government that supposedly now, postfact, acknowledges the anti-Semitism of the crime seems pathetically non-explicit, no?

But don't worry - the Muslim "youths" of France's ghettos are only problematic by virtue of their poverty and alientation due to anti-Muslim racism. Nothing to see here. Move along.

And don't you dare suggest there is a problem with Islam!

Trying Mens' Souls

VDH again, on the war that must be, and cannot be lost (thanks to lgf):

"Again, the question now is an existential one: Can the United States — or anyone — in the middle of a war against Islamic fascism, rebuild the most important country in the heart of the Middle East, after 30 years of utter oppression, three wars, and an Orwellian, totalitarian dictator's warping of the minds of the populace? And can anyone navigate between a Zarqawi, a Sadr, and the Sunni rejectionists, much less the legions of Iranian agents, Saudi millionaires, and Syrian provocateurs who each day live to destroy what’s going on in Iraq?

"The fate of a much wider war hinges on the answers to these questions, since it would be hard to imagine that bin Laden could continue to be much of a force with a secure and democratic Iraq, anchoring ongoing liberalization in the Gulf, Lebanon, and Egypt, and threatening by example Iran and Syria. By the same token, it would be hard to see how we could stop jihadism from spreading when an army that is doing everything possible still could not stop Islamic fascism from taking over the ancestral home of the ancient caliphate."


But between the evil doings of al Qaeda and Sadr, civil war now brews in Iraq. There must be a massive show of force in conjunction with this curfew to clamp down on the violence - whatever it takes.

Hanson

VDH draws a picture of our times:

"But deja vu pertains not just to us, but our enemies as well. Like the Nazi romance of an exalted ancient Volk, the Islamists hearken back to a mythical purity, free of decadence brought on by Western liberalism. Similarly, they feed off victimization — not just recent defeats, but centuries-old bitterness at the rise of the West. Their version of the stab-in-the-back Versailles Treaty is always the creation of Israel.

"Just as Hitler concocted incidents such as the burning of the Reichstag to create outrage, Islamist leaders incite frenzy in their followers over a supposed flushed Koran at Guantanamo and several inflammatory cartoons, some of them never published by Danish newspapers at all.

"Anti-Semitism, of course, is the mother's milk of fascism. It is always, they say, a small group of Jews — whether shadowy cabinet advisers and international bankers of the 1930s or the manipulative neoconservatives and Israeli leadership of the present — who alone stir up the trouble.

"The point of the comparison is not to suggest that history simply repeats itself, but to learn why intelligent people delude themselves into embracing naive policies. After the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, the furious reply of the radical Islamist world was to censor Western newspapers, along with Iran's accelerated efforts to get the bomb.

"In response, either the West will continue to stand up now to these reoccurring post-Sept. 11 threats, or it will see the bullies' demands only increase as its own resistance weakens. Like the appeasement of the 1930s, opting for the easier choice will only guarantee a more costly one later on."

Whither Freedom Of The Press?

Two admirable men get together to speak up for freedom.

"While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest."

What Bennett and Dershowitz politely avoid saying is that this cowardly surrender of the MSM is a sin of the left, not of a politically neutral societal "institution"; the MSM is overwhelmingly "liberal," and the appeasing impulses, drenched in multi-culti, Orwellian references to "tolerance" and avoiding "offense" with which they rationalize their craven failures of reporting, are purely leftist in origin.

So to the American Left I say:

J'Accuse.

Bad Deal

Robert Spencer explains the real problem with the port deal; that of infiltration.

"Frist, Hastert, and Boehner are right. Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn't he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? On cue, Hillary Clinton has already spoken about introducing legislation to stop the deal. The President risks allowing the Democrats an opportunity to show that they are tougher on terrorism than he is - which, since it isn't true, if a Democrat is actually elected in 2008, could lead to the destruction of the entire anti-terror resistance, as imperfect as it has been."

Although opportunistic Dems are taking advantage of this issue for purely political reasons, and much of the resistance is emotional and untutored as to details and to opposing arguments, the basic, real objection stands, and the Administration's inability to acknowledge it is worrisome. As to concerns that we may endanger our military operations out of the UAE that will be vital in any action against Iran, I say to Bush: finesse it. Seize it if you have to. But don't sacrifice one iota of port security just to demonstrate that we "play fair." We have nothing to prove to the UAE or to the Arab world - but they have plenty to prove to us.

Carter Again Opens Mouth

Jimmy "I may be a grinning moron, but I won the Nobel Peace Prize" Carter wrote yet another of his Israel-hating, terrorist-loving op-eds over the weekend, meriting some blogosphere attention, including this:

"This sudden aversion to withholding money from foreign governments defying U.S. policy is new to Carter. In his offensively titled 1996 New York Times op-ed, 'America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace' – as though peace were being held up by Jewish suicide bombers! – he suggested America use “persuasion” against Israel. One 'persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.'

"He continued, 'I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by international law.' (Greedy Jews.)

"Jimmy Carter had no problem cutting off funding to America’s historic ally and the Middle East’s only democracy ten years ago, but today he demands American taxpayers and Israeli government officials pony up for jihadists. This reflects Carter’s pro-Islamic history. As head of the heavily Saudi-financed Carter Center, the former president has ghostwritten speeches for Yasser Arafat. He even called a secret summit with Hamas leaders in Cairo in the mid-90s to ask if they would strengthen Arafat’s PA government. (Hamas cancelled on him at the last minute.)"

Steyn

Hilarious and accurate.

"It's easy to be tough about nothing. The press corps that noisily champions 'the public's right to know' about a minor hunting accident simultaneously assures the public that they've no need to see these Danish cartoons that have caused riots, arson and death around the world. On CNN, out of 'sensitivity' to Islam, they show the cartoons but with the Prophet's face pixilated so that he looks as if Cheney's ventilated him with birdshot and it turned puffy and gangrenous. C'mon, guys, these are interesting times. Anyone can unload the umpteenth round of blanks into the bulletproof Chimpy Hallibushitler, but why not take a shot at something that matters?"

Read the whole thing.

Moron Of The Week Award

Has to go to Gian Franco Kasper, President of the International Ski Federation for this explanation of the exclusion of women from ski jumping in the Olympics:

" 'It's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view,' the federation's president Gian Franco Kasper said on National Public Radio."

I'm not an absolutist when it comes to the participation of women in various sports - or other activites for that matter. Infantry combat, for example, I do think is something to avoid, as is playing American football with the men. But this ski jumping ban is, safe to say, ridiculous.

All About MSM Insanity

Krauthammer is mildly critical of Cheney, but gets the crux of it right:

"Secrecy? This was hardly an affair of state. And it was hardly going to be kept secret. Arrogance? The media laying these charges are the same media that just last week unilaterally decided that the public's right to know did not extend to seeing cartoons that had aroused half the world, burned a small part of it and deeply affected the American national interest. Having arrogated to themselves the judgment of what a free people should be allowed to see regarding an issue that is literally burning, they then go ballistic over a few hours' delay in revealing an accident with only the most trivial connection to the nation's interest or purpose."

The Painful Stupidity Of The American Press

John Podhoretz remains in agreement with those who are painting the Cheney shooting mishap, and the disclosure delay of 22 hours, as a major scandal. As a conservative basically friendly to the Administration, Podhoretz carries more weight in his protest than others, but I still don't get it.

"Yesterday, Cheney's office issued an even more peculiar statement. Upon hearing the news that Whittington had suffered a heart attack, probably from shotgun pellet that had lodged in his heart, 'the vice president called Mr. Whittington and spoke to him. The vice president wished Mr. Whittington well and asked if there was anything he needed. The vice president said that he stood ready to assist. Mr. Whittington's spirits were good, but obviously his situation deserves the careful monitoring that his doctors are providing. The vice president said that his thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Whittington and his family.' "

So why exactly isn't that good enough? We know what happened - the guy came up behind the hunting party, Cheney didn't know he was there and turned to shoot at a bird and, with the sun in his eyes, accidently shot him. This is apparently a violation of a basic safety protocol, and safetly protocols are especially important when dealing with firearms, but it is not a malevolent act. So the press found out about the event a whole 22 hours after it happened? So friggin' what? The cold fact is that it would only have been of greater time urgency for the public to know if Cheney himself had been injured.

The whole brouhaha is ridiculous. Meanwhile the Persians proceed to arm themselves with weapons of annihilation that, I assure you, they intend to use. Does the Bush-hating press care? No - because they are idiots.

The Leak-A-Palooza Continues

If this article isn't a leak-fest designed to undermine our foreign policy, I don't know what is (yes! The Times-Democrat again). The bias of the author is naked for all to see in the following sentence, baldly stated as fact:

"Opinion polls show that Hamas's promise to better the lives of the Palestinian people was the main reason it won."

Contemptible bullshit. And the distortion of that statement is a clue that the author (Steven Erlanger) intends his piece to undermine our efforts to defeat Hamas, which, after all, was elected merely to "better the lives of the Palestinian people."

The first lefty commentator understands better than the idiot blogger here what is going on. Except it's closer to treason than to an "oustanding piece of reporting."

And Now For Something Completely Different

I took an online quiz (courtesy Instapundit) that may appeal to some of you - this is the result:

You scored as Moya (Farscape). You are surrounded by muppets. But that is okay because they are your friends and have shown many times that they can be trusted. Now if only you could stop being bothered about wormholes. Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 75% Moya (Farscape) 75% SG-1 (Stargate) 69% Enterprise D (Star Trek) 56% Serenity (Firefly) 50% Babylon 5 (Babylon 5) 50% Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica) 44% Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda) 38% Bebop (Cowboy Bebop) 38% Millennium Falcon (Star Wars) 38% Deep Space Nine (Star Trek) 38% FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files) 19% Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com

I've never even watched Farscape. Though I kinda fancy the idea of kicking Kung Fu ass in The Matrix.

Of Coulter, Moderate Muslims, And Such

Glenn Reynolds deals with leftist hypocrites. I do believe the way conservatives have addressed Coulter's bigoted remark is very illustrative of the differences between right and left in this country.*

I also still think Reynolds is too suppliant of moderate Muslims, whom I pray are finally emerging from the woodwork, as it becomes apparent that Westerners are fingering Islam per se as a problem.

I'll be glad to withdraw my finger when I am convinced there is a "moderate" movement of significance with whom to ally. Until then I think such fingers are more likely to promote (true) allies than to suppress them.


*in conservatives' favor, in case you don't get my drift.

Cheney's Hunting Accident

Alright, so there was a delay in informing the press about a hunting accident.

So what?

Most telling excerpt from this post (borrowed from Mark Levin):

" 'The local sheriff's office has investigated and concluded it was an accident — which, of course, it was. And don't give me "the public's right to know." Not from this media — which still refuses to publish those Danish cartoons. I'll leave it to others to split hairs about who knew what and when, as I know they will, but I just don't care.' "

Cartoons

The Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz presents a moderate Islamic view opposing the cartoon Jihad. To my reading, he only reinforces the notion that if there is a substantial number of "moderates" out there, it is an Islamic subset that for the most part is cowed into silence.

"Although more sinister, the aim of intimidating Westerners into silence about any aspect of Islam by this outbreak of fanaticism and brutality is actually secondary. The third and worst piece of the puzzle is an obvious effort to maintain control over the most backward and marginal elements of the Islamic community, especially those living in the West, so that the benighted outlook of Saudi-financed Wahhabism will go unchallenged among those who represent the greatest threat to Islamic extremism: moderate Muslims.

"The Wahhabis have, in great part, attained their goals in this scandalous affair. Western politicians and media have cowered, and Saudi-funded pressure groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations may now congratulate themselves on administering a lesson in bogus sensitivity to non-Muslim media and governments. But those who defend the censorship on the basis of a false knowledge of Islam should be asked: Is the faith of more than a billion people really so weak that it is threatened by a few cartoons?"

Meanwhile, in the same edition of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol sizes up the conflict succinctly:

"This is a moment of truth in the global struggle against Islamic extremism. Will Hamas succeed in creating a terror state on the West Bank? Will a terror-sponsoring Iranian regime succeed in its quest for nuclear weapons? Will Danish imams succeed in intimidating Europe--or the free world as a whole?

"With respect to Hamas, Iran, and the cartoons, the response of Western leaders hasn't been particularly encouraging--with the notable exception of Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark. Robert Frost said of liberals that they're incapable of taking their own side in a fight. We will see how deeply a degenerate form of liberalism has penetrated our souls. Will we anguish? Or will we fight?"

Over The Line Yet?

Those liberals who still like Al Gore should be aware that his current activities include more that insanely demagogic anti-Bush tirades to MoveOn.org crowds stateside.

Addendum: Michelle Malkin has a round-up of conservative blogosphere reactions.

Dark Ages Update

Cox & Forkum will be entering the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest. Expect many similar cartoons to be the Western answer to the Persians' moronic "challenge."

Hewitt Lost In The Woods

Hewitt continues to beat his anti-cartoon drum. After showing an article on anti-NATO violence in Afghanistan, he states:

"The cartoons have become exactly the sort of propaganda bonanza that jihadists have hoped for.

"Did their publication help or hinder the GWOT?"


Answer: too soon to tell, Hugh. The fact that they've got Muslims around the world riled up doesn't clinch your case. First of all, what is your control condition? A world in which a) Muslims looking for a pretext to aggressively force the submission of Europe to Shari never find such an event? Or one in which we b) cower in the face of every inevitable "provocation"? Or perhaps one in which we c) just silently accept a proto-Shari condition of self-censorship? If it's a) you're dreaming. If it's b) then nothing will lose the GWOT faster. If it's c) then we've already lost.

As for d), the way it is right now that has you so spooked, give it some time. If the current blow-up brings more western liberals on board against the global Islamist reach for dominance, it may strengthen the GWOT effort, which as you know quite well, will be won or lost right here at home, contingent upon the endurance of our will and our ability to forestall division.

Hewitt's Got It Wrong

Hugh Hewitt thinks he's got the cartoon defenders nailed with this post:

"The debate begins with these questions: Are we at war with Islam? Do you want a war with Islam?

My answers and the answers of any sensible person ought to be 'no,' and 'no.' I'd like to see blogggers who are opining on the caroons answer these questions up front."

He's wrong because his logic is shallow. Are we "at war" with Islam? Perhaps not, but there are levels and aspects of conflict short of "war" as you define it here, Hugh. And that conflict, in which, yes, we are very much engaged with Islam (and in which we must remain engaged to survive as free peoples) is in fact an important component of the very war we are fighting around the world against the Jihadists that is your be all and end all. And that component is the "war" of ideas. And if we compromise those ideas (i.e. principles) then we will exhibit terminal weakness that in turn will cripple the war effort that means so much to you (and to me).

As for the second question, which is do I "want" a war with Islam, my answer is obviously not. But then again, I don't really "want" a war with terrorists who want to nuke America. Yet here we are. Will all the nations of the world with majority Islamic populations begin military operations against the free world over these cartoons, and moreover do so specifically because many Westerners defend said comics? Or has Hewitt defined down the term "war" for his second question, to mean some level of conflict short of the "war" that he wants us to think of in order to be cowed by our reflexive "no" and "no" answers?

Do I "want" a conflict short of war with Islam over these cartoons? You bet! How is the revolutionary change (i.e. liberation) needed in the Muslim world (in order to reduce the threat of Jihadism and win the war against it) going to occur without a conflict of some kind over their repressive and violent ideas?

Or does Hewitt imagine that our violent enemy's ideas have nothing to do with Islam, no not really, it's all a fake that has nothing to do with "real" Islam?

Ginned-Up Riots Continued

This'll crack you up. NeanderNews has posted the discovery of the origins of one of the fake Mohammed cartoons.

Mad About Mohammed

A contest!? As if the Arab world* has not tolerated the vilest assortment of anti-Semitic provocation for years, from illustrations to editorials to TV shows to cinema and on and on.

"Let’s see if they mean what they say..." Indeed. We can compare the perceptiveness versus obtuseness of the cartoons' messages, the vileness and hatefulness versus value and need of the provocation, and, yes, the civility versus violence of the reaction.

It will most certainly be a lesson for the world.

Are they really this stupid?


* I lump the Persians with the Arabs in this Jew-hating context.

Who's Insulted?

Two stalwart defenders of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, each from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, address the Cartoon Jihad -

Hugh Hewitt, defender of Faiths, unfortunately doesn't get it:

"Some are arguing that the cartoon with Mohammed wearing a bomb isn't offensive, a very different argument from the 'cartoons are offensive, but the West defends the right to be offensive.'. Would a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT after an abortion clinic bombing be offensive? Of course it would be, though of course Christians would not riot or burn embassies in response. At least begin with the obvious: Some of the cartoons were offensive."

What's wrong with this argument? Simply that "a cartoon of Christ's crown of thorns transformed into sticks of TNT" after an abortion clinic is bombed by gospel-quoting terrorists would be perfectly reasonable.* The only proper Christian response to such a cartoon (and one would hope to the bombing itself) would be to argue against violence in the name of Jesus, and perhaps maintain that the cartoonist is incorrect to imply the existence of a violent Christian message. It would be ludicrous for anyone to pretend to offense at the cartoonist in this situation. And that's after an isolated incident - unlike the thousands of Jihadist attacks around the world, organized and unified by fealty to the Koran and Hadiths.

Hitchens, with a bit too much lashing out at Western religionists for my taste in the current context (this has nothing to do with the Pope, Hitch), nevertheless is closer to target:

"...Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophetÃ?‚?who was only another male mammalÃ?‚?is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death."


*Well OK, not "perfectly reasonable," but how about "to be expected" or "par for the course"? But I stick to my claim that it would be ludicrous to claim to be offended by such a cartoon (assuming it is otherwise as bland as Danish cartoons in question). And my point (which is to delegitimize the offense claimed by Muslims in the current controversy) is only reinforced by the fact that the Christian Bible nowhere explicitly advocates violence in the way the Koran does, over and over.

The Cartoon Plot

This Malkin post has small images of the fake* Mohammed cartoons used by the Danish Muslim Imam to incite global rioting. Successfully.

"The term "fake" is appropriate whether or not he received them in "threatening letters" (letters yet to be produced) as he claims now or not. They were not published in any newspaper, as even the Imam apparently admits.

About The Size Of It

Cartoon.

Keystone Kops In Yemen

This is just too ridiculous.

"Interpol officials have now verified that a number of convicted al-Qaeda operatives escaped from a Yemeni prison by digging a tunnel -- and included among them was the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole:...

"...They dug a tunnel? Was this a prison or a tent camp?

"Let's make a deal with the various governments in the region. We'll take custody of AQ terrorists captured from now on, and they can use these high-security prisons for some other purpose .... perhaps training their guards about how to detect big holes being dug out from underneath them."

Steyn

Mark Steyn on the rush to grovel in the face of Islamic* intimidation:

"Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a 'diverse' 'tolerant' society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.

"One day the British foreign secretary will wake up and discover that, in practice, there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and Sharia. As a famously sensitive Dane once put it, 'To be or not to be, that is the question.' "


*Because there is no evidence of general Islamic objection to these global violent demonstrations (though there are rare individuals who hold forth bravely), it is fair to label these "protests" "Islamic," as opposed to the more restrictive "Islamist." Anyone who does not want this crap to become the face of Islam had better take up his objections with Muslims, not with me.

Where's Freedom Of Speech Now?

And in this country (unlike in Europe), the MSM continues to cower and refuse to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. I guess this moment does not meet The Times-Democrat's requirements for championing the principle of freedom of the press - because it does not present an opportunity to cripple our national security.

Cowardice.

Hamas-istan

No need to comment on the ridiculous front page story on Hamas in The Times-Democrat today; Horowitz already has.

Addendum: commentary on the "Palestinian" elections by CK today.

"In August 2001, Hamas sent a suicide bomber into a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem. He killed 15 innocent Israelis, mutilating many dozens more. A month later, Hamas student activists at al-Najah University in Nablus celebrated the attack with an exhibit, a mockup of the smashed Sbarro shop strewn with blood and fake body parts -- a severed leg, still dressed in jeans; a human hand dangling from the ceiling. The inscription (with a reference to the Qassam military wing of Hamas) read: 'Qassami Pizza is more delicious.'

"The correct term for such a mentality is not militancy, not extremism, but moral depravity. The world must advise the Palestinian people that if their national will is to embrace Hamas -- its methods and its madness -- then their national will is simply too murderous and, yes, too depraved for the world to countenance, let alone subsidize.

"The essential first lesson of any newborn democracy is that national choices have national consequences. A Hamas-led Palestine, cut off entirely, will be forced to entertain second thoughts."

State Department: In Need Of Spine

Incredibly, the State Department has come out...in condemnation of the Danish Mohammed cartoons!

Despicable.

I sent this email:

Dear Sirs: I am a full-throated supporter of our President and our policy in the War on Terror and in Iraq. However, I am greatly offended that the State Department has seen fit, in the context of the current brouhaha over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, to declare condemnation of the publishers of the cartoons, rather than of the lunatic Muslim mobs baying for their blood. For shame. Condi, where are you?

Clock Ticking

Timmerman thinks highly of our recent diplomatic efforts against Iran.

Well, it's not a sustained bombing campaign, but I guess we've got to start somewhere.*

"Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. On Tuesday morning, the State Department announced that she had won agreement from the foreign ministers of Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany to send Iran’s case from the IAEA to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Her success was no foregone conclusion, and required serious arm twisting at a marathon dinner party hosted by British foreign secretary Jack Straw at his London home Monday night. Going into that evening, the odds were about even that she would succeed. She deserves our praise.

"The US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Working an organization where the deck is stacked against America is a thankless task, but Bolton has known the right cards to play. Bringing Iran’s case to the UN will 'help dramatize the extent of world opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and demonstrate to them that the course they are pursuing is not acceptable,' he said last week. That was Bolton’s Mr. Nice-Guy approach.

"But behind closed doors, Bolton has made it clear that the Bush administration will be watching and judging the performance of the UN Security Council very closely. If the Council cannot rally to the cause of punishing a regime that has openly called for the destruction of two UN members states (Israel and the US), then the UN may not be worth preserving. The notion that the United States could pursue 'other venues' besides the UN for international crisis management and cooperation– such as a Council of Democracies – is no longer an idle threat.The US ambassador to the IAEA,

"Gregory Schulte. I met with Schulte at his office in Vienna just before Thanksgiving. It was just a courtesy call, not an interview. But it became immediately clear that Schulte had dedicated his every waking moment to convince members of the IAEA board of governors of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, and is personally responsible for winning support from unlikely corners. Schulte has stepped up public diplomacy efforts, and has helped raise the profile of Iran’s nuclear cheat and retreat with the European media. He proved to be the right man at the right time when a post considered by State Department careerists as a cushy career-ending backwater was suddenly thrust onto the diplomatic front lines of a major international crisis."

*absolutely no sarcasm intended.

Mere Cartoons

Spencer on the Danish cartoon brouhaha.

"No one has been killed for these cartoons. But otherwise the same words apply today to the cartoon controversy. It is mad. It should be denounced as mad. The fact that Bill Clinton is the only American politician who has taken notice of this ongoing controversy, and that on the wrong side, is a travesty.

"The free world should be standing resolutely with Denmark, ready to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will surely be lost. On Wednesday publications all over Europe — in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Holland — published the cartoons to demonstrate their support for this principle. But in a grim reminder of the dhimmitude and multiculturalist fog that still grips us, the editor of France Soir was fired for doing so. The defense of free speech and free thought will not be easy, and is not the matter of just a day."

Impressions

Cartoon.

Clinton's Morality

An international controversy pops up, related to the WoT. It's basically a Salman Rushdie moment, a clear case of good versus evil. Bill Clinton opens his mouth, and...

He's on the transparently wrong side.