Marketing The War: In the comments section of the Dumb Quotes From The Left Since 9/11 post, one of our readers named Benjamin copied the following article (Adobe Acrobat File) to the thread. The article starts with this...

"Editor's Note: In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration's insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are close allies of the United States."

The article then goes to list all the different nations that are violating UN resolutions. They include, Israel, Turkey/Cyprus, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, India, Pakistan, & Indonesia.

To begin with, Bush doesn't really care that Saddam is breaking UN resolutions (neither do I for that matter). But unfortunately, there are a lot of nations who do at least claim to care about what the UN thinks. So Bush is simply making the argument that is most likely to appeal to them. And that is the logical thing to do.

For example, let's say Europe decided that they wouldn't go along with invading Iraq unless they were convinced that, "Santa Claus approves of it." Well, the proper response to that wouldn't be, "You bunch of idiots, Santa Claus isn't real. Why are you talking to us about a fictional character?" Instead, you'd say,

"Well Santa certainly wouldn't approve of the children's prison that Saddam built. Did you know that Saddam has actually tortured children in front of their parents? It's so awful in Iraq -- people are too poor to buy presents for each other and the children are starving. If we got rid of Saddam they could have a real Christmas in Iraq!"

Of course, the UN has about as much power as Santa Claus does as evidenced by the fact that feeble nations like Armenia, Croatia & Morocco can ignore UN resolutions at their leisure. But if pointing out that Saddam is defying the UN will make Europe move when talking about Saddam's support of terrorism won't, then by all means, let's talk about the UN. It's not as if we can't simply ignore the UN later if we like. It's not as if the UN is capable of doing anything about it.

The Essence Of US Foreign Policy: One of our readers, Andy Freeman, managed to explain US foreign policy in three easy steps in our comments section...

"US foreign policy is very easy to understand. It has three parts:

(1) If you have cool stuff, we'd like to buy it.
(2) If you have money, we'd like to sell you our cool stuff.
(3) If you try to kill Americans (and yes, everyone knows what that means), you're dead meat."

I'm sure this list will annoy Europeans to no end because it doesn't have 903934093 steps and they hate anything that's "simplistic." Well, it may seem simplistic -- but that's only because we don't tell you ALL the details. Sure there are really only three rules -- but there all kinds of subsections Europeans never get told about. Like subsections...

(1) AB6TH -- Screw the French and the Germans -- especially the French!

(2) ACD78 -- It is fine to throw pieces of rotten fruit at the back of Kofi Annan's head at UN meetings. But only if no one has a camera and there is an Iraqi, Iranian, or Chinese dignitary nearby to blame it on.

(3) AAA43B -- "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." - Sir Winston Churchill

If you want to see the rest of them you'll have to borrow one of our "foreign policy rule books" from an American friend -- if they'll let you see them. Normally we only give them out to Aussies, Israelis, and Brits but if you ask really nicely -- then they'll be obliged to ask the CIA to kill you. Sorry, that's subsection (3) ACR4D...

Who Says Sucking Up To Castro Doesn't Pay?: Jimmy "Malaise Forever" Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. I know the first thought you probably had was, "What has Jimmy Carter done lately to deserve that?" It wasn't really about what he did or didn't do, it was about who the Nobel Committee could cheese off by giving him the award...

"At a news conference, Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge said that, in addition to honoring Carter, the 2002 prize "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current (U.S.) administration has taken."

"It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States," he added."

That's such typical thinking for the European left. If you back terrorists and oppress your own people like Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei you get a sly wink and a "we'll do everything we can to help" when no one's looking. If you want to do something about the terrorists you get a "kick in the leg." The only upside to this is that Carter is such a mediocre failure that giving him the award (especially after Berge's comments) will actually diminish the prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize (at least in the US). The Nobel Committee will have no one to blame but themselves for that.

**Update**: Stephen Green at VodkaPundit lists Jimmy Carter's foreign policy "accomplishments" during his Presidency. It's worth a look...

**Update #2**: The Telegraph gives an apt description of what Jimmy Carter has been doing for the last 22 years...

"Since the end of his one-term presidency, in 1980, Mr Carter has done little but potter about the world, generally making a nuisance of himself by meeting the likes of Fidel Castro."

The Best Quotes From The Left Since 9/11: Yesterday, after hearing that 126 of 208 house Democrats voted against protecting American lives by removing Saddam Hussein from power, I was inspired to put together a list of the best quotes from the left since 9/11. Read and enjoy...

Best Election Celebration Photo Ever: They had elections in Pakistan today, which to be honest, don't really mean anything. I think this line from the article pretty much says it all...

"The hard-line religious parties strong showing won't topple Musharraf from his power base but it could slow his reforms, that included the banning of extremist religious parties."

On the other hand, the elections did produce the funniest non-photoshopped pic I've seen in months....

Shake it my Pakistani friends, shake it!

Hamas Isn't So Bad Huh?: From today's World Tribune...

"The Bush administration has acknowledged failure in winning full cooperation from the European Union in halting financing to Hamas and other Middle East groups deemed as terrorists.

The result has been a slowdown in international efforts to halt financing to Al Qaida and its satellite organizations in the Middle East. A key dispute between the United States and the EU regards Hamas, officials said. They said the EU maintains a distinction between the military and political wings of the Palestinian group."

My first thought after reading this was, "Is the EU soft on terrorism or just soft on terrorism against Jews?" That's a pertinent question. I mean what if al-Queda's "political wing" opens up some soup kitchens in Yemen, does that mean they're OK in Europe's eyes or does that only apply to groups that kill Jews? Oh wait , Hamas has killed Americans as well. So maybe my first thought should have been, "The EU is soft on terrorist groups, especially groups that kill Jews." Maybe this helps to explain that whole "unilateralist thing" that seems to upset the Europeans so much.

Dumb Quotes From The Left Since 9/11: I'm doing an article on some of the stupid things prominent members of the left have said since 9/11. Particularly 9/11 and war related things. Do keep in mind that I'm only looking for stuff from fairly prominent members of the left here. So we're talking mainstream media columnists, reporters, government officials, etc. If any of them stick out, put them in the comments section.

Thanks in advance for the help...

Letting Sleeping Godzillas Lie...: I was reading about Tom Daschle's latest poll driven flip-flop on Bush's war resolution and I noticed a tied and old argument still being made...

"It is not a victory to strike down one tyrant and breed 10,000 terrorists," Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., a supporter of the Spratt proposal, said, adding that the costs of lives and resources would create a backlash in the Muslim world."

Well I have an answer to that -- Godzilla. How would you deal with Godzilla if he came to your town? Well that depends doesn't it? If you had good enough weapons you might fight him -- but if you didn't you'd probably run.

Well let's say you DON'T have the weapons to fight him and you hear about your neighbors down in "Afghanatown." Some of the people from their village went to Monster Island and attacked Godzilla while he was sleeping with a giant catapult that they built. It hurt him a little -- but not nearly enough to kill him. More importantly -- it p*ssed him off. Godzilla then stomped off to Afghanatown, smashed the village, ate the people like bon-bons, and then burned everything that was left to ashes with his radioactive breath.

After that, Godzilla went to 'Raqicity" and destroyed their giant catapult -- right before he really went nuts. He smashed and ate everything that didn't run fast enough to get away and by the time he was done there was nothing left but blood, sand, and rubble.

Now Godzilla is moving in YOUR general direction. The village elders think he is coming for your giant catapult and if you get rid of it Godzilla will leave you alone -- but if you don't get rid of the giant catapult -- **shudder**. Worse yet, the no good "Bin Arafat" family is saying that even if Godzilla doesn't come here, they're going to take a giant catapult and fire it at Godzilla. When you ask what happens if Godzilla follows them back to your town -- Abu Bin Arafat replies, "Then we all hurl our mighty spears and rocks at Godzilla and he will be defeated! But whatever happens -- we will not get rid of our giant catapult!!" "That's funny," you think, "that's probably just what they said in Afghanatown and Raqicity."

Then you start to think things over -- Godzilla, Afghanatown, Raqicity, blood -- sand & rubble, -- was that a roar off in the distance -- ** Gulp** -- are you just hearing things?, "Then we all hurl our mighty spears and rocks", radioactive breath, -- that's enough! It's time to talk to the other village elders.

The next day the village is shocked to learn of a horrible crime! The Bin Arafat family is all dead and someone stole the village's giant catapult and tossed it off a cliff. Oh how terrible! Everyone goes to the funeral and afterwards a few people even talk about building a new giant catapult -- but no one ever does. You heard that Godzilla went back home to Monster Island and spends most of his days eating, sleeping, and doing whatever it is Godzillas do to pass the time -- which is fine with you. You may not like Godzilla much, but whenever anyone starts talking about how a group of young men should get together to try to hurt Godzilla you remind them of what happened to Raqicity & Afghanatown and after a lot of debate and talk, they decide that this "isn't the right time." Everyone now seems to have figured out that sometimes it's best to let sleeping Godzillas lie...

The Case For And Against Discrimination: Maryland gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Kennedy Townsend made the following statement to explain why she supports affirmative action...

"He opposes affirmative action based on race. Well, let me tell you something, slavery was based on race. Lynching was based on race. Discrimination is based on race. Jim Crow was based on race. And affirmative action should be based on race."

You know what's funny? I'd say that Townsend just made a great argument AGAINST affirmative action. But then we Conservatives tend to believe that we should live in a color-blind society -- unlike liberals who believe that we should discriminate against people based on race.

Election Theft, Inc.: The Democrats tried to steal the Presidency in 2000 with the help of the left-wing Florida State Supreme Court. This year, the activist State Supreme Court of New Jersey came to the Democrats aid by ignoring New Jersey's election laws in order to allow Frank Lautenberg to replace Robert Torricelli.

Now the Democrats have finally caught on to the fact that partisan Democratic judges who are willing to ignore the law can help them win elections. So the Dems are going to try to take full advantage of it in 2002...

"Democratic Party leaders said Tuesday they will launch an extensive effort to promote and monitor voters' rights on Election Day and will put "thousands" of lawyers in place to respond to voters' complaints.

..."We are not going to stand on the sidelines while a third Florida election is bungled," said Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who exhibited a new toll-free call line that will allow voters to register problems and have their calls logged with local election officials and party workers.

Fox News has more...

Democrats say they'll be monitoring polling places around the country, and especially in Florida, to make sure that all people entitled to vote get to cast their ballots on Nov. 5. Republicans say they'll also be watching for vote fraud.

...The effort will be led by the Democratic National Committee's Voting Rights Institute, led by longtime party activist Donna Brazile. The institute held hearings to gather information about voting rights violations and worked in New Jersey and Virginia to help voters with problems."

Well let's look at what we have here shall we? We have the Democrats monitoring elections across the country, setting up a hotline "that will allow voters to register problems", putting thousands of lawyers in place, and the whole thing is being run by Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign manager.

The general idea here is to win as many elections as possible at the ballot box and then to steal as many elections as possible in the courts. In close races around the country that the Democrats lose, they'll have their lawyers looking for any angle they can use to challenge their loss in court. If necessary, they'll probably even hire telemarketing firms (like they did in Florida) to drum up calls for their new toll-free number. Then they'll hope they can find enough partisan liberal judges who'll be willing to do whatever it takes to help the Democrats win. At that point, we'll be treated to speeches by the likes of Al Gore and Terry McAuliffe about how, "every vote should count" while they try thwart the will of the voters in a court room.

Democrats may make short term gains with these sorts of tactics, but long-term it will hurt their party. Americans don't like sore losers, cheaters or whiners and they detest sleazy lawyers. If the public starts to perceive that the Democrats as a bunch of crybabies who try to get "their judges" to hand them elections they didn't win, there will be a huge backlash against the Dems at the ballot box. There have now been two prominent cases where the Dems have looked that way (Florida and New Jersey). If there are a slew of new Democratic attempts to steal elections in 2002 then I think the Democrats will pay a real price for it in 2004.

The Sooner Arafat Is Dead, The Better: Yossef Bodansky is an expert on Terrorism. Furthermore, he has now written 9 books, was a senior consultant for the US Department of Defense and the US Department of State, & was the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare at the US House of Representatives. So we're not talking about some whacko prone to making bizarre allegations here. The reason I'm noting all of this is because he tells a story in his new book "The High Cost of Peace" that is almost beyond belief....

"During a meeting with [special negotiator Gen. Anthony] Zinni, Arafat made a special request - a personal favor. A police officer from a very important family in Gaza had just been killed at Arafat's compound. It was imperative to get the body to Gaza for proper burial, Arafat pleaded. Zinni requested Jerusalem to make an exception to the siege. Jerusalem consented on April 7-8. However, the PA was not ready to dispatch the body until the evening of April 11 - at about the same time Powell was due to arrive at Ben Gurion Airport.

Exploiting the confusion, the other "medic" was to run to the limousine, try to get in, and blow himself up either inside the limousine or pressed against its exterior"

Even before I read this story I would have told you that as far as I'm concerned, the sooner Arafat is dead the better. But if this story turns out to be legitimate, I question why we haven't made Arafat have an "accident." No foreigner who orders the assassination of an American politician should be allowed to continue breathing. Allowing Saddam to live after trying to assassinate Bush 41 was a big mistake and if this story is true, allowing Arafat to live was the wrong thing to do.

The DC Sniper Attacks -- Terrorist Or Serial Killer?: There has been a lot of speculation in the Blogosphere about whether the attacks in DC have been committed by terrorists (Islamic or white supremacist) or by what we traditionally think of as a 'serial killer'.

At first, I was leaning towards the former but a couple of things have changed my mind. To begin with, the police have come across their first significant clue in the case...

"The killer left a calling card. It was found not far from where a 13-year-old boy was shot and critically wounded Monday morning at Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie, Maryland.

Law enforcement sources say there was a message scribbled on the card. It read; 'Dear Policeman, I am God.'

The message on the card would of course lead one to believe that we're dealing some sort of serial killer rather than a terrorist. On the other hand, could the killer simply be trying to throw the police off the trail? That's always a possibility but do keep in mind that there have been other serial killers who have used sniper attacks.

To be honest, although I have a psych degree and have read quite a bit about serial killers, before tonight I couldn't name a serial killer who extensively used sniper attacks. Sure, Richard Chase did a couple of 'drive-bys' but that's not really the same thing. I also remembered that Charles Whitman killed 14 people in a sniper attack back in 1966 but he was a mass murderer, not a serial killer and his motivations wouldn't be the same as this killer.

But I did a little research and I turned up at least two serial killers who used "sniper attacks" (although there may be more. Back in 1994, the 'Suffolk Sniper' killed one person and attempted to kill two others in what appear to be random sniper attacks. Because of the low body count it's not surprising that I hadn't heard of that case.

However, Jospeh P. Franklin is another matter. He may have killed as many as 15 people, some of them via sniper attacks (incidentally, he also claims to be the man who shot and crippled Larry Flynt. He said he was angry that Flynt was showing interracial sex scenes in Hustler.)

So while this killer's sniper attacks are definitely unusual, they're not unprecedented. If and when we catch the sniper, we'll learn more about their past and that'll give us a clearer picture of their motivations. But until then, I'm going on the theory that this is a serial killer, not a terrorist.

Harry Belafonte Vs. Colin Powell: I am not the biggest fan in the world of Colin Powell but I thought Harry Belfonte's latest comments went beyond the pale...

"There's an old saying," Belafonte began. "In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.

"Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

Who thinks this way any more? Is there anyone who believes that your race should determine your political convictions (which is essentially what Belafonte is saying) other than the NAACP, the KKK, the Nazi Party, and their ilk?

In fact, you know what Belafonte's comments really remind me of? Tribalism in backwards nations like Bosnia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan where you might hear someone say something like, "How dare you side with that filthy Pushtun instead of another Tajik?"

Furthermore, who is Harry Belafonte to criticize Colin Powell as some kind of 'house n*gger' after everything Powell has done in his life? Colin Powell is the son of an immigrant who received a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star in Vietnam, became the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped plan out the Gulf War, and became the first black Secretary of State. Powell is not only one of the most powerful men in the world, he's one of the most of the most popular politicians on the planet.

On the other hand, Harry Belafonte is best known for singing "Banana Boat (Day-O)" in 1956 (whoop-de-do). In the game of life, Belafonte couldn't carry Colin Powell's jock strap and he should keep that in mind while he's comparing a man who has accomplished what Powell has to a slave 'who lived on the plantation.'

Do Conservatives Listen To Music When They're Eating Endangered Species?: I was inspired by an article I read yesterday called "Southpark Republicans" to talk a little bit about the TV shows I watch and the music I listen to.

First off, I don't watch a lot of TV. But when I do watch TV, for whatever reason I tend to watch shows that most people think of as "low brow" fare. My faves are Southpark, The Simpsons, any of the Star Trek series, Carolina Panthers Football, and Professional Wrestling.

I suppose that's sort of odd when you think about it. I mean it's not unusual for me to go from reading Sean Hannity's 'Let Freedom Ring' (which is what I'm currently reading), to writing about the policy implications of 'pre-emption' vs 'containment', to flipping on the TV so I can watch Bubba Ray Dudley hit someone in the mouth with a chair before putting them through a table.

Then there's my taste in music. I grew up listening to gangster rap like the Geto Boys and NWA when I was a kid and I later switched over 'alternative' bands like the Cure, the Violent Femmes, & the Smiths along with heavy metal bands like Twisted Sister. Currently my favorite band is the Insane Clown Posse -- which is one of the most violent and obscene bands you're ever going to hear.

In order, my favorite 20 songs of all time....

20) Type O Negative -- Black #1
19) The Cure -- Strange Attraction
18) Geto Boys -- Gangster Of Love
17) Leanne Womack -- I Hope You Dance
16) New Order -- True Faith
15) Modern English -- Melt With You
14) Motorhead -- It's All About The Game
13) Nixons -- Sister
12) Quiet Riot -- Cum on Feel The Noize
11) Kid Rock -- I Am The BullGod
10) AC/DC -- Back In Black
9) Donna Lewis -- I Love You Always Forever
8) Insane Clown Posse -- Under The Moon
7) Loverboy -- Lovin' Every Minute Of It
6) Berlin -- Take My Breath Away
5) Rage Against The Machine -- Bulls on Parade
4) Nine Inch Nails -- Head Like A Hole
3) Insane Clown Posse -- Hokus Pokus
2) The Cure -- Just Like Heaven
1) Creed -- My Sacrifice

For any of your planning to download this stuff to listen to what it sounds like, do keep in mind that some of these songs are obscene -- don't say I didn't warn ya...

The Aliens Are Coming And The UN Is In Charge?: As usual, the Weekly World News has scooped everyone with news of a pending alien invasion. That's right -- ET is back with 60 billion of his little buddies and they're ready to take us out...

"A powerful race of space aliens has returned to Earth after thousands of years - and they want their planet back!

It's the alarming word from U.N. sources who say that extraterrestrials have told them they originated on Earth - and now they've come to reclaim their birth world."

Great, we're about to be overrun by 60 billion "space tourists." On the upside, all the hotels will be booked, the restaurants will be full, and we'll sell billions of T-shirts that say, "I went to Earth and all I got was this stupid T-shirt". On the other hand, they may view vacationing the same way the Mongols did, "Hello Mr. Kahn, would you like to buy a...hey be careful with that torch...why did you set my house on fire...what are you doing with that sword...aieiieieieieieieie!"

The article goes on to explain why we have to let the aliens take over -- it's reasoning that I'm sure Kofi Annan would heartily approve of...

"Besides, international law happens to be on their side. This was their planet first. If they really want to reclaim Earth, they're entitled to it."

If you thought the news was bad -- it's about to get worse. The aliens are environmental whackos. Yes, we're about to be invaded by 60 billion tree hugging, frog licking, granola eating, bicycle riding greenies....

"They see how we've polluted their homeland, and it ticks them off," said the U.N. source. "According to the Xor 'ke Ber, their home world was once a paradise like the Garden of Eden - now it's covered with billboards and factories. In their view, we've ruined it.

"When they land, they plan to raze our cities and return Earth to its former pastoral beauty."

Last but not least, look at the moronic way that the UN wants to deal with the problem...

"According to a tentative plan being hammered out by the U.N., Earth will be divided, with the more-populous aliens getting North and South America, Asia, Europe and Antarctica, and humans resettled in Africa and Australia. If all goes according to schedule, the mass exodus could begin by 2008."

How in the world did they pick Africa and Australia?!?!? Did they figure all the poisonous snakes would scare the aliens away? The fictional UN in this story is just as dumb as the UN is in real life. But why would we just surrender anyway? Anyone who's ever watched movies knows that all aliens have some sort of fatal weakness we can take advantage of. Either water is like acid to them, or Slim Whitman records kill them, or they'll become vulnerable when their shields drop after their "mothership" is destroyed by a virus. One way or the other -- humanity will prevail just like we did in all those Star Trek episodes!!!

The Best Of The Blogosphere: Right Wing News contacted 22 bloggers and asked them to rank their favorite blogs from one to ten. After reviewing the responses, we came up with the top 15 blogs on the net -- the best of the blogosphere. If you're looking for some more great blogs to read daily then today is your lucky day...

'Baghdad' Jim's Rampage Continues: Fresh off of doing his best to prop up the regime of psychopathic dictator Saddam Hussein, "Baghdad" Jim McDermott is back and sounding loonier than some of the people in our ACPOTI section...

"And what we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not....This president is trying to bring to himself all the power to become an emperor - to create Empire America. If you go along like sheep that is what will happen....People that I trust say if we don't derail this coup that is going on, we are going to wind up with a government run by the president of the United States and all the rest of us will be standing around just watching it happen"

Keep in mind that the person claiming that Bush is going take over America in a "bloodless coup" and create an 'empire' is not an 18 year old college student who has been brainwashed by Noam Chomsky, but a US CONGRESSMAN.

The reply to this lunacy by State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance was pretty good however, "If President Bush is engaged in a coup then his co-conspirators are Richard Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman."

That was too funny....but wait, there's more from 'Baghdad' Jim...

"One of the dilemmas we've had since 9/11 is that this country has been continuously terrorized by the government. Every week they announce a new threat. Today is a code orange. Today is a code red."

Notice that he doesn't think it's the TERRORISTS who are terrorizing us, it's the BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

So here we have a US Congressman who's apparently not the least bit worried about Saddam or terrorists, but who's terrified of the Bush administration. Again, you just have to wonder which side this guy is on. Moreover, is someone with this sort of tenuous grip on reality fit to be a Congressman? Out of the 250 million + people in the US, can't the Democrats find one who's more qualified to be a Congressman than this guy?

Analysis Of Bush's Speech: I now understand why none of the networks covered Bush's speech -- there really wasn't anything new in it. However, Bush did do something important that I think the anti-war crowd has thus far been largely unable to do. He mentioned several of the arguments against the war and he didn't dodge them, he didn't dance around them, he didn't ignore them, he knocked them down rather effectively using many of the same arguments we've been hearing from the right-wing for months.

Furthermore, I liked the intellectual consistency of the speech. He made reference to something he said back in his big 9/20/2001 speech and he hit the highlights from his 9/12/2002 speech to the UN. In short, Bush was showing that he's consistent, methodical, and determined to back up what he's been saying since 9/11. In fact, this speech made me hearken back to the 9/20/2001 speech when he said,

"Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail."

Slowly but surely, Bush is wearing down all opposition. Probably by the end of this week he'll have his resolution from Congress. Then within a month or so (tops) he should have an acceptable resolution from the UN Security Council. Either they'll give W. something he can live with or he'll just do it without them. That political reality was reflected in his speech tonight. No smoking guns, no theatrics, just keeping the momentum going, that was what this speech was designed to do.

Forget Iraq -- Let's Harass Turkey: If you want to see the duplicitous nature of what passes for foreign policy advice on the left these days you need look no further than this editorial from the New York Times.

The Times seems to be suggesting that we deliberately alienate all of our unsavory allies in the Middle-East by slamming Democracy down their throat. They focus on Turkey (the most Democratic nation in the region other than Israel) and also mention "Pakistan, Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain and Egypt."

They even go so far as to suggest that invading Iraq while Turkey isn't as Democratic as the Times would like it to be is, "most striking example of Washington's hypocrisy." Furthermore, in the closing paragraph the Times says, "If the Bush administration is prepared to send Americans into combat to advance the cause of democracy in Iraq surely it can press harder for reform in countries where democracy can be promoted in far less costly ways."

First off, we're not going into Iraq "to advance the cause of democracy." We're going to remove Saddam from power because he's a threat to the lives of millions of US citizens. Afterwards, because we're benevolent people and because we believe Democracy will benefit the people of Iraq (and us in the long-run), we will do our best to get a working Democracy going in Iraq.

So why is the NYT deliberately misinterpreting the reason the Bush administration wants to invade Iraq? Because it allows them to suggest a course of action that "sounds good" (even if it accomplishes nothing). This allows the NYT to sit around and pat themselves on the back for plugging Democracy -- even as they oppose an invasion that would actually bring Democracy to Iraq.

If the best the left can come up with in the middle of the 'war on terrorism' is, 'harass Turkey until they become more Democratic,' is it any wonder that most Americans don't feel that they can trust the left when American lives are on the line?

Go Condi Go: Condi Rice had a lot of brilliant things to say in this speech and I thought they deserved to be read by a wider audience. Do you want to know why we're going to hit Iraq? Condi explains it for you and also makes it clear that Iraq may be the next nation we're going to hit but they're not going to be the last one...

"In fighting global terror, we will work with coalition partners on every continent, using every tool in our arsenal - from diplomacy and better defenses to law enforcement, intelligence, cutting off terrorist financing and, if needed, military power.

These are different faces of the same evil. Terrorists need a place to plot, train and organize. Tyrants allied with terrorists can greatly extend the reach of their deadly mischief. Terrorists allied with tyrants can acquire technologies allowing them to murder on an ever more massive scale. Each threat magnifies the danger of the other. And the only path to safety is to effectively confront both terrorists and tyrants."

Condi also smacks down the idea that we're going to be constantly hitting other nations pre-emptively or reshaping the entire Middle East to our liking as some have claimed...

"Pre-emption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, "If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense." The United States has long affirmed the right to anticipatory self-defense - from the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula in 1994.

...We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves. Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe - and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions."

There's more in the speech so make sure to check it all out here.

I'm Starting To Wonder If There's Any Atrocity I Don't Think Bush Capable Of: I usually don't like to feature the same message boards twice in a row in the ACPOTI section but the Democratic Underground Forums made it irresistible. A French tanker was apparently hit by a boat loaded with explosives this week-end just off the coast of Yemen (I say apparently because this hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist attack yet).

Since a "boat bomb" also hit the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, the average person would probably guess that Al-Queda or some other terrorist group was responsible. But the Democratic Underground knows who's really responsible for this terrorist attack -- George W. Bush! These loons at the Democratic Underground make the conspiracy theorists from the Middle-East who think the Mossad is behind everything look sane by comparison...