Real Clear Politics
February 27, 2006
Oncoming
By David Warren

…

Even after the experience of the Great War, and the Depression, people on the eve of the Hitler war could not appreciate what was coming. It is only in retrospect that we understand what happened as the 1930s progressed — when a spineless political class, eager at any price to preserve a peace that was no longer available, performed endless demeaning acts of appeasement to the Nazis; while the Nazis created additional grievances to extract more.

This is precisely what is happening now, as we are confronted by the Islamist fanatics, whose views and demands are already being parroted by fearful “mainstream” Muslim politicians. We will do anything to preserve a peace that ceased to exist on 9/11. Not one of our prominent politicians dares even to name the enemy.

… » Real Clear Politics: Oncoming

H/T: A Certain Slant of Light via The Anchoress

… according to the laws of Muhammad

Lance @ Red State Rant has a post, Islam does not = the religion of peace. It has excerpts from an interview between Jarek N. of Faith Freedom.org and Ali Sina, under the lead, “The following are answers given to Jarek’s questions concerning the Muslim dilemma in Europe. …”

Here’s part of the excerpt:

Recently the newly elected leaders of Hamas, who have been surprisingly honest, have spelled the concept of Islamic peace eloquently. They said that they won’t give up on their quest to destroy Israel but meanwhile, as long as they are weak and realizing that such dream is not yet possible, they are willing to work out a truce, to be broken when they feel strong enough to wipe out Israel from the map and establish the “peace” as it is acceptable by Islam.

Muhammad divided the world in two sectors. One he called Dar us Salam (House of Peace) and the other, Dar al Harb (House of War). All countries, where Islam is not the ruling authority, are Dar al Harb. It is the duty of the Muslims to wage Jihad in Dar al Harb, overthrow the governments and force people into submission. This is the only kind of peace that Islam recognizes.

The concept of Islamic peace is expressed in the verse 2.193 of the Quran.

… »

This is really good stuff from Confirm Them about book reviews at the New Republic, via Patterico’s Pontifications.

Apparently, the books reveal how BtB (before the blogsphere) SCOTUS prospects may have been disingenuous (that means lying in NC) to investigators in order to get nominated. One case involves Sandra Day O’Connor and the investigator was Kenneth W. Starr:

Kenneth W. Starr was a gullible and slipshod investigator. No, not in his all-too-thorough probe of Bill Clinton’s dalliance with a White House intern, but seventeen years earlier, when he was the Reagan administration’s point man in the background vetting of a Supreme Court nominee….

Another case is the story behind the story of how a moonbat like David Souter slipped under the radar of George H.W. Bush.

I wonder what the reaction in Dubai would be if we proposed that the U.S. government take over their ports? — Just wondering.

Mark Noonan @ Blogs for Bush shows that he may not be ready for primetime on the subject of U.S. port security. His approach is to call dissenters of the plan to surrender U.S. seaport sovereignty to UAE potentates as “the braying heard of jackasses.” [If I had written that line I would've left out the "a" and the feeble attempt at humor, but what the hell. I'm only a braying jackass.] That was Mark’s openers. Then, he mis-states some events and presents them as facts:

Let’s think about this. Ever since 9/11 President Bush, et al, has been showing the mailed fist to anyone who supports terrorism while, at the same time, letting everyone know that bygones can be bygones provided there is at least some real movement towards an anti-terrorism position. Thus far, there are two nations in the Middle East who have shown no such movement at all — Iran and Syria. How many trade deals are we working up with them? [Bold added]

Er, Mark. … Does “some real movement towards an anti-terrorism position” include our dear Wahhabi friends in Saudi Arabia? You do recall that the first post-9.11 act of Saudi dictators was to order U.S. military from their Kingdom of God to avoid upsetting bin Laden’s followers in their fiefdom. Since then, Saudi Arabia is but one demesne that has significantly increased its support for educating young men on the finer points of Wahhabism. Another is the UAE. Both continue spending large sums to this day, right in the middle of the war on … Wahhabism! Is that “real movement towards an anti-terrorism position?”

For the record Mark, I voted for Bush twice and since 9.11 I have vigorously supported him and the GWOT. But soon after the 2004-elections, a pronounced sideways shift appeared in his behavior. That political segue is epitomized by public admissions that he wants open borders. That confession establishes that his public pronouncements were not honest during his first term and evidence has emerged that he may not be sincere with the American people about his dealings with the Muslim world. — I’m referring to the increased criticism coming from past administration officials.

But I digress. Whatever Bush’s motive for going into Iraq, the war has diverted public attention from such vulnerabilities as our borders, seaports, nuclear power plants, airlines, railways, trains, waterways, food supplies, cities, bridges, tunnels and other infra-structures. That’s the perception, whether accurate or not, and Bush has shown no interest in correcting it. In fact, his public conduct has been just the opposite. As it goes now, he’s on course to become the worst president since Jimmy Carter and if he surrenders sovereignty over our seaports to ANY foreign power, he’ll trump Jimmy’s surrender of the Panama Canal.

Here are other opinions:

National Review: Port Insecurity?

Jerusalem Post: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott — h/t, Bizblogger

UPDATE: A Certain Slant of Light has more
THE PRESIDENT’S POPULARITY WANES — IS INSULARITY A CULPRIT?

Those trusted allies in the GWOT, the UAE, are busy dressing up their image at home in anticipation of a smooth transition to become the gatekeepers of U.S. waterways and ports. A few days ago they banned provocateur Michelle Malkin’s rabble rousing rag from their exalted network and today they cleared out more riffraff by banning another decadent American agitprop, BoingBoing.

UPDATE:

CROOKS and LIARS: Lou Dobbs told to Shut up!

Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World: ” CNN won’t shut up Lou Dobbs.”

They are refusing to give any more interviews to CNN or allow them to video tape their operations overseas. To CNN’s credit they have refused to comply with their demands.

Bush isn’t satisfied with the misery he’s created within his own Party by giving up on national security. Now he wants to increase the pain by announcing cut-backs to the National Guard. — Whose side is this guy on anyway?

Reuters

US governors concerned about National Guard, ports

WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) – State governors voiced concern on Monday about potential National Guard cuts and demanded more consultation with the Bush administration on issues like port security and the Guard’s future.

During meetings with President George W. Bush and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, governors pushed for answers on budget proposals to cut National Guard funding and troop strength and questioned why they were not included in deliberations on the issue.

“There has been too much we have learned outside the loop. We should be inside the loop,” Republican Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, who is taking the lead in lobbying the administration on the Guard issue, told reporters.

… » Reuters

Yeah. My sentiments exactly.

I find it interesting at my web site where one URL serves multiple purposes. It serves genealogy pages, U.S. History reference pages, and this blog. — Because they share a common URL, page views for all portals are added together in my utilization summary. (I look at sub-totals to see which is which.)

This morning I noticed that these numbers are about the same as they usually are:

Top five of “10774 Total Search Strings”

290 swastika
207 tsunami
186 states in alphabetical order
122 black hole
91 illegal immigration

Hm. … Verrry interesting….

Er, keep in mind. A lot of students search for history pages.

On the matter of homeland security… and demagoguery.

Now the illiterate have joined the fray.

According to Hobbesian Greg, this post proves I am xenophobic and racist. In his zeal to help Bush recover from another national security boondoggle, Greg says I said something I didn’t say. He doesn’t just make a slip of the keyboard. He totally mis-characterizes my whole post. In fact, his mis-statements are so bad that I have to conclude that he can’t read. — (Could it be that he’s mocking me because I can’t write?)

Message to Greg: If my objection to putting despotic potentates in charge of American seaports is xenophobic and racist, include me in. — You can mis-characterize the deal as an arrangement with a UAE company all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

AND, oh by the way Greg: If objecting to the EXISTENCE of despots, whether they are sultans, African chieftains, British colony proprietors or American plantation owners, is xenophobic and racist, include me in.

And while we’re at it, please don’t mention the $100 million the despotic emirs sent to help Katrina victims without giving me an accounting of how much extra they made from the price increases of crude, raising it from $35 per barrel to $65 per barrel, DURING THE HURRICANE CRISIS — OK?

And, oh by the way: Would all who believe that the dictators of the UAE have helped in the GWOT because they want to help us, please get the dunce cap. — You’ve earned it.

UPDATE I: Republicans are headed for a fall on this issue.

From Sen. Hillary Clinton via California Conservative

The New York Democrat says she’s still opposed to the deal and plans to introduce legislation that would block Dubai Ports World or any other company owned by a foreign government from operating US ports.

Include me solidly in the Senator’s corner, on agreeing to the words as expressed. — (That means before Greg can mis-characterize them. — You do get the part that reads, “or any other company owned by a foreign government,” don’t you Greg?)

UPDATE II: via Michelle Malkin — Robert A. George @ Ragged Thots:
Chris [Matthews], … get a frickin’ clue.

UPDATE III: Bernard @ A Certain Slant of Light says its a bad deal all around:
PORTS DEAL: STRATEGIC SECURITY INTERESTS TRUMPED BY ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION — And, update of an update,
ACSOL: Coast Guard warned of ‘intelligence gaps’ in deal

Jesse Donald “Don” Knotts (July 21, 1924 – February 24, 2006) was best known for his portrayal of “Barney Fife” on the 1960s television sitcom The Andy Griffith Show.

Below Andy Griffith, left, and Don Knotts pose in a 1986 photo. Knotts, the skinny, lovable nerd who kept generations of television audiences laughing as bumbling Deputy Fife died Friday night of pulmonary and respiratory complications at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Beverly Hills. He was 81. . . . . AP

Or, “The Difference Between Bush And Conservatives”

ED @ Captain’s Quarters has a great post analyzing Dubya:

Bush 43 is not a conservative in foreign policy, at least since 9/11 taught him that genocidal tyrannies in Southwest Asia could produce immediate and existential threats to the American homeland. He has been much closer to Woodrow Wilson than his father or even Ronald Reagan in his reaction to the world.

Ed also makes some astute observations about an opinion piece written by William F. Buckley.

Buckley puts pen to paper to declare the American intervention in Iraq a failure, …

…

And here we have the essential Buckley, revealed. The traditional conservative position reached its most potent expression in the policies of Brent Scowcroft, the last bastion of realpolitik in government. …

The time stamps at the bottom of Ed’s post indicate that it didn’t take long for him to draw fire from Glenn Greenwald:

UPDATE: Mark Coffey notes that Glenn Greenwald attacks me for attacking Bill Buckley. Huh? I called him a conservative. That’s not an attack, it’s an accurate description. I’m not “preparing a noose” for Buckley, nor am I patting him on the noggin and pushing him over a cliff. I’m just disagreeing with him, that’s all. Nor does Greenwald actually bother to deal with my argument, but instead gets himself in a tizzy because I dared to post my opinion on Buckley’s assessment.

Apparently Greenwald cannot conceive of free thinking among conservatives. First he assumes we all act in lockstep, then he screeches when we disagree. That’s what passes for analysis on the Left, I suppose — namecalling and hyperbole.

Yeah Ed. … There’s a lot of that going around right now and, BTW, thanks un-revising a little history.