Labor Day Vacation: (***Update: I'm back in town and RWN will be back to our normal schedule as of tomorrow)

I'm taking off today at noon for a vacation at the beach. I'll be back on Tuesday afternoon and you can expect the next RWN update on Wednesday.

If you're a webmaster who's sent in a request for a link trade, you can probably expect to see your blog added to RWN's permalinks on Wednesday. I'll send you an email to confirm after you're added. Also, if you link RWN and are interested in a link trade feel free to email me. I'm always looking for more blogs to link and the only thing I require is that I like your page.

While you're waiting for RWN to return, feel free to check out some our the blogs I've linked in the "Daily News" section or some of our top referrers on the left. Have a great weekend and I'll see you on Wednesday...

The Same Old Arguments: National Review has two excellent columns up today from Victor Davis Hanson and James S. Robbins about how wrong people (in fact, some of the same people who are saying we shouldn't hit Iraq today) have been about our military operations from the Gulf War on.

Well I can certainly relate to those editorials because I was in college during the Gulf War and there was a MUCH DIFFERENT perception of that war going in than there is today after we know what happened. The common perception seemed to be that we'd win but we'd take massive casualties. In Robbins column he mentions that Ted Kennedy predicted "100 American KIA's per day for as long as the war continued." I had a professor in a class called "War, Peace, Justice, and Human Relations" who told us that we could expect a hundred thousand bodybags and, "don't be surprised if you're drafted." We were continually told that the Iraqis were the 4th largest army in the world, our tanks might not work in the sand, that they were experienced desert warriors who'd eat our troops for breakfast, yada, yada, yada. Furthermore, Vietnam weighed on people before the Gulf War in a way that it doesn't today since it was our last "big war" and a lot of people sincerely doubted the capabilities of our military. We all remember that high approval rating Bush 41 had after winning the Gulf War but before crashing and burning in 1992. However, we forget that the country was totally divided before we went in. Here's another quote from Robbins' column about that,

"(the day before the deadline for Iraqi withdrawal) showed only 41 percent support for military action versus 45 percent for continuing the sanctions regime. Yet, when the President launched the air attacks three days later, 84 percent reported that "the United States and its allies did the right thing."

Hanson also notes some of the other things we were hearing about Gulf War at the time,

"No blood for oil. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has some justification - weren't the Kuwaitis stealing oil from his Rumailia field? And didn't he protect the Gulf states? Didn't we back him in his war with Iran? If we go in, oil will climb to $60 a barrel; he might torch the Kuwaiti oil fields, and shut down production for decades. Nerve gas will blanket Tel Aviv. The Israelis will drop the bomb on Baghdad. Nearly half of our senators oppose intervention. Colin Powell is aghast at the idea. The Arab street is in an uproar and will turn on Westernized regimes. The Palestinians and the Jordanians are already actively pro-Iraqi. Who will pay for the war in a time of deficits? Saddam has hostages as human shields, and has threatened to send missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Soviets won't like our intervention. We know he has biological weapons - and maybe nuclear bombs...If Saddam falls, the power vacuum could destabilize our friends, and would only empower the Iranians. Do we want an independent Kurdistan on the border of Turkey or a Shiite state taking orders from Teheran? We could get a lot worse than the present dictator. The Iranian revolution might sweep the Gulf..."

The war changes but the arguments remain the same even if the very same people, making the very same arguments were proven wrong last time. There are no guarantees in any war but in all likelihood most of the reservations people have about invading Iraq are overblown.

Bling Bling!: Maybe I was wrong about the effects of listening to too much Eminem =D....

PS: They do use some bad language including dropping the "N-bomb," avoid clicking the 'Stile Project" on the bottom, and yes it's a parody.

Environmental Whacko Vs. Environmental Whacko: Windmills are an inefficient waste of money and if I had my way there wouldn't be another one of them built in the United States. But unfortunately the environmentalists push them at every opportunity because they don't cause pollution. However, even WINDMILLS aren't acceptable to some of these greenies as they found out in PA when they started building "47 giant windmills along a five-mile stretch of the wooded Moosic Mountain Ridge"...

"It's a recipe for taking large areas of green space and slicing them in half," said Kenneth Mayers, treasurer of the local chapter of R.E.S.C.U.E., an environmental group challenging the state's issuance of a permit for the wind farm.

Area Sierra Club members also have urged caution, stressing that they support wind power but want to make sure the turbines are put in the right place."

If not windmills, then what?!?!? Good grief....

"Members of R.E.S.C.U.E., which originally stood for Return Susquehanna County Under Ecology, are worried that the 47 turbines would forever alter the character of the mountain ridge, parallel to Route 296.

"It's like paradise," said Paul Ferraro, a group member. "That's the biggest stretch of undeveloped land we have, and once it's gone, it's gone."

Naturally the eco-weenies have filed an, "appeal with the state Environmental Hearing Board." That's a standard tactic these days, file appeals, lawsuits, etc, and tie this stuff up endlessly until people just give up on it. You know if they're so in love with "undeveloped land" maybe they should get all their friends together after their next nature hike and take up a collection to buy the land instead of being a throbbing pain in everyone else's collective necks. But that would require some of that "personal sacrifice" they keep demanding that everyone else make so that they can be comforted with the knowledge that there's still an open field somewhere that can't be used for anything useful.

"Tom Gray, deputy executive director of the American Wind Energy Association," summed it up well.

"It is frustrating," Gray said. "There are environmentalists that want to compare wind plants with nothing, and we can never win. Nothing is really great, except it's hard to get any electricity out of it. The U.S. demand for electricity is continuing to grow, and it's got to come from someplace."

Link via Croooow Blog.

Tail-End Trophy For Greenpeace: This just says it all about the World Summit for Sustainable Development. I love it!

"Johannesburg - African and Asian farmers, and hawkers from across South Africa handed over a "Bullsh*t Trophy" (yes, that is the trophy's real name) to Greenpeace, the Third World Network and BioWatch for their contribution to the "preservation of poverty" in developing countries.

"They sit here at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in their rich man's hotels and romanticise everything," he said."

For Once, It's Not Eminem's Fault: Annoying rapper Eminem is being blamed because some twelve-year-old deviant molested a nine-year-old...

"Earlier, the jury was played a recording of the Eminem track, Ken Kaniff (skit), after William Baker, prosecuting, said: "One possibility is that the 12-year-old boy [now 13] in adolescence heard the track and thought it would be a good idea to make someone do that to him."

Judge Barry Woodward, who listened to the track with the jury, described it as "quite disgusting". Afterwards the victim's mother said: "My son likes Eminem but I have only let him listen to tracks that make the charts. When they played that awful song in the courtroom I felt sick."

Now the song they're referencing is certainly repulsive (here are the lyrics but keep in mind they are disgusting), but no one molests another human being because of what they heard in a song.

I can tell you this from personal experience because I spent my formative teenage years listening to NWA, The Geto Boys, Luke Skywalker and the Two Live Crew, and anything else I could find that had an explicit lyrics sticker on it. Now if RAP music were all that influential, I'd be slanging crack on a street corner and pimpin' hos in my spare time instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh and blogging about why we need to blow the holy bejesus out of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I can't say that the music had no effect on me because while I was in college I had a disturbing tendency to curse so much that I actually once dropped the "F-bomb" in front of a friend's mom without even noticing it. Eventually, I figured out that all the bad language wasn't appropriate and cut it down to a minimum. So much for the 'bad influence'.

The same general principles can be applied to video games, wrestling, movies, pornography, and television as well. Yes, they certainly do influence people (businesses aren't buying ads for nothing.) But in the long run, all of these things are fairly minor influences compared to other factors. So is it possible I might see a shirt on TV and decide to buy that shirt instead of another one? Sure. On the other hand, am I going to blow my brains out tomorrow if I hear Eminem talk about it in a song tonight? No. Could a disturbed person who was thinking about killing themselves be pushed over the edge? Maybe, but having a bad day at work might do it as well. The problem isn't the song, it's them.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people criticizing or even boycotting companies that they feel promote artists they feel are "bad influences" (unless they're blackmailing them for cash -- yes Jesse I'm talking to you). But, I do draw the line at blaming Eminem because some twisted thirteen-year-old kid has already turned into a monster.

Iraq Is Just The Next Step: This story suggest that we're going to hit Iraq in November. It's possible that may be true but since it's coming from an unnamed source and since I think it's highly unlikely that we've given Israel a date this far in advance I'd take this report with a grain of salt.

However, there is another quote in the article that largely mirrors what I said in my "best case scenario" post and this one comes with a name attached...

"Yuval Steinetz, chairman of the Knesset subcommittee on military doctrine, said he held talks with senior Pentagon officials in June regarding Washington's vision of a post-Saddam Middle East. Steinetz said Washington envisions a new order in the Middle East after Saddam is toppled and a democratic regime is installed.

"Iraq is the key but not the last stop [in the U.S. effort]," Steinetz said. "It is the first stop. After that there will be massive [U.S.] pressure on Syria and Iran to halt weapons of mass destruction programs and Syria's occupation of Lebanon."

When he says "massive [U.S.] pressure" he means the type of pressure caused by having US tanks and planes massing on your border while US diplomats ask you whether you'd prefer to cooperate or see the business end of a cruise missile up close. Like I've been saying all along, Iraq isn't the end game, it's just the next step.

Saudia Arabia: Friend Or Foe?: I've received emails and have seen comments on several websites disagreeing with or at least questioning one thing Daniel Pipes said in today's interview. Here is the passage in question...

"The government assumption has been all these years that Saudi Arabia is our close ally. The populist response since last September has been, "Saudi Arabia is our enemy." My own take is in-between. Saudi Arabia is our rival, not an enemy, not a friend, a rival. Although it's a small state it sees itself as the leader of a very large Muslim population and it has ideological and religious goals it needs to propagate. Saudi Arabia is actually more like China than it is like Iraq or Canada. It's in-between an enemy and a friend."

Well Daniel Pipes has written more on this subject on his website. While many people seem to disagree with Pipe's take on the Saudis, I agree with it totally.

I view the Saudi royal family as a totally cynical, self-interested, group of tyrants who are primarily interested with enjoying the fruits of all that oil money that they're getting from us. There are two things that have the potential to wreck the royal family's "good times." One is getting overthrown and the other having the US cut off the oil money somehow. So far, only the former has been a serious threat. So if the Saudi public loves al-Queda & Wahhabism then that's what they'll get. The Saudis don't want to risk upsetting the public by cracking down on al-Queda so they turn a blind eye to al-Queda's activities as long as they don't aim their attacks at the Saudi government. They'll also pump money into the Wahhabi sect to keep their mullahs aiming verbal barrages at America and Israel instead of the Saudi government. But is Crown Prince Abdullah a diehard like Hussein or Khamenei? I don't think so.

In my opinion, when we take Iraq and have access to their oil wells suddenly everything will change for Abdullah. All that oil money that's rolling in from the US could potentially slow down to a trickle at that point. Since the Saudi economy is entirely reliant on their oil income, they couldn't take a major drop in the amount of American oil money they're getting. An economic collapse at best would mean that the Saudi royals might have to cut into their lavish lifestyles, but at worst it could mean they'd lose control of the country. When confronted with that sort of a choice Hussein and Khamenei would rather face their own destruction but I think Abdullah will turn on the terrorists with a vengeance. Like Pipes says, "(They're) in-between an enemy and a friend." In short, the Saudi Arabia will do whatever they think is best for them without any sort of moral considerations. Once we go into Iraq, I think you will see Saudi Arabia's stance start to change to one more to our liking.

An Interview With Daniel Pipes: I recently had an opportunity to do a phone interview with Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes. He's the author of 11 books, has lectured in twenty-five countries, and has appeared on shows like ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, and The Today Show. We talked about militant Islam, Israel, the Iraqi invasion, and several other topics of interest. Enjoy!

The Best Case Scenario: So far the Bush administration has been able to "turn" some of the terrorist supporting regimes out there without having to resort to using military force. We've seen significant progress on that front in Pakistan, Cuba, Yemen, Libya & Sudan among others. However, there are at least three leaders who will have to be "disposed of" in one way or the other because it seems unlikely that they'll ever willingly stop supporting terrorism. Those leaders are Saddam Hussein, Ali Khamenei, and Yasser Arafat.

We've been knocking heads with Hussein since the Gulf War and if he was going to stop supporting terrorists, he would have done it by now. Arafat is a career terrorist and he's about as likely to stop supporting terrorism as he is to convert to Judaism. Khamenei is a true religious fanatic who'd rather risk being overthrown than turn away from an almost inevitable conflict the United States.

We'll have to remove Hussein with military force because even if he were assassinated, it looks likely that one of his sons would take over and continue his work. That means we're going to have to rip Hussein's whole filthy regime out by the roots. The Israelis are perfectly capable of handling Arafat if it becomes necessary but ideally the Palestinians will kick him out themselves when they have an election. Then in all likelihood they'll elect someone more likely to make peace or someone who's an out and out terrorist. Either one would be preferable to Arafat who pretends to be the former while actually being the latter. Khamenei is holding on by his fingernails in Iran and after we take Iraq, it will be very difficult for him to continue to control his nation with US forces on his border supplying Iranian revolutionaries with weapons, supplies, moral support and if necessary military aid.

That still leaves Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea. In 1998, Hafez al-Assad of Syria was intimidated by Turkish troops massed on his border into cutting off support for the terrorists in the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). If we control Iraq, we are capable of putting troops on the Syrian border and intimidating his son in exactly the same way. Lebanon is a pathetically weak puppet state of Syria and if Syria decides the terrorists in Lebanon are going out of business, their days are numbered. Crown Prince Abdullah in Saudi Arabia strikes me as a cynical & self-interested tyrant who'll allow the terrorists to roam free or crack down on them based on whatever he believes is in his best interests. After we take Iraq, the equation will change enough that I believe he'll start to see us as a bigger threat than the terrorists which will lead to a the type of Saudi crackdown we wanted and expected after 9/11. North Korea is still a wildcard but they are talking to us which is encouraging and if we sweeten the pot enough and if they think there is a real possibility of conflict with us, they may very well be willing to deal as well.

So although we'd have to at least be willing to invade multiple nations if necessary, it's possible that we may only need to invade one more nation (Iraq) in order to end the state support of terrorism. Of course, that is a BEST CASE SCENARIO and there are a thousand things that can go wrong. But after we take Iraq, a whole new realm of possibilities will open up that have nothing but positive connotations for the region.

How Is Your Reagan Doing?: Winds Of Change has retired Naval Intelligence officer Lawrence T. Peter doing guest posts about his recent experiences in Sudan and I found a particular part of the story he was telling quite gratifying. No matter what the anti-Americans out there tell you, we do more than people know around the world and there are at least some people who actually appreciate it. Fans of the Gipper will like this post as well for reasons that will soon become apparent...

"Although one hears a lot about how the Sudanese government is difficult, manipulative and hostile toward virtually anything and everything that it perceives may threaten its power, the Sudanese people, by and large, are much different than their government. They love America. This is the story one doesn't hear. In El Obied, I am one of about three white people in a town of 300,000 or so. Yet, I sense no hostility, no anger, no resentment, only appreciation and a strong welcome for me in my capacity as the representative of the JMC (which for the Sudanese is synonymous with peace) and as an American, which for every Sudanese I have met so far, is about the best thing that they can imagine (that is, an American in their midst). There are not many Washington pinstripers, although from time to time a US diplomat does pass through. On a day-to-day basis I am America, I perform 'diplomatic representation' and -- you know what? -- the Sudanese folks I meet think America can do no wrong. I find myself telling them America is not as great as they think, not because America is not great, but because no reality can be as splendid as the opinion they hold of the USA.

But, even in the deepest corners, the Sudanese know about America. I had a small (12"x18" US flag sewn inside my vest. When I've visited villagers at some small dirt airstrip deep in the bush, and talked with them, eventually I'd be asked from what country I had come. I'd of course tell them America and then take off my vest to show the crowd. This small act always results in cheers. Just the sight of the Stars and Stripes was a nourishment of sorts for these impoverished people."

Screener Vs. Potential Shoe Bomber: I saw this on Lucianne and thought it was hilarious...

Me Crush Middle-Class Tax Hike!: Vote Gronk for Senate in 2002!!!!

"...Ever since Gronk created in laboratory accident in 1990, Gronk love America, where citizen free to pursue happiness. After Gronk made, Gronk spend six years fighting evil on streets of Los Angeles. Me meet criminals face-to-face, me fight Octorr and League Of Tentacles. Along way, Gronk see corrupt element threaten to destroy American way of life every day. Fighting terrorism abroad bad enough without have to fight crime at home! Nnnrraaagh! Crime bad! Gronk punch!"

If House pass 3712 and send to Senate floor, Gronk destroy bill. Gronk pound bill with fists. Gronk stomp. Proponents in Senate sooner kill Gronk than pass bill. That kind of dedication constituents come to expect from Gronk."

Check out the rest of the article here and thanks to the Professor for the tip...

A Message From The Citizens Of The 'Great Satan' To The Rest Of The World: Acording to some non-American newspapers, the United States is responsible for most of the pollution in the world. We're also to blame for floods in Europe, earthquakes in Afghanistan, and if global warming ever actually happens that'll be our fault as well for not signing up for the totally ineffective Kyoto protocol.

We're regularly denounced at the UN for not signing treaties that would have a larger negative impact on us than any other nation. We're accused of wanting to be "above the law" for not recognizing the authority of an international criminal court treaty that we have not ratified and have "unsigned." (Cont)

Help Black Kids Succeed Instead Of Changing The Definition Of Success: This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the thought process of so many people who claim to support "civil rights" these days...

"State scholarships based on merit - those that go to students based solely on academic achievement - are widening the gap between white and minority college students, according to the head of Harvard University's Civil Rights Project. Gary Orfield, a co-director of Harvard's Civil Rights Project, was quoted as saying that scholarships based on merit usually go to (white) students who can afford college without the extra financial help....Critics of merit-based scholarships say financial help should not go to people who already are succeeding. According to wire reports, Orfield's study recommends that the definition of "merit" be expanded so more minorities will benefit."

That is exactly the wrong mentality to have. If minority students are not getting as many merit based scholarships as they should then the solution is not to change the "definition of merit", it's to figure out how to help more minority students improve their performance so that they qualify.

Lowering standards for minorities helps absolutely no one. Whites resent it and if you're black, you'll always wonder if you would have been good enough to get your merit based scholarship if you were white. In effect, Orfield's suggestion would be the equivalent of putting an asterisk beside the name of every black kid who won a "merit based scholarship." That's not fair to the white kids who'd get cheated out of a scholarship they deserve because of their race or the black kids whose performance would be an open question because of lowered standards. We need to make every effort to have a color blind society and this sort of thing take us in the opposite direction.

Racism In Anti-Globalism?: After reading some moronic quotes from environmentalist whacko Gar Smith who thinks electricity is a bad thing while poverty isn't, one of our readers had this to say in our comment section...

"As an citizen of a poor country (India), I am appalled by this joker's statements. I'm surprised that this guy can get anyone to listen to his racist rantings. Yes, racist. I'm not a big fan of the "racist" argument, but what else am I supposed to call this - "all those poor brown and black people - we know what's best for them - look at the nobility of their poverty - now, if only we could get them to stop breeding so much". Using a foot-pedal sewing machine to mend clothing is not culture, it's poverty. Now, listen up you pinko morons - we're going to the mall to buy the latest earth-destroying, electricity-hogging do-hickey - and God help those who get in our way.

Posted by Girish Maiya at August 27, 2002 05:17 PM"

You know I've often wondered how big of a factor racism plays in the anti-globalism movement. They claim to want to help poor people in third world countries and indeed they do support giving them more money and forgiving loans.

However, it's obvious that the world's most prosperous nations can't/won't be able to give the world's poorest nations enough money to pull themselves out of poverty. That means these nations desperately need to attract foreign businesses and investment if they're ever going to escape destitution. But the anti-globalism crowd opposes this and says it's exploitation. Well obviously that doesn't wash if you know anything about economics. There are no economically successful nations that don't import and export large amounts of goods and that don't encourage foreign investment. So if it's good enough for nations like the US, Japan, and Britain, why don't these anti-globalist protestors thinks it's good enough for Nigeria, Malawi, and Mozambique?

Then there are two other false beliefs that many anti-globalists seem to share. That the world's economy is a zero-sum game (i.e there is only so much money in the world and if one person gets richer another must get poorer) and that the level of growth of the planet currently is "unsustainable" (Gar Smith mentioned this one for example).

Well if you're a Westerner and you believe both of those things to be the case doesn't it follow that you wouldn't want the Third World to become industrialized and prosperous? That's because if Africa becomes prosperous, you would probably believe that YOUR nation would have get poorer. Also, if the Third World industrialized you would belive that we'd run out of resources much, much, faster. In fact, a lot of anti-globalists probably believe an Africa that was as developed and prosperous as the US would poison the global environment and would lead to a speedy demise for the planet.

So I ask you, do the anti-globalists really want to see a prosperous Africa or do they want a perpetually poor Africa that barely makes it year to year on the Western dole? Sadly, I suspect that the real answer is the latter...

Republican To Saudi Translation Guide: A lot of people have probably read the latest stories about GWB welcoming Prince Bandar bin Sultan to Crawford and they just don't understand it. Why is being so polite to these guys and what is he trying to accomplish? Is he backpedaling? Not at all, you just have to understand how to translate what you read in these articles. Let me give you some examples of what I mean...

"On the topic of Iraq, the president stressed that he has made no decisions, that he will continue to engage in consultations with Saudi Arabia and other nations about steps in the Middle East, steps in Iraq," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer."

Translation: We're not telling anyone exactly when we're going in but we do promise to call you right before we hit them so you can pretend to be in the loop in front of your local press.

After the meeting, Adel al-Jubeir, foreign policy adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, told CNN his country agreed Saddam was a "menace to the region," but it remained wary of any proposed military action against Iraq.

Translation: We're terrified of Hussein but we're scared of terrorist attacks and a possible revolt if we support you.

"Fleischer said the two also discussed Middle East peace issues. He said it was not clear whether Saudi oil production policy came up in the discussion, but reiterated U.S. confidence that Saudi Arabia would not use its control over vast oil supplies as a political weapon."

Translation: Saudi Arabia's economy would collapse if they were deprived of our oil revenue for six months.

"The state-owned Saudi Press Agency published details of the call from Bush to Prince Abdullah, the de facto Saudi ruler, in which the U.S. president played down a recent slew of anti-Saudi comments in the United States."

Translation: Bush also strung Abdullah along until we're totally prepared to move all of our troops out of Saudi while hinting that he didn't support the members of his cabinet who wanted to capture the Saudi oil fields for "security purposes"..at least "not at this time." Of course, if we don't get more cooperation you never know what could happen.

With the Saudis, all the real action is behind the scenes because we believe that's the best way to play them. They have definitely been dragging their feet but all the negative press in America is starting to scare them...as well it should. The real action with Saudi Arabia will probably come after we hit Iraq...not before.

China Attacks!: There are plenty of startlingly inaccurate news sources on the web like Arab News, the DEBKAfile, and Indy Media. But none of them racks up style points like the Weekly World News. Now it wouldn't surprise me to see any of the three previously mentioned mags claim that China was going to invade the US, but none of them have the sort of imagination required to come up with something this creative...

Communism-crazed leaders in Red China have reportedly embarked on a bizarre new plan to invade America -- by digging a tunnel right through the center of the Earth!

..."If all goes according to plan, within six years they'll break through on the other side, we believe somewhere in Oklahoma, around the Bartlesville area," reveals the high-level source at the National Security Agency (NSA).

As if that wasn't good enough, check out this imagery....

"Roughly 500 million bloodthirsty, screaming Chinese troops will come pouring out of that hole -- hell-bent on a bold mission to conquer the United States, reduce our people to slavery and seize all our women."

How's this for a closer?

"China has over a billion people and it doesn't have the resources to feed them...They need grain, they need land -- and most of all, they need women."

Even the French conspiracy theorist who claims that a plane never hit the Pentagon should tip his hat to that sort of inspired writing.

PS: Don't be surprised if this turns up in a New York Times editorial as another reason we shouldn't invade Iraq. They've tried everything else, so why not this?

The Cheney Speech: The latest Cheney Speech wasn't quite good enough to get immortalized in our speech section but there was a lot of good stuff in it including...

Why containment had to be replaced with preemption...

"As we face this prospect, old doctrines of security do not apply. In the days of the Cold War, we were able to manage the threat with strategies of deterrence and containment. But it's a lot tougher to deter enemies who have no country to defend. And containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction, and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States."

The difficulty of accessing how close Hussein is to acquiring nukes...

"Prior to the Gulf War, America's top intelligence analysts would come to my office in the Defense Department and tell me that Saddam Hussein was at least five or perhaps even 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. After the war we learned that he had been much closer than that, perhaps within a year of acquiring such a weapon.

On the perils of waiting until Hussein has nukes to act...

"As one of those who worked to assemble the Gulf War coalition, I can tell you that our job then would have been infinitely more difficult in the face of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. And many of those who now argue that we should act only if he gets a nuclear weapon, would then turn around and say that we cannot act because he has a nuclear weapon. At bottom, that argument counsels a course of inaction that itself could have devastating consequences for many countries, including our own.

You can check out the rest by clicking here.

Questions Raised By The Sheikh: When you're reading these insane quotes remember that they were made by a man named Sheikh Abu Hamza, who's walking around free in Britain today...

"...During a question and answer session, Hamza said banks were a Jewish establishment, the work of Satan.

Hamza is wanted by America and the Yemen."

All of these comments were caught on video and there are plenty of other quotes like this in the article. But these quotations raise a lot of questions for me.

Why hasn't the British government locked this guy away or deported him already? If we want him and the Brits are cooperating with us, why haven't they given him to us considering his connections to terrorism? How can anyone read these quotes and think that Europeans won't be targets of radical Islam whether they help us or not? Where are the moderate Muslims condemning this idiot for portraying Islam as a religion of murderers and thugs? If moderate Muslims are not willing to condemn the comments of this sort of maniac, how can anyone be blamed for thinking this is what Islam is really all about?

Those are troubling questions and I doubt if many people would be pleased by the answers...

Electricity?!? Who Needs Electricity?!?: Warning Will Robinson!!! Danger, danger!!! An environmental whacko has been detected in the area!! Hide your granola supply and guard your trees to prevent hugging!!!

"Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge, spoke about what he considers the virtues of poverty during an interview with CNSNews.com.

He called the notion that the U.S. needs to export the "American way" of life nothing more than "myth making" and revealed that many of his friends have already voluntarily given up automobiles in favor of bicycles and mass transit."

How funny is it to hear a guy who runs an online magazine talking about how terrible electricity is? You don't run online magazines from a Unabomber style shack you know. Also, If Smith thinks Americans should give up their "personal conveniences and self indulgences" why doesn't he start with his computer? Then he could move to some backwards village in Africa and sew and play musical instruments all day since he also seems to think poverty and "primitive traditional ways" are so fantastic. Last but not least, any culture that can be lost with "introduction of electricity" wasn't worth preserving anyway. If the people who are dumping their culture like a hot rock can figure that out, why can't Smith?

This & That: Any webmaster who's reading the page and who hasn't signed up for Daypop & Blogdex should go ahead and do so. You may get some "search" traffic in and if we have more Conservative/Libertarian webmasters signed up, more articles that are important to us will make the lists. Best of all, if you actually make the list yourself it can bring in a decent amount of traffic. I pulled in around 150 hits this week-end from both of them combined and it wouldn't hurt my traffic either if more of you were signed up =)

===

I'm planning on doing a series of the dumbest & most annoying quotes from environmentalists, animal rights activists, leading Democrats, and civil rights leaders. If you have a dumb quote, feel free to post it in the comments section or email it to me. It would be nice if you had a source as well since I'm going to try to track all of these quotes down to make sure they're genuine.

===

I sent Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit a thank-you for the three links he gave me last week and here was his reply,

"Just keep doing great stuff. The Blogosphere needs you"

Coming the blogger's blogger, that is high praise indeed.

===

Last but not least, here are just a few of the many sites that deserve a little more attention from the Blogosphere: Daily Wonk List, The Weigh-In, Croooow Blog, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, 3 Bruces Realpolitik, Curmudgeonly & Skeptical, Rachael Lucas & Blacksheep News.

Give these pages a look if you haven't been there before, it'll be worth it.

===

Any blog that starts off with this sort of first post will probably turn out OK....

"Alrighty, this is my 1st post on my new blogger. Hopefully before long I'll be having hundreds of hits a day. I might even get as popular as Right Wing News. Not likely, but I'll give it a go."

Welcome to the blogging world Johnathan.

===

Last but not least, if you want to trade links with RWN just link us and send me an email asking to trade. If I like your page and you have me linked I'll add you.

End 'Global Apartheid' Call Heralds Earth Summit: Poor Colin Powell got stuck with having to represent the Bush administration at the Earth Summit and I'm sure he's already sick of listening to idiots like South African President Thabo Mbeki,

"This is a world in which a rich minority enjoys unprecedented levels of consumption, comfort and prosperity while a poor majority enjoys daily hardship, suffering, dehumanization," he said.

"Our common and decisive victory against domestic apartheid confirms that you, the peoples of the world, have both a responsibility and a possibility to achieve a decisive victory against global apartheid."

Now that's gratitude for you. I mean the West pumps something like 50-60 billion dollars in ODA money and who knows how much in loans and charity into Africa every year and yet we're committing "global apartheid." To be honest, we might as well have dumped all that money in the ocean for all the good it's done. Look at some of these stats from a July 30 Business Week story,

"Detailing the continent's woes, the document says child immunization rates in sub-Saharan Africa have fallen below 50 per cent.

The report adds that at the current rate, it would take more than 130 years to rid the world of hunger."

The West cannot carry Africa on it's back. We just don't have enough money to pull that many people out of poverty. Even if we did, they'd need it EVERY year to stay afloat because the entire continent is a wasteland.

Africa's only hope is to emulate the West and do the things that we did to become successful. Learn to love Democracy, capitalism, a free press, the rule of law and globalism. Until Africa adopts these Western practices they are going to stay mired in poverty in despair and there isn't anything the West is going to be able to do about it in the foreseeable future. But in the interim, while we're waiting for a Western renaissance in Africa, shut up about "global apartheid" and try saying "thank you" Mbeki...

The Top 10 Things Heard An The United Nations Commission On Human Rights Since Moammar Gadaffi Took Over: Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi is to head an international watchdog on human rights. Libya is to be elected chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights - despite its links with terrorism and torture. -- Sky News

5) New Gadaffi kitchen policy: when you drink the last cup of coffee either start a new pot or be killed.