He sure is on to something

It's a point that Betsy misses on her blog today.

Is Joe Lieberman on to something?

Robert Cox ponders Joe Lieberman's plans to run as an independent and thinks that Lieberman may be on to something as he touts his independence.

In his Tuesday night speech, Lieberman, both conceding defeat and launching a new campaign for the U.S. Senate, decried the “old politics of partisan polarization” and said, “I went into public service to find solutions, not to point fingers. To unite, not to divide.”

Lieberman went on to describe a political environment within his own party in that “Every disagreement is considered disloyal. And every opponent it is not just an opponent but is seen as evil.” He vowed to continue fighting for stronger national security and work with Democrats and Republicans to “build a better life for the people of Connecticut ... regardless of what the political consequences may be.” In staring into the abyss of an election loss, Lieberman may be on to something.

That something Betsy misses is something you won't ever hear from the MSM or DNC. The partisan politics, the divisiveness & the politics of personal destruction originate from & are the main Talking Points of the liberal left.

This is a party that openly demonized Lieberman for daring to break with the fringe element that is gaining more & more power within the DNC.

It's the same party that seeks to impeach Bush for transgressions that are based on their own slanders, smears & sedition concocted by DNC leadership & their media arm, the liberal MSM ....

Still more here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here & here.

Uh huh. It's that bad.

This is "Must See" Video

"Vent" with Michelle Malkin is regularly must see video. Her daily video newscast "Vent" today has a fantastic speech by Lt Col Randolph C. White that must be heard & shared with your peers.


Lt Col Randolph C. White: A great American

Give 'em Heck George (the transcript)

President Discusses Foreign Policy During Visit to State Department

(ed. - my emphasis)

The State Department
Washington, D.C.

3:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I met with members of my national security team, both here at the State Department and at the Pentagon. I want to, first of all, thank the leadership of Secretary Condi Rice and Secretary Don Rumsfeld.

During those discussions we talked about the need to transform our military to meet the threats of the 21st century. We discussed the global war on terror. We discussed the situation on the ground in three fronts of the global war on terror -- in Lebanon, and Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is an important step forward that will help bring an end to the violence. The resolution calls for a robust international force to deploy to the southern part of the country to help Lebanon's legitimate armed forces restore the sovereignty of its democratic government over all Lebanese territory. As well, the resolution is intended to stop Hezbollah from acting as a state within the state.

We're now working with our international partners to turn the words of this resolution into action. We must help people in both Lebanon and Israel return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives without fear of renewed violence and terror.

America recognizes that civilians in Lebanon and Israel have suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah. It was an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israel that started this conflict. Hezbollah terrorists targeted Israeli civilians with daily rocket attacks. Hezbollah terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response.

Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.

Syria is another state sponsor of Hezbollah. Syria allows Iranian weapons to pass through its territory into Lebanon. Syria permits Hezbollah's leaders to operate out of Damascus and gives political support to Hezbollah's cause. Syria supports Hezbollah because it wants to undermine Lebanon's democratic government and regain its position of dominance in the country. That would be a great tragedy for the Lebanese people and for the cause of peace in the Middle East.

Hezbollah and its foreign sponsors also seek to undermine the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Hezbollah terrorists kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, Hamas kidnapped another Israeli soldier for a reason. Hezbollah and Hamas reject the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. Both groups want to disrupt the progress being made toward that vision by Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas and others in the region. We must not allow terrorists to prevent elected leaders from working together toward a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East.

The conflict in Lebanon is part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region. For decades, American policy sought to achieve peace in the Middle East by promoting stability in the Middle East. Yet the lack of freedom in the region meant anger and resentment grew, radicalism thrived and terrorists found willing recruits. We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens.

So we've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader Middle East. And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut. Forces of terror see the changes that are taking place in their midst. They understand that the advance of liberty, the freedom to worship, the freedom to dissent, and the protection of human rights would be a defeat for their hateful ideology. But they also know that young democracies are fragile and that this may be their last and best opportunity to stop freedom's advance and steer newly free nation to the path of radical extremism. So the terrorists are striking back with all of the destructive power that they can muster. It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.

Some say that America caused the current instability in the Middle East by pursuing a forward strategy of freedom, yet history shows otherwise. We didn't talk much about freedom or the freedom agenda in the Middle East before September the 11th, 2001; or before al Qaeda first attacked the World Trade Center and blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in the 1990s; or before Hezbollah killed hundreds of Americans in Beirut and Islamic radicals held American hostages in Iran in the 1980s. History is clear: The freedom agenda did not create the terrorists or their ideology. But the freedom agenda will help defeat them both.

Some say that the violence and instability we see today means that the people of this troubled region are not ready for democracy. I disagree. Over the past five years, people across the Middle East have bravely defied the car bombers and assassins to show the world that they want to live in liberty. We see the universal desire for liberty in the 12 million Iraqis who faced down the terrorists to cast their ballots, and elected a free government under a democratic constitution. We see the universal desire for liberty in 8 million Afghans who lined up to vote for the first democratic government in the long history of their country. We see the universal desire for liberty in the Lebanese people who took to the streets to demand their freedom and helped drive Syrian forces out of their country.

The problem in the Middle East today is not that people lack the desire for freedom. The problem is that young democracies that they have established are still vulnerable to terrorists and their sponsors. One vulnerability is that many of the new democratic governments in the region have not yet established effective control over all their territory.

In both Lebanon and Iraq, elected governments are contending with rogue armed groups that are seeking to undermine and destabilize them. In Lebanon, Hezbollah declared war on Lebanon's neighbor, Israel, without the knowledge of the elected government in Beirut. In Iraq, al Qaeda and death squads engage in brutal violence to undermine the unity government. And in both these countries, Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold.

The message of this administration is clear: America will stay on the offense against al Qaeda. Iran must stop its support for terror. And the leaders of these armed groups must make a choice: If they want to participate in the political life of their countries, they must disarm. Elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one foot in the camp of terror.

The Middle East is at a pivotal moment in its history. The death and destruction we see shows how determined the extremists are to stop just and modern societies from emerging in the region. Yet millions of people in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere are equally determined to live in peace and freedom. They have tired of the false promises and grand illusions of radical extremists. They reject the hateful vision of the terrorists, and they dream of a better future for their children and their grandchildren. We're determined to help them achieve that dream.

America's actions have never been guided by territorial ambition. We seek to advance the cause of freedom in the Middle East because we know the security of the region and our own security depend on it. We know that free nations are America's best partners for peace and the only true anchors for stability. So we'll continue to support reformers inside and outside governments who are working to build the institutions of liberty. We'll continue to confront terrorist organizations and their sponsors who destroy innocent lives. We'll continue to work for the day when a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine are neighbors in a peaceful and secure Middle East.

The way forward is going to be difficult. It will require more sacrifice. But we can be confident of the outcome because we know and understand the unstoppable power of freedom. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and democracy, people will have a chance to raise their families and live in peace and build a better future. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and democracy, the terrorists will lose their recruits and lose their sponsors, and lose safe havens from which to launch new attacks. In a Middle East that grows in freedom and democracy, there will be no room for tyranny and terror, and that will make America and other free nations more secure.

Now I'll be glad to answer a couple of questions. Deb.


Q Mr. President, both sides are claiming victory in a conflict that's killed more than 900 people. Who won, and do you think the cease-fire will hold?

THE PRESIDENT: We certainly hope the cease-fire holds because it is step one of making sure that Lebanon's democracy is strengthened. Lebanon can't be a strong democracy when there's a state within a state, and that's Hezbollah.

As I mentioned in my remarks, Hezbollah attacked Israel without any knowledge of the Siniora government. You can't run a government, you can't have a democracy if you've got a armed faction within your country. Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new -- there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country.

Secondly, when people take a look-see, take a step back, and realize how this started, they'll understand this was Hezbollah's activities. This was Hezbollah's choice to make.

I believe that Israel is serious about upholding the cessation of hostilities. The reason I believe that is I talked to the Prime Minister of Israel about it. And I know the Siniora government is anxious that the hostilities stop and the country begin to rebuild.

I can't speak for Hezbollah. They're a terrorist organization. They're not a state. They act independently of, evidently, the Lebanese government, and they do receive help from the outside.

Andrea.


Q Thank you, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Thanks for breaking in with us --

Q Thank you. Despite what you've just said, there is a perception, a global perception, certainly in the Arab media and in many Western media, as well, that Hezbollah is really a winner here because they have proven that they could, as a guerrilla force, withstand the Israeli army. They have been the sole source of humanitarian aid to many of the Lebanese people in the south. So they've improved their position politically within Lebanon, and militarily, and globally. They've gotten an aura of being able to stand up for so long against Israel. How do you combat that, and the perception that we settled for less than we originally wanted in the U.N. resolution, a less robust force? And what actions can the United States or this international force take if Iran, for instance, tries to rearm Hezbollah?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First of all, if I were Hezbollah I'd be claiming victory, too. But the people around the region and the world need to take a step back and recognize that Hezbollah's action created a very strong reaction that, unfortunately, caused some people to lose their life, innocent people to lose their life. But on the other hand, it was Hezbollah that caused the destruction.

People have got to understand -- and it will take time, Andrea, it will take time for people to see the truth -- that Hezbollah hides behind innocent civilians as they attack. What's really interesting is a mind-set -- is the mind-sets of this crisis. Israel, when they aimed at a target and killed innocent citizens, were upset. Their society was aggrieved. When Hezbollah's rockets killed innocent Israelis they celebrated. I think when people really take a look at the type of mentality that celebrates the loss of innocent life, they'll reject that type of mentality.

And so, Hezbollah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine and they're claiming victories and -- but how can you claim victory when at one time you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force? And that's what we're now working on, is to get the international force in southern Lebanon.

None of this would have happened, by the way, had we -- had 1559, Resolution 1559 been fully implemented. Now is the time to get it implemented. And it's going to take a lot of work. No question about it. And no question that it's a different kind of war than people are used to seeing. We're fighting the same kind of war. We don't fight the armies of nation states; we fight terrorists who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives. And it's a hard fight, and requires different tactics. And it requires solid will from those of us who understand the stakes.

The world got to see -- got to see what it means to confront terrorism. I mean, it's the challenge of the 21st century. The fight against terror, a group of ideologues, by the way, who use terror to achieve an objective -- this is the challenge. And that's why, in my remarks, I spoke about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help liberty prevail in the Middle East. And the fundamental question is, can it? And my answer is, absolutely, it can. I believe that universal -- that freedom is a universal value. And by that I mean people want to be free. One way to put it is, I believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a peaceful world. That's what I believe.

And I believe that people want to be free to express themselves, and free to worship the way they want to. And if you believe that, then you've got to have hope that, ultimately, freedom will prevail. But it's incredibly hard work, because there are terrorists who kill innocent people to stop the advance of liberty. And that's the challenge of the 21st century.

And the fundamental question for this country is, do we understand the stakes and the challenge, and are we willing to support reformers and young democracies, and are we willing to confront terror and those who sponsor them? And this administration is willing to do so. And that's what we're doing.

And you asked about Iran? What did you say about them? My answer was too long to remember the third part of your multipart question.

Q I'm sorry. How can the international force or the United States, if necessary, prevent Iran from resupplying Hezbollah?

THE PRESIDENT: The first step is -- and part of the mandate in the U.N. resolution was to secure Syria's borders. Iran is able to ship weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. Secondly is to deal -- is to help seal off the ports around Lebanon. In other words, there's -- part of the mandate and part of the mission of the troops, the UNIFIL troops will be to seal off the Syrian border.

But, as well, there's a diplomatic mission that needs to be accomplished. The world must now recognize that it's Iranian sponsorship of Hezbollah that exacerbated the situation in the Middle East. People are greatly concerned about the loss of innocent life, as are the Americans -- American people. We care deeply about that, the fact that innocents lost their life. But it's very important to remember how this all happened. And Hezbollah has been emboldened because of its state sponsors.

I know they claim they didn't have anything to do with it, but sophisticated weaponry ended up in the hands of Hezbollah fighters, and many assume, and many believe that that weaponry came from Iran through Syria.

And so the task is more than just helping the Siniora government; the task is also -- and the task is not just America's alone, the task is the world's. And that is to continually remind the Iranians of their obligations, their obligations not to develop a nuclear weapons program, their obligations not to foster terrorism and promote terrorism.

And we'll continue working with our partners to do that, just that.

Yes, Michael.


Q Thank you, Mr. President. Until the other day, few Americans thought about liquid explosives when they got on a plane. What are the other emerging or evolving threats to the homeland that are most on your mind? That is, what else needs to be hardened as convincingly as cockpits have been hardened?

THE PRESIDENT: Michael, we will take the actions that are necessary based upon the intelligence we gather. And obviously, if we find out that terrorist groups are planning and plotting against our citizens -- or any other citizens, for that matter -- we will notify the proper authorities and the people themselves of actions that we're taking.

Uncovering this terrorist plot was accomplished through the hard and good work of British authorities, as well as our folks. And the coordination was very strong, and the cooperation, interagency and with the Brits, was really good. And I congratulate the Blair government and the hardworking folks in Great Britain. And, by the way, they're still analyzing, they're still dealing with potential threats. And I want to thank our folks, too. It was a really good effort.

But my point to you is that if we find out or if we believe that the terrorists will strike using a certain type of weapon or tactic, we will take the necessary precautions, just like we did when it came to liquids on airplanes.

Okay. Yes.


Q The U.N. resolution says that Israel must stop all offensive action. What do you view as defensive action? If Hezbollah --

THE PRESIDENT: Somebody shoots at an Israeli soldier.


Q They can respond in what way?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.


Q Any way Israel responds to that, if they start another ground offensive, that is all defensive?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to -- I keep getting asked a lot about Israel's military decisions, and we don't advise Israel on its military options. But, as far as I'm concerned, if somebody shoots at an Israeli soldier, tries to kill a soldier from Israel, that Israel has the right to defend herself, has a right to try to suppress that kind of fire. And that's how I read the resolution. That's how Ms. Rice reads the resolution.

Yes, Bill.


Q Mr. President, to much of the rest of the world, the United States appeared to tolerate the bloodshed and ongoing fighting for a long time before assertively stepping in, and in the process, perhaps earned the further enmity of a lot of people in the rest of the world, particularly the Arab and Muslim world. What is your thought about that?

THE PRESIDENT: My thought is that, first of all, we, from the beginning, urged caution on both sides so that innocent life would be protected. And, secondly, I think most leaders around the world would give Condoleeza Rice and her team great credit for finally getting a U.N. resolution passed. We were working hard on a U.N. resolution pretty quickly, and it can be a painful process, diplomacy can be a painful process. And it took a while to get the resolution done. But most objective observers would give the United States credit for helping to lead the effort to get a resolution that addressed the root cause of the problem. Of course, we could have got a resolution right off the bat that didn't address the root cause. Everybody would have felt better for a quick period of time, and then the balance would have erupted again.

And our hope is that this series of resolutions that gets passed gets after the root cause. We want peace, Bill. We're not interested in process. What we want is results. And so -- look, America gets accused of all kinds of things. I understand that. But if people analyze the facts, they were to find two things: One, we urged caution, and two, secondly, that we worked on a diplomatic process that we believe has got the best chance of achieving a long-term objective, which is peace.

Final question, then I got to go.


Q Mr. President, four days later, now do you believe that the U.K. terror plot was developed by al Qaeda leaders? Do you believe that there are terror cells operating within the U.S.? Along with Michael's question, what do you say to critics who say there are giant loopholes in homeland security?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first I would say that -- I don't know the loophole question. Maybe you can give me some specific loopholes. But it sounded like to me Homeland Security did a good job, along with intelligence services and FBI in working with the British to shut down a major plot that could have killed Americans.

First part of the question? That's what happens when you get 60.


Q Do you believe the terror plot was developed by al Qaeda leaders?

THE PRESIDENT: We certainly -- I stand by the statements that initially came out of Chertoff, which was, it sure looks like it. It looks like something al Qaeda would do. But before we actually claim al Qaeda, we want to make sure that we have -- we could prove it to you. Of course, the minute I say it's al Qaeda, then you're going to step up and say, prove it. So, therefore, I'm not going to say it until we have absolute proof. But it looks like the kind of thing al Qaeda would do, and --

Q As far as terrorist cells inside the U.S.?


THE PRESIDENT: Any time we get a hint that there might be a terrorist cell in the United States, we move on it. And we're listening, we're looking, and one thing that's important is for us to make sure that those people who are trying to disrupt terrorist cells in the United States have the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution of the United States.

One of the things we better make sure is we better not call upon the federal government and people on the front lines of fighting terror to do their job and disrupt cells without giving people the necessary tools to disrupt terrorist plots before they strike. And that's what we're doing here in this government.

And that's why the Terrorist Surveillance Program exists, a program that some in Washington would like to dismantle. That's why we passed the Patriot Act, to give our folks the tools necessary to be able to defend America. The lessons of the past week is that there's still a war on terror going on and there's still individuals that would like to kill innocent Americans to achieve political objectives. That's the lesson. And the lesson for those of us in Washington, D.C. is to set aside politics and give our people the tools necessary to protect the American people.

Thank you.

END 4:08 EDT

Give 'em Heck George

President Bush just completed a press conference that put Iran, Syria & Hezbollah on notice. He didn't mince words or allow the leftist media spin things into a perceived disaster. Rather than give my 2¢, I'll post a link to a transcript of the press conference when it becomes available.

The Fantasy World of International Law

There's a great article today in the Weekly Standard on the fecklessly worthless UN & the so-called International Laws regarding the conduct of war.

The Fantasy World of International Law

The criticism of Israel has been "disproportionate."

by Jeremy Rabkin
The Weekly Standard
08/21/2006

At the outset of the current war in Lebanon, governments in Europe protested that Israel's response was "disproportionate." The U.N. human rights commissioner, Louise Arbour, endorsing this claim, spoke darkly of Israeli "war crimes." I happened to be at a conference in mid-July where there were a number of military lawyers. I asked one of them, who teaches military law at one of the service academies, what this talk about "proportionality" actually meant. The answer was prompt and succinct: "It means they don't like Israel."

From the perspective of international law, it doesn't take much to condemn Israel. Year after year, for example, the old Human Rights Commission devoted more time to condemnations of Israel than to any other topic, while often ignoring atrocities elsewhere. That was one reason the U.N. abolished the commission last year, substituting a supposedly more sober Human Rights Council. In its first year, the new council decided to forgo other distractions and devote all its country-specific resolutions to condemnations of Israel.

Still, it is worth pausing over the argument, because it reveals quite a bit about the way standards for military action are now treated by specialists in international law. For most European countries, these standards are literally academic--since few European military forces can imagine engaging in anything close to actual war. But the trend in opinion in this area will have implications for the handful of military powers remaining--of which, come to think of it, Israel is not the only one.

Start with the source of the relevant standards. The two treaties most often cited by scholars are Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) and the Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). The Additional Protocol was the first treaty attempting to set standards for military tactics and the overall conduct of war since the Hague Conventions of 1907. (The 1949 Geneva Conventions dealt with specialized matters such as the treatment of war prisoners, sick or wounded combatants, and civilians in occupied territories.) Relevant provisions of the ICC statute for the most part simply recite standards set down in the Additional Protocol.

Both treaties contain constraining provisions that might seem relevant to Israel's military actions--especially to the bombing that could have been expected to cause extensive casualties or severe hardships to civilians. The most obvious difficulty with citing these standards, however, is that Israel is not a party to these treaties. Nor, as it happens, is the United States.

The failure of Israel and the United States to ratify these measures ought to detract a good deal from their relevance, especially since the failure was not a matter of pique. Whereas previous Geneva Conventions had protected uniformed, disciplined armies that complied with the laws of war, the Additional Protocol sought to extend protection to guerrilla forces and terrorist groups. Yasser Arafat's PLO was granted observer status at the negotiating conference and expressed satisfaction with the results, especially the embrace in the very first article of the treaty of "conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes"--understood by everyone in 1977 as a reference to Israel, given the recent U.N. General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with "racism." The Reagan administration, rejecting U.S. participation in this treaty, warned that the treaty would give special protections to terrorist groups.

Does a treaty have any claim on a state that has not ratified it? Scholars insist that even states that have not ratified a particular treaty may still be bound by its terms if they have entered into "customary law" or "usage." But it would be very hard to show that Israel's targeting in Lebanon was in clear violation of standards that are otherwise widely respected. (They certainly weren't by Russia in Chechnya or NATO in Kosovo.) What scholars assume is that "custom" can be derived not from what states actually do but from what diplomats say. Counting that way, you can amass quite a lot of "votes" on the side of the Geneva and ICC standards, because most countries have ratified them--and most have no contrary practice because they have not actually been at war. In effect, claim to these treaties as "international law" is to claim that a majority of the General Assembly can legislate for the world.

If you view the relevant standards in this light, then it may seem quite reasonable that these standards should still apply to one side in a war, even when its enemy defies them. The traditional view, reflecting the logic of war, was quite the opposite. The Hague Convention on the Laws of War on Land (1907) carefully stipulated at the outset that its standards would "not apply except between contracting powers"--that is, states adhering to these standards--"and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention." The signatories were not even willing to be bound by these rather general constraints against a power that might gain advantage by acting in collusion with a nonsignatory.

The Hague standards were negotiated, for the most part, by a circle of European governments thinking quite concretely about what constraints they could accept in what circumstances. They were not willing to accept constraints against enemies that did not. No one engaged in any hand-wringing at the Hague over the fact that in recent colonial wars--by the British in South Africa, the Americans in the Philippines, the Germans in Southwest Africa--Western armies had not complied with standards set down in the 1899 version of the Hague Convention.

By contrast, the scholars who rely on the Additional Protocol (like its drafters) imagine a world in which the actions of one side in a war make no difference to the obligations of the other. So, for example, the Additional Protocol admonishes that signatories should, "to the maximum extent feasible . . . avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas" (Art. 58). But the language of other provisions (such as Art. 57, avoiding "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects") suggests that failure by one side to respect this obligation has no effect on the other. So if one side hides its missile launchers in civilian neighborhoods--or in the schools, hospitals, and religious and cultural sites supposed to receive special protection--the other side is still obliged to avoid attacking. In other words, by a literal reading, the Additional Protocol rewards those who use civilians as human shields. That is consistent with provisions granting protected status to guerrilla and terrorist forces, embracing those who defy the laws of war by blending in with--and thereby endangering--the surrounding population.

If you can get past these objections, it may then seem quite easy to invoke various provisions in the Additional Protocol to show that major Israeli actions were "disproportionate" to what even critics concede was a legitimate Israeli claim to undertake some sort of defensive action. Among other things, the 1977 Protocol admonishes that when "several military objectives" may provide "a similar military advantage," states must choose the attack "which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects" (Art. 57).

Yet there is something quite strange in this line of argument, too. The relevant provisions in the Protocol deal with "military advantage"--that is, tactical aims. The real issue is strategic: What would bring "victory," or how should "victory" be defined? At the strategic level, if you measure the response by the scale of the provocation, you reward aggressors by allowing them to control the scale of the response. Object to Germany's sinking of passenger ships in the mid-Atlantic? We might retaliate by seizing some German ships in U.S. ports. Object to Japanese attacks on U.S. warships in Hawaii? We might even the score by attacking a comparable number of Japanese ships somewhere else.

What is missing, of course, is the thought behind the old-fashioned expression "an act of war": Germany's resort to unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor were seen as provocations that had to be met by all out war. The point isn't that we necessarily had to fight an inhumane war--though a war that culminated in the nuclear devastation of two Japanese cities was not exactly fought by Hague standards (as even the blockade of food shipments to Germany in the First World War departed from Hague standards). The larger point is that once you get into something called "war," you are trying to impose your will on the enemy and not simply engaging in tit for tat.

It is one thing to engage in punitive raids, though even punitive raids make sense only if the response can be more painful than the initial attack. Otherwise, a very constrained response risks inviting future attacks at the enemy's discretion. At some point, a full war goes beyond such skirmishing. War is, in effect, a struggle over the future relations between the warring parties and which side's standards for that future will finally prevail. And as the world wars proved, war is sometimes a quite effective answer to the original dispute. Nobody has been troubled by Japanese or German aggression in many decades.

There are all sorts of complications, of course, when "war" involves a terrorist force, like Hezbollah, which is not even a state--though it is clearly an instrument of state policies formulated in Damascus and Tehran. It may well be that Israel's response will not, in the end, enhance its own security. But that is, at the strategic level, a risk in every war. More often than not, one side emerges from war worse off than if it had not fought in the first place. That is what makes war decisive--and also less common than small skirmishes.

The relevant question, if you want to be legalistic, is not whether resort to war is sound policy but whether it is within the rights of legitimate state conduct. The question is whether Israel's actions are within the range of what our own Declaration of Independence (which was, after all, justifying resort to war) called "things which independent states may of right do." The relevant legal question, to put it more precisely, is whether standards can be changed as the result of treaties that are rarely invoked, less often observed, and not ratified by the parties to the actual conflict.

Condemning the scale of Israel's response does make some sense, as everything else argued by the critics makes some sense, if you view the issues in the light of domestic analogies. We allow private individuals to use force against, say, someone who breaks into a private home--but no more force than is required to repel or disable the intruder. Some states do allow homeowners to use guns to defend themselves, even if the resulting act of self-defense proves fatal to the intruder, but other states impose more restrictions on "defensive gun use" (including restrictions on access to guns in the first place).

Whatever one might say about moral claims to self-defense, most of us, most of the time, acknowledge that the binding law is the law enacted by the state legislature, even though the legislators who voted for that law may be disproportionately from low-crime districts and lacking therefore an adequate understanding of what is really at stake for residents of the most dangerous areas. Homeowners are not exempted from the relevant state law just because they disagree with it. In the domestic setting, we accept that the right to self-defense is determined by a constitutional structure, and the rules are the rules, including the rules for determining the rules.

So it might seem entirely reasonable to condemn Israel's actions, if you think the Lebanon war takes place in the realm of what German commentators, following Jürgen Habermas, call Weltinnenpolitik--global domestic policy. What Luxembourg and Iceland and New Zealand and other nice countries (and their coalition partners in somewhat nastier countries) view as the proper standards will be the proper standards, and Israel must adhere to them, even if its enemies don't, because rules are rules and preserving the rules is more important than achieving any particular strategic objective of any particular state.

It all makes sense, in a way--particularly if you live in Luxembourg and never have to give any thought to your own defense, because others will see to it for you. Lots of Europeans like to think of themselves as citizens of greater Luxembourg. It happens not to be a luxury that Israel can afford, living in a region where some of the strongest states--notably Iran--are dedicated to its destruction. If Israel could not defend itself, what international authority would it call to provide protection from outside? The U.N.? That is the very body that established the "international force" in Lebanon that has, in effect, operated as Hezbollah's chaperone for the past quarter century, looking the other way as terrorists acquired a vast arsenal of missiles. Asking Israel to rely on the U.N. for its protection makes sense only if you think Israel has no more right to defend itself than the majority of U.N. members think it ought to have. This is not a very reassuring notion for Israel, given the U.N.'s record.

The United States is, in all sorts of ways, in a different position from Israel. What the two have in common, however, is not just many of the same enemies. The United States has a similar stake in resisting the assumptions that have come to prevail in much of the legal commentary on Israel's tactics in this war. For some reasons that are similar to Israel's and some that are almost the opposite, the United States also cannot regard its military options as if it were merely a greater Luxembourg.

Jeremy Rabkin teaches international law at Cornell University and is author, most recently, of Law without Nations? Why Constitutional Government Requires Sovereign States (Princeton).

The best way to catch a terrorist....

.... imagine what a liberal would do… then do the exact opposite!



Texas Rainmaker gives an example.

Who's kidding who?

Today Brent Bozell excoriates Reuters & the MSM over the "Reutergate" scandal.

One of the famous photos from the war was a 1968 Eddie Adams photo for the Associated Press showing a general shooting a Viet Cong fighter in the head with a pistol on a Saigon street. That picture became the left's rally poster for American withdrawal from Vietnam. Adams won the Pulitzer in 1969 for his Vietnam photos, but he regretted the unintended consequences to his dying day. As he wrote in Time magazine,

"The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them; but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths."

Now photographers are going beyond half-truth, to manipulating images that aren't at all real.

Bozell notes that this is the same Reuters that refused to describe the 9/11 attackers as "terrorists", because "(they said the word "adds little" to the story)". Yet Reuters didn't take any real action until the second example of photo fraud by Adnan Hajj was exposed. Then they pulled all of his photos from their Internet archive. Although Reuters claimed that had "zero tolerance" for altered photographs they passed the buck & offered shifting stories as to why these pictures made it past their layers of editors.

In a statement, Reuters claimed the two altered photos were among 43 Hajj had filed "directly to the Global Pictures Desk since the start of the conflict on July 12 rather than through an editor in Beirut." But the New York Times reported a senior Reuters editor claiming it was not a mistake made at the top. "On Saturday, we published 2,000 photos," Paul Holmes said. "It was handled by someone on a very busy day at a more junior level than we would wish for in ideal circumstances." These shifting stands do not excuse how even photographic amateurs could quickly deduce that the phony-smoke picture was about as believable as a $3 bill -- and then caught a second doctored photo.

Bozell thoroughly destroys Reuters pathetic excuses & their credibility (my emphasis);

There was clearly an agenda here. A look at Adnan Hajj's pictures from Lebanon (and the captions written for them) packed an obvious emotional punch against Israeli aggression. This is ironic, considering the official Reuters distaste for "emotive terms" like terrorism:

"Some Reuters coverage, including pictures and video, is of wars or conflicts during which all sides are actively promoting their positions and arguments. We are committed to reporting the facts and in all situations avoid the use of emotive terms."

But they're obviously committed to very emotive photographs of dead babies, as Hajj took in the controversial bombing of civilians in a Qana apartment complex.

Perhaps the phoniest part of what the bloggers call "Reutergate" is the Reuters declaration that they are the perfect picture of objectivity.

"We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views."

Anyone who has read Reuters in recent years can see the comedy in that statement. One 2002 photo caption lamented: "Human rights around the world have been a casualty of the U.S. 'war on terror' since September 11." In 2003, the day before Baghdad fell, Reuters reporter Greg Frost casually compared Saddam's withdrawing guerrilla forces to colonial soldiers in the American Revolution. Within days of Saddam's capture that December, Reuters began a dispatch with this supposedly non-opinionated sentence: "Joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein gave way to resentment toward Washington Monday as Iraqis confronted afresh the bloodshed, shortages and soaring prices of life under U.S. occupation."

So when the major media tell you that they would never manipulate a word or a picture to press their own political agenda, it's always best to check the fine print -- and the fine pixels of newfangled digital photography.

Well said Brent.

The Reuters Photo Scandal

Zombie has posted "The Reuters Photo Scandal: A Taxonomy of Fraud" In it Zombie lists four different types of photo fraud followed by a comprehensive overview of each type of photo fraud committed by Reuters.

The recent discovery that the Reuters news agency released a digitally manipulated photograph as an authentic image of the bombing in Beirut has drawn attention to the important topic of bias in the media. But lost in the frenzy over one particular image is an even more devastating fact: that over the last week Reuters has been caught red-handed in an astonishing variety of journalistic frauds in the photo coverage of the war in Lebanon.

This page serves as an overview of the various types of hoaxes, lies and other deceptions perpetrated by Reuters in recent days, since the details of the scandal are getting overwhelmed by a torrent of shallow mainstream media coverage that can easily confuse or mislead the viewer. Almost all of the investigative work has been done by cutting-edge blogs, but the proliferation of exposés might overwhelm the casual Web-surfer, who might be getting the various related scandals mixed up. In this essay I hope to straighten it all out.

It's important to understand that there is not just a single fraudulent Reuters photograph, nor even only one kind of fraudulent photograph. There are in fact dozens of photographs whose authenticity has been questioned, and they fall into four distinct categories.

The four types of photographic fraud perpetrated by Reuters photographers and editors are:

1. Digitally manipulating images after the photographs have been taken.

2. Photographing scenes staged by Hezbollah and presenting the images as if they were of authentic spontaneous news events.

3. Photographers themselves staging scenes or moving objects, and presenting photos of the set-ups as if they were naturally occurring.

4. Giving false or misleading captions to otherwise real photos that were taken at a different time or place.

Zombie did a top notch job. So what are you still doing here? Click on the link & go see it for yourself.

Fake but inaccurate indeed

The countless instances of fake, staged & otherwise completely inaccurate "news" perpetrated by the MSM are mind boggling. These are the points they want to make;

1) War is so bad it is to be avoided at all costs - It's so bad we had to make stuff up to get our point across,

2) US & Israeli military are Eeeeevil - They commit "war crimes" & "intentionally target" innocent women & children (and journalists too) - Just look at all of our fake, staged & otherwise phoney photos & film clips we inundate you with 24/7,

3) The terrorists.... uh... 'er.... I mean these "freedom fighters" are "victims" of our wanton aggression - See we cooked up these fake photos to prove it,

4) Our "failed" foreign policies, the "occupation" in Iraq & wanton "torture" of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are creating more terrorists.... uh... 'er... "militants" - Well, OK, we made all of that up too. Hey! Look at these photoshopped pictures!

Makes you wonder doesn't it? If things were as bad as they tell us they would have countless genuine photos & film clips to make their case with, right? So why is the conservative blogosphere exposing these frauds in large numbers?

Rather than read all about them, check out this edition of "Vent" with Michelle Malkin. It's an original, daily video newscast that rarely fails to inform & entertain.

Uh huh. It's that bad.

Snark, snark... Who's there?

The anti-war left, that's who. The following is shamelessly stolen from Cliff May at The Corner.

Let's See a Show of Hands this Morning

Who is for aggressive and secret initiatives to monitor terrorist groups and suspects, trace their finances, interrogate captured combatants thoroughly and detain combatants as long as necessary?

Wow, quite a lot of hands today - even in Connecticut. Thank you.

And who is for prohibiting all the above, and revealing as much as possible about what intelligence and covert initiatives we have underway, because the public (and, oh, yes, our enemies, too) have a right to know?

Ned Lamont, thank you. Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller, thank you, as well. The gentlemen and gentlewomen from the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Gov. Dean, Mr. Moore, Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Baldwin — loved you on Saturday Night Live! — thank you all so much.

Talk about a stark difference

Jonah Goldberg over at the Corner notes as damning an admission as one could expect from a MSM journalist;

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you know, you have to be very careful. Obviously, both sides in this conflict want their stories out. Israel, you know, provides public spokespeople very readily. If you're dealing with the Israeli military, they don't want you, you know, wandering around their artillery fields like where we are now, or wandering around their positions. So they often have press people who will actually sort of help you if you need interviews and the like.

While on the Hezbollah side, it's really interesting — I was in Beirut, and they took me on this sort of guided tour of the Hezbollah- controlled territories in southern Lebanon that were heavily bombed. They are much cruder, obviously. They don't have the experience in this kind of thing. But they clearly want the story of civilian casualties out. That is their — what they're heavily pushing, to the point where on this tour I was on, they were just making stuff up. They had six ambulances lined up in a row and said, OK, you know, they brought reporters there, they said you can talk to the ambulance drivers. And then one by one, they told the ambulances to turn on their sirens and to zoom off, and people taking that picture would be reporting, I guess, the idea that these ambulances were zooming off to treat civilian casualties, when in fact, these ambulances were literally going back and forth down the street just for people to take pictures of them.

What the?!?!

You know it's bad enough that tens of millions of leftists live in an alternate reality. But why do they feel it's necessary to raise our youth in an artificial environment that will leave them wholly unprepared to deal with the real world.

Penny Grossman cringes each time a student mentions a birthday party during class at her Boston, Massachusetts-area preschool. The rule there, and at a growing number of America's schools, is that parties and play-dates shouldn't be discussed unless every child in the room is invited.

Gone are the days when a kindergartner dropped a handful of party invites in the classroom cubbyholes of their closest buddies. Today, if anyone is excluded the invitations can't be handed out at school.

The idea that protecting kids from rejection is crucial to safeguarding their self-esteem has gained momentum in recent years....

Puhlease! Will someone tell the leftists that rule our schools to buy a clue! This isn't the only misguided method employed by these people for "safeguarding" the "self-esteem" of our nation's youth. Do I really have to spell it out for them? What are these cocooned children raised in a world of make believe going to do when they graduate & venture out into the real world? There will be no more rules & alternate realities for "safeguarding" their "self-esteem" from the cold harsh reality of the real world.

Take Valentine's Day: At some schools, a second-grader can't offer paper valentines or heart-shaped candies to a short list of pals and secret crushes anymore. They give cards to everyone or no one at all.

Or sports: In many towns, scorekeeping no longer happens at soccer or softball games played by kids under 8 or 9. Win or lose, every player in the league gets a trophy at the season's end.

These children will grow into young adults without having learned how to deal with disappointment, rejection, schoolyard bullies, competition, etc. What makes these elitist decision makers think that these children will be remotely prepared to deal with the same issues as adults when they have never had to deal with it their entire lives?

At least they quote someone with half a clue, but she blames the parents, or that is how the Associated Pravda journalist spins it. Note how the expert's POV is in "quotes" & the rporter's POV isn't;

"Self-esteem comes from those feelings you have about yourself for a job well done, for when you have achieved something," says Dr. Georgette Constantinou, administrative director of pediatric psychiatry at Akron Children's Hospital in Ohio. "It's not something you pour into your children."

She feels that many parents aren't equipping their kids to manage basic challenges.

"How do you expect them to handle life's big bumps if they haven't experienced the little ones?" she asks.

The AP reporter goes on to directly blame parents rather than elitist schools officials & those leftist activists who force their PC world views on almost every organization where children gather. They are the people impose these insidious rules in our schools & elsewhere whether or not parents agree with them. Instead we are told by this reporter it's all the parents fault;

No one disagrees that disappointment is real: There are contests we all lose, parties we're excluded from. But what motivates so many parents to postpone that reality until their children reach the age of 10 or beyond?

For one thing, kids' lives are so tightly scheduled today that we're enrolling smaller and smaller children in organized activities. It may be true that 6-year-olds aren't ready to handle losing a T-Ball championship; a generation ago, 6-year-olds wouldn't have even been playing team sports.

Parents may also be reacting to their own economic and career stress by trying to protect their kids from it.

In what alternate universe did this occur? There may be more organized activities today, but there were plenty around more than 2 generations ago too.

Little league has been available for children under age 10 as long as I can remember. Back then you had to have some minimum level of competence or you didn't play. And if you made a team, you had to face stiff competition. And your own teammates would get on your case if you screwed up & cost your team the game.

What about the Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts? Didn't their policies force little children to earn their badges based on personal performance? They didn't hand out badges to every kid even if they failed to accomplish all of the required steps to earn them.

In my town, there were Jr Bowling Leagues with real competition. There were league championships with real trophies. And there were trophies for the best bowlers. Losers got to go to the luncheon where the winners received the trophies.

It's the policies that have changed & these changes have not been imposed by all parents or even most of them. It's elitist & activist leftists who have forced these changes for the most part. Most parents have little or no say in these decisions. Instead, this reporter is blaming the parents for all of this. He/she even sneaks in a quote from the expert that makes it appear the expert agrees with the spin the AP reporter took in the next paragraph;

"This group is balancing things that previous generations haven't had to balance," says Constantinou. "The number of women in the work force is phenomenal, probably the largest since the war years, so you have a lot more stressed parents."

Note how the expert's comments don't exactly jive with the AP reporters comments I just quoted above. Again, if you simply read the "quotes" from the Constantinou, they don't say anything that directly supports the AP reporters claims that parents are directly to blame. The expert is talking about the harm that ensues when children are protected from facing reality from any source. This last quote from Constantinou seems to be more about working parents being forced to rely on schools & organized after school programs to have their children under their care more than in the past.

Ah, but Associated Pravda wouldn't intentionally mislead you, now would they? Well, here at the tail end of this article, the AP reporter lets a little contrary evidence seep in;

Busy parents turn to schools and other care-givers for help, says Mike Sanchez, co-owner of Camp Innovation, a Houston, Texas-area day camp. It does offer competitive games, but also gives each camper an award each week.

"I tell counselors, always find something specific about the kids," Sanchez says. "It helps with parents who say they may not be cleaning at home or working well with a brother or sister. We work on it, and then give them an award for best spirit of the week, best cleaner of the week."

Those are his rules & methodologies, not something the parents insisted upon.

There isn't a single quote in this article from a parent who insists on "safeguarding" the "self-esteem" of their children. These "busy" parents actually actually want their children to face reality & become more responsible. If anything, once you get past the reporters dishonest spin, this article shows that working parents are at the mercy of our schools & programs where their children spend so much of their time.

Buried at the bottom we find quotes from "critics" of these insidious policies;

Critics of the trend worry about a generation of kids who haven't experienced rejection or failure -- especially compared with countries such as China and Japan, where a focus on competition defines the lives of many children.

Learning to compete, says Nichols, is vital. "It sets them up for real life things like a job," she says. "It helps people develop their skills."

Perish the thought! Why would anyone want our nations youth prepared "for real life things like a job" & "develop their skills" so they can successfully compete in the real world? Apparently this journalist doesn't. And he/she is obviously not alone.

OUCH!

Say what you will about Ann Coulter. The leftists pretend it's her "hate speech" as if libs are wholly incapable of any such thing or that they denounce real hate speech when it comes from a fellow leftist. I think they hate Ann Coulter because she is capable of cutting through the BS & calling a spade a spade. In other words, it's things like this in reference to Joe Lieberman's defeat to vehemently anti-war candidate Joe Lamont;

I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America....

... In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont....

So how anti-war has the left become? Coulter points out that the left is even against fighting the GWOT;

... That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state....

... The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears....

And the left isn't just anti-war. They don't even like the good ole' USA;

To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

Sure, Coulter can be quite harsh with over the top rhetoric. I cringe at some of her more than intemperate rhetoric. But one thing you can count on. Leftists everywhere are loathe to debate the real issues Coulter discusses. It's safe to say, the reason is they too know it's a losing proposition because Ann Coulter has their number. That's why all you hear from them is Coulter & "hate speech".

Want a laugh?

Associated Pravda'a (AKA Associated Press) mission statement read's:

"AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed."

Lisa Fabrizio at the American Spectator puts that lie to rest today;

[L]ike many of its contributing entities, it is a mere shell of its formerly unbiased self. As chronicled by many in the blogosphere, AP reporters and correspondents are often anything but disinterested journalists. The AP's latest op-ed piece masquerading as a news story shouts, "Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq Had WMD."

The piece cites a recent Harris Poll that was more accurately titled, "Belief that Iraq Had Weapons of Mass Destruction Has Increased Substantially." Among other things, the poll claims that 50 percent of Americans believe that Iraq had WMDs, as opposed to last year when only 36 per cent answered affirmatively. How this translates into the AP using the word "still" in its headline is known only to it. A less ethically challenged blurb would have read, "More in U.S. Believe Iraq Had WMD," but the AP never lets ethics get in the way of a good Bush-bash....

...Yet, despite repeated instances of media lies, misrepresentations and even forgery, the AP's Charles J. Hanley has the chutzpah to opine that the reason half of America believes that Iraq had the WMDs is

"a drumbeat of voices from talk radio to die-hard bloggers to the Oval Office, a surprise headline here or there, a rallying around a partisan flag, and a growing need for people, in their own minds, to justify the war in Iraq."

The seething condescension in the above statement is matched only by the breathtaking arrogance it took to publish it in a supposedly fact-based story. The bulk of the article quotes authors of books such as Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War, but dismisses as "uncorroborated hearsay" a book by Iraqi general, Georges Sada, which claims that Saddam shipped WMDs to Syria before the war.

Lisa provides a few more examples & includes a quote from Hillary Clinton on the floor of the Senate in October 2002 showing that many Democrats, even those in leadership positions were convinced Saddam had WMD's. Somehow the allegedly "objective" AP & their peers in the MSM have conveniently forgotten all of those damning facts. That's critical element in identifying a top flight "newz" organiztaion, right?

Lisa sees right through the haze;

Whatever the reason, the media in general and the Associated Press specifically seem disturbed that, despite their best efforts, more and more Americans are wending their way around them to the truth.

Is Adnan Hajj a Twin?

Rusty Shackleford of the Jawa Report has a comprehensive analysis of the now disgraced al-Reuters photoshopping photographer. It seems that Adnan Hajj has a twin of sorts who seems to have magically appeared on the scene this July, right about the time that Mr. Hajj career was about to crash & burn.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Go to Rusty's post. Read it all, Click on the links. Me thinks Rusty is on to something.

30% of Americans can't remember

What year did 9/11 happen? Well, 30% of us have already forgotten.

I guess that the MSM's decision to basically do a blackout of images of that fateful day has helped memories to fade. Why stir up emotions of sorrow, anger, patriotism & the like when the MSM has more important things to do like smear, sneer & slander our President, right?

Oh come on! Do I really have to tell you? It was 9/11/01.

The truth according to Hezbollah

Through a glass, darkly


Hat Tip to Power Line & The Age

The ubiquitous "Green Helmet" dude

"Green Helmet" dude continues to show up at center "stage" if you get my drift.

'All the world's a stage' & again in 'Green Helmet goes under cover'

Hat tip to EU Referendum

As the last normal Democrat exits "center" stage ...

Ned Lamont enters stage left

There is one way in which it is bad news: It confirms the rising power of the pacifist (or, to my way of thinking, anti-American) component of the Democratic Party. In the long run, this is ominous. The country would be safer if both of its parties thought that aggressively defending it was a good idea. That the predominant thinking in one of the parties holds otherwise augers poorly for the rest of us.

(Hat Tip to Power Line)

Progress in Iraq?

The guys at Power Line cover it. Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to do likewise.