French President Jacques Chirac expresses surprise at a reporter's question about Iran's nuclear program
I am running out of English language adjectives to describe what a dirty rotten, low-down, double-crossing, two-timing, floor four-flushing, loutish galoot French President Jacques Chirac is. And since there really are no nasty sounding adjectives that I could use in French (a beautiful language, music to the ear), Im going to try some in German:
Chirac ist ein Schurke.
(Chirac is a scoundrel.)
Der französische Präsident hat das Gesicht eines Kojoten.
(The French President has the face of a coyote.)
Ich habe Schildkröten als altes Jacques besser schauen gesehen.
(Ive seen better looking turtles than old Jacques.)
Thank God for the Anglo Saxons. Theres something marvelously guttural about the German language, alternately spitting and swallowing words. Its the perfect language to express the absolute and utter disdain I feel for the French President at this moment.
What has our wussy friend done now? Oh, nothing much. Just undermined the position of the United Nations Security Council, the United States, the European Union, and anyone else trying to get Iran to stop enriching uranium. In what only can be described as a towering conceit born of a false sense of French superiority in diplomatic affairs, the weasel has offered to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium until formal negotiations begin:
In an effort to jump-start formal negotiations between six world powers and Iran over its nuclear program, President Jacques Chirac of France suggested Monday that Iran would not have to freeze major nuclear activities until the talks began.
Over the years, Mr. Chirac has consistently taken an extremely hard line against Iran both in public and private. But his remarks in a radio interview could be interpreted as a concession to Iran, whose officials have said they will not suspend their production of enriched uranium as demanded by the United Nations Security Council.
Iran and the six countries together, we must first find an agenda for negotiations, then start a negotiation, Mr. Chirac told Europe 1 radio. During this negotiation I propose that on the one hand, the six refrain from referring the issue to the Security Council, and that Iran refrain from uranium enrichment during the duration of the negotiation.
Anyone want to guess how long it will take to find that elusive agenda that Chirac says is necessary to come up with before formal negotiations begin? As long as the Iranians will be able to continue to work toward building a bomb, it may take years to come to an agreement.
Is that the extent of Chiracs perfidy? Hardly:
Ahead of what is now certain to be a contentious meeting with President Bush today, President Chirac of France reneged on his previous support for a united international approach to halting Irans nuclear program.
In two interviews on the eve of his trip to Turtle Bay to attend the U.N. General Assembly, Mr. Chirac threatened to restart negotiations with Iran. His comments called into question the united position of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, whose foreign ministers had said that unless Iran suspended enrichment by the end of August, the council would consider punitive measures.
I dont believe in a solution without dialogue, Mr. Chirac told Europe 1 radio. We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations.
The French president added, I suggest that the six renounce referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations, according to an Associated Press translation.
(HT: Malkin)
Not even the insufferable DeGaulle would have pulled something like this. Chiracs contempt for his European partners and his intense dislike of America could end up burying us all unless someone takes him down a peg or two. Unfortunately, were stuck with the lickspittle for at least another 7 months. Elections are scheduled for next year at which time it is possible Anglo-French relations could take a turn for the better.
One of the candidates on the right is Nicolas Sarkozy. He has expressed a strong desire to improve relations with the United States, even going so far as to say nice things about America both in France and here during a recent visit. Of course, that wont erase the virulent strain of anti-Americanism among ordinary Frenchmen especially those on the left. And the far right, with their hyper-patriotic notions of the French nation as a world power (not to mention being ferocious guardians of French culture and language that they feel is under constant attack by us yanks) looks at America with suspicion.
Where France does exercise world class clout is among the so-called non-aligned nations. And with the French wavering on sanctions against the Iranians, members from that bloc may be getting cold feet:
But though the steering group appeared to be diverging yesterday, with some nations calling for more dialogue and others urging a more muscular stance, there were also indications it could expand.
With Mr. Chiracs remarks, France joins China and Russia, whose officials have expressed strong reservations about imposing sanctions, making a Security Council decision on punishing Iran unlikely. We, too, dont like sanctions, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters at Turtle Bay yesterday.
Bush administration officials, as well as British diplomats, indicated Mr. Chiracs change of tack was not part of a coordinated new strategy for the international group. The American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told reporters that the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, did not even bother to explain his countrys decisions to council members.
The discussions with Iran appear to have come to a stop, in the sense that Mr. Larijani, whom we expected in New York, is not here, Mr. Bolton said. We are now 18 days, by my calculation, after the August 31 deadline. Our position remains unchanged: Unless there is a full and verifiable suspension of uranium enrichment activities, we will seek sanctions in the Security Council.
Leave it to Bolton to remind the UN of its responsibility. The idea that the Democrats refuse to confirm this guy is just incomprehensible to me. He has been a breath of fresh air not only representing Americas interests very well but also in his advocacy for making the United Nations Security Council into a serious body that serves the cause of peace rather than the laughingstock of thugs and dictators that it currently is.
Iran is still on the agenda at the Security Council. I hope that Bolton can hold them together long enough so that at least a formal vote can be taken on sanctions in order to reveal who is standing in the way of putting pressure on the Iranians to halt their drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
And at the head of the pack of betrayers and renegers; Jacques Chirac. Perhaps we can impose on Ahmadinejad to have his picture taken kissing the French President on the cheek. Thanks to the weasel Chirac, hes already gotten his 30 pieces of silver.
UPDATE
Commenter John points out that the correct adjective is four-flusher not floor-flusher that I had originally. Must brush up on my poker nomenclature.
Also, I couldnt resist. Two commenters have mentioned the perfect epithet to call Chirac: Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey. Here it is in German (courtesy Alta-Vista):
#1
So what does Johhny Kerry say? This must be Bush's fault, right? Why, if JF'inK was the pres, old jacques would be eating out of his hand by now.
Diplomacy. In a pig's eye.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/20/2006 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
a dirty rotten, low-down, double-crossing, two-timing, floor four-flushing, loutish galoot . . . Chirac ist ein Schurke. . . . Der französische Präsident hat das Gesicht eines Kojoten. . . . Ich habe Schildkröten als altes Jacques besser schauen gesehen.
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think!
Posted by: Mike ||
09/20/2006 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So, would it be torture of Chirac was thrown nude into a cage full of minks?
Washington, D.C. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bushs speech at the United Nations in New York:
It is one thing to give a speech about promoting peace, freedom, and democracy in broad, general terms as President Bush did at the United Nations today. It is another to commit to doing the hard work of diplomacy on a daily basis to resolve matters such as Irans nuclear ambitions, Syrias support for Hezbollah, and the issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.
The Presidents words need to be matched by sustained diplomatic engagement with our allies, and directly with our adversaries when necessary not just when elections are near, but all the time. Mr. Bushs rhetoric must be matched by policies that are well devised and competently implemented unlike the policies that have made the United States less safe, such as the war in Iraq or the failure to finish the fight against terrorists in Afghanistan.
Boy, that Pelosi sure is a smart one, getting her digs at Dubya in just ahead of Ahmedinejad and Assad.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/20/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Pelosi spewed it, I can give you my reaction without even reading it:
Yadda yadda yadda.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/20/2006 0:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'll bet she has a "plan", a "better way". All very non-specific, of course...
Except for that Iraq cut 'n run thing - they're sorta pat on the idea, just not on the timetable - each asshole has a different notion of when they'd like it to fail.
But all in all, undoubtedly all of the Dhimmi ideas are superior, just a bit fuzzy on the details, costs, and that logic stuff.
All Hail Speaker Pelosi! I can hardly wait nor contain myself!
#3
The Presidents words need to be matched by sustained diplomatic engagement with our allies, and directly with our adversaries when necessary
Big clue: "[D]iplomatic engagement" does not fucking work, that is, unless you want to play an endless game of circle jerk. See Iran if you have any doubts. The only productive way of dealing "directly with our adversaries" has been to go in and kick their Islamic ass until it bleeds. Any questions?
#4
Sure thing, honey. It's real easy to do the "hard work of diplomacy on a daily basis" when the other side refuses to talk, walks out on talks, and just flat out lies.
And I thought Reid was the stupid one in the Democrat party....sheesh.
#7
Actually, for a Democrat, it's remarkably restrained. I'd half expected her to go full-DU on us and call for the Security Council to impose sanctions on mankind's real enemy, the Bushitler regime.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/20/2006 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"...sustained diplomatic engagement with our allies..."
What is with these people???? Just what do they think that the Euros have been doing with Iran for the last 3-4 years????
Like Chirac, Pelosi thinks sustained and infinite are synonyms. Shit or get off the pot seems to be an alien concept to them.
Richard Durbin should be relieved. Last year, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat compared U.S. treatment of an accused al Qaeda terrorist to that accorded to prisoners in the Soviet gulags, the Nazi concentration camps and Pol Pot's killing fields.
Guantanamo Bay lacked ample amenities to satisfy Illinois' No. 1 bleeding heart. The Dickster may take comfort in what three of his colleagues who visited the detention camp last week found.
As reported by Fox News, the senators were satisfied with their inspection. Inmates have access to a pharmacy, an operating room and a dentist. Five thousand vaccinations have been provided, as well as 22 prosthetic limbs. Almost 300 operations have been have been performed on prisoners.
One interrogation room the senators saw included a La-Z-Boy recliner. This isn't for camp personnel. It's for detainees being questioned.
Fox News didn't mention if prisoners can send out to Starbucks for a latte, but maybe Durbin and his ideological soul mate Kennedy will sponsor legislation mandating that.
Last year Durbin complained about the air conditioning being adjusted to too cold or too hot for the prisoners. He also grumbled about loud rap music played at them.
Those methods are a continuing affront to liberal sensibilities. Just last week, the New York Times wrote of the 2002 apprehension of a bin Laden "henchman." The article noted the terrorist was "subjected to coercive interrogation techniques - he was stripped, held in an icy room and jarred by earsplittingly loud music..."
Former KGB operative Vladimir Putin would laugh to hear those depicted as coercive interrogation techniques. Compared to his Communist predecessors and their Nazi counterparts, Putin's own KGB was running a spa. And his organization didn't even provide comfy chairs and dental care.
It's probable that a few of our military personnel in Guantanamo Bay have sometimes gone too far in their treatment of detainees. That doesn't mean, though, that mistreatment is the norm.
Certainly, there are constant provocations. One of the commanders mentioned that last year guards were pelted with spit, urine or fecal material more than 900 times, or about twice per prisoner. The Associated Press recently reported that fans, shower sandals, radios and parts of toilets and sinks have all been fashioned into weapons to attack guards.
Yet Durbin and other liberals prefer to focus on how the prisoners are treated.
The Fox News report was consistent with earlier ones indicating the detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren't likely to be mistaken for concentration camp victims.
Right around the same time that Durbin started fretting over how we're treating these poor folks obsessed with the thought of killing us, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) held a press conference detailing the many horrors to which the inmates are routinely subjected.
A not atypical meal for them consists of lemon chicken, rice, broccoli, carrots, bread, and two types of fruit.
Prisoners are given prayer rugs and beads. Copies of the Quran are provided in more than a dozen languages.
They have a library. According to a BBC account last month, the library has more than 4,000 books. Harry Potter is a favorite.
Five times a day a prayer call is made over the loud speaker system. Hundreds of directional signs pointing to Mecca are posted. Yellow cones are placed in corridors as a reminder not to disturb prisoners while they're praying.
In July Senator Durbin visited Guantanamo to see for himself what's going on there. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer about a session he observed:
"The interrogator sat down, opened a bag, handed the detainee a Subway sandwich. He lit up, and started eating the sandwich and started talking."
Still Dick is not satisfied. Even after his visit, Durbin wants the facility shut down quickly. He speaks of "the powerful negative image of Guantanamo around the world."
It's too bad that he can't see the powerful negative image of the barbaric terrorists who want to kill us. La-Z-Boys and Subways aren't going to win over their hearts and minds.
Marquis of Queensberry rules simply don't apply. September 11th changed all that.
#3
Even after his visit, Durbin wants the facility shut down quickly. He speaks of "the powerful negative image of Guantanamo around the world."
If it's that much of a fuckin country club, I want it shut down too. Stick 'em all out at Florence so they can stare at the walls all day with Zack.
Either that or feed the sharks...
#4
Alcatraz is just sitting there in SF bay doing nothing. it would be a great place to hold prisoners and the SF nutjobs could circle in boats. it is still a Federal place and it would definately not be a country club.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/20/2006 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
One more worthless bastard Dummocrat. Only reason he doesn't stand out is because of the likes of his buddies Teddy, Reid, Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold, Murtha, et al. This sucker is a real loser. When you consider his compatriot is the superstar Obama, I'd say the Illinois electorate totally had a brain spasm, like California and Massachusetts with the two beauties they keep putting back in. Boggles the mind of any sane voter.
#7
Put them in the general prison population at Marion. If it's good enough for Durbin's constituents, surely it's good enough for genocidal terrorists.
Posted by: ed ||
09/20/2006 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
SOP35, you forget. Even the dead vote in Illinois for the Dems.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/20/2006 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You just know the next step is make each every and all US prisons a Club Med = Med-lite, including Non-Benet's Prawns-and-Steak. Clintonian Socialist Amerika must lead the world by example, ergo America = Amerika is the [only]one whom has to submit, concede, appease and surrender, or else.
We arrive an hour early for choir, because Tuesdays pizza night in the tertiary adjunct church basement annex. (Its a big place.) The kids all watched TV and ate horrible pizza; the moms chatted, the toddlers waddled. Sometimes I chat with the moms, but there wasnt a seat at the table, and I didnt want to make everyone move six hundred pounds of coats and purses, so I went up to the library and got the Klemperer diary. (I hadnt finished it, and when Im at church with time to spare I pick it up.) Ive mentioned this before its a meticulous account of life in Dresden during the Nazi regime, written by a Jewish academic whose Aryan wife kept him from the chimney. The diaries start in the early years of Hitlers rule, and its unutterably depressing; in 1937 the diarist is insisting that the government cannot last, and all the decent people believe it will fall soon. (He survived the war, incidentally; the diaries go to the end.)
I was reading the 1941 passages today. Klemperer had his house confiscated by the state, although he was still obliged to pay for a new roof. He was put in a Jewish Home with his wife. Every month, the noose tightens, and not just for him; shortages are rife, and the planes begin to drone overhead. . . .
An angry man on the radio yesterday insisted that talk radio was part of the fascist control of the media. He was, of course, a barking lunatic, as nuts as the people who were certain Clinton would use Y2K to appoint himself Bubba the First and suspend the Constitution. But if you dial down the rhetoric a little, you find the same overheated sentiments in more mainstream quarters. It reminded me of Keith Olbermann, who, by his own words, is the first person to criticize the current Administration, all other voices of dissent having willingly stifled themselves in accordance with Archie Bunker Act of 2002. The other day he birthed this rich observation:
. . .That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think. Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth. It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.
Yes, indeed. Well, having just read what actual altering and reshaping rights looks like, I am disinclined to panic over the thing made out in the distant horizon via lightning, even if it reveals a world presumably Manhattan, below 150th street in which authority presumably Drinky W. Flyboy, the Resident-in-Chief actually suggests that thinking is unacceptable, and we must hereby rely on our autonomous nervous system.
Hear ye: if ever I announce that the lightning is sending me messages about how the government seeks to control what I think, please have me commited for paranoid schizophrenia.
Then again, its no ordinary lightning flash. It simultaneously reveals not merely a President we have already seen, but one who is preparing to revoke Keith Olbermanns right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a job on a network a lot of people actually watch. Fine; its good red meat, and theres always a market for that. (Insert obligatory Ann Coulter denunciation!) Mr. O has his furrow, and he will spend the next two years shoving the blade in the dirt. He will have fans and nice write-ups and profiles and the rest of the perks that follow when you stake out a particular niche. Just like Art Bell. And just like Art Bell, he will instantly become a footnote the moment something horrible and significant happens, and his nonsense is swamped by things that actually happen, instead of things he believes are actually suggested.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/20/2006 07:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But theres a certain dark jot of damp trouser-front to Olbermanns rhetoric as well, no?
I thought it was because Oberman drools a lot, but it may be that he wets himself too.
Again last week our hopes were raised, only to be dashed once more. OC Northern Command Major General Udi Adam raised our hopes when he resigned his command. Adam, the first of our incompetent leaders to leave his job after mishandling the war against Hizbullah this summer, made us think that perhaps other incompetents in the IDF and the government would follow his example.
Our hopes were also raised later in the week when former IDF chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Ya'alon made public his demand that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and his successor, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, quit or be forced from office due to their mismanagement of the war.
Charging at the heels of Ya'alon's frontal assault were the retired generals. In a meeting with Halutz Friday afternoon the IDF elders, too, told him he must go. And Halutz isn't the only commander who needs to resign.
During the meeting, one of the retired generals read aloud an order of battle authored by Division 91 Commander Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsh, who led much of the ground operation in Lebanon. Hirsh ordered his forces to conduct "a massive infiltration with a small signature, charge, quick deployment in the commanding territories and the creation of cataclysmic contact with the built-up areas while inducing shock and awe."
Got that? While the incoherent order evoked laughter in the audience, as one of the generals commented to Yediot Aharonot: "It is more sad than funny. It sounds like a poem, not an order of battle."
Clearly the IDF is due for a serious house-cleaning. But Halutz, like Olmert and Peretz, refuses to follow Adam's example and go away.
LIKE OLMERT and Peretz, Halutz justifies his refusal to take responsibility for his failure and resign by arguing that letting someone else try to succeed where he failed would be irresponsible. Halutz will fix Halutz's mistakes.
But his investigation of the war's operational and tactical management makes you wonder. Division 91's operations are being reviewed by none other than Brig.-Gen. Hirsh - who has asked to extend his command.
So if Halutz won't quit and his investigations won't solve the problems, then we place our hopes in the newly appointed Winograd Commission, which received a governmental mandate Sunday to investigate the war.
The committee, chaired by a retired judge and manned by a law professor, a political scientist and two retired generals, received a broad mandate for investigation. Not only is it empowered to investigate the conduct of the war and the preparations leading up to the war, it has been mandated to investigate the actions of past governments and IDF General Staffs going back to "the period when Hizbullah first began fortifying itself along the border."
That is, the committee will investigate how successive governments and IDF General Staffs contended with the Hizbullah threat as it grew since the IDF withdrew from Lebanon in May 2000.
It isn't clear what professional qualifications the members of the committee have to judge military and policy blunders. But assuming that its members are competent to fulfill their mandate, is there room for hope that this committee of retirees can fix what needs to be fixed?
Unfortunately, no matter how talented its members may be, the Winograd Commission has no chance of fixing what is broken in the IDF, or in the government. Its failure is preordained by its mandate.
THE OPERATIONAL and tactical failures of the brigade, division and regional commanders in the war did not come out of thin air. They stemmed from a basic strategic misreading of reality which has informed all governments from 1999 until today. That strategic failure does not relate to what Israel did or did not do after the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000.
The strategic error that stands at the root of the latest war, as well as at the root of the war with the Palestinians is the IDF's withdrawal from south Lebanon itself and the erroneous thinking that caused it. By beginning the inquiry into the latest war from the period that followed the withdrawal, the commission, whatever its qualifications, is blocked from investigating the source of the operational and tactical confusion and incompetence that followed.
Israel's withdrawal from south Lebanon was predicated on the unfounded notion that Hizbullah - an Iranian-proxy organization dedicated to the eradication of Israel and the US and the establishment of a global caliphate through jihad - was only fighting Israel because Israel maintained its security zone in south Lebanon. Were we to leave, Hizbullah would magically abandon its core belief, accept Israel and become a political party.
THE IDF and the entire defense establishment completely opposed this militarily and strategically unjustifiable initiative. Yet the notion of embracing surrender as a national security doctrine, spawned circa 1996 by EU-financed Israeli politicians like Yossi Beilin and EU-financed non-profit organizations like Four Mothers, captured the imagination and received the unqualified backing of the radical leftist media, particularly at publicly financed Israel Radio and TV.
And so it was that Ehud Barak, who until Ehud Olmert's ascension to power had no competition for the title "The worst prime minister in Israel's history," scored his greatest "achievement" in the office of prime minister by carrying out the strategically indefensible withdrawal. In so doing he handed the global jihad movement its first strategic victory against the "infidels" since the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Hizbullah, an Iranian-commanded Shi'ite band in the Lebanese backwater, became, overnight, a symbol of Islamic strength. It earned the distinction of being the first Arab army to defeat the Jews.
THE PALESTINIANS made no attempt to hide the fact that it was Hizbullah's victory over Israel that inspired them to begin their jihad against Israel four months later, in September 2000. Hizbullah's victory convinced them that the Jews would run away if you attacked them. Terror, not negotiations was the way to destroy the Zionist entity.
As to Israel, neither the media, which was directly responsible for pressuring Barak to order the withdrawal, nor the Barak and Sharon governments had an interest in questioning the wisdom of the withdrawal from Lebanon.
And so, rather than sound the alarms as Hizbullah overtly armed itself with thousands of rockets and missiles, the government and the media lulled the public into complacency. Any general, politician or commentator who dared to point out that since the withdrawal Hizbullah had been transformed from a tactical nuisance into a strategic threat, was dismissed as a warmonger.
And based on the perceived success of the Lebanon withdrawal, the Sharon-Olmert-Livni government convinced the public that the model ought to be implemented in Gaza and northern Samaria as well.
Olmert insisted that the Winograd Commission investigate the handling of the Hizbullah threat since the withdrawal because he, Halutz and Peretz want to spread the blame as widely as possible. In line with these efforts the three failed leaders are blaming the war on Ya'alon and former defense minister Shaul Mofaz by asking why they did nothing to contend with the growing Hizbullah threat during the years they led the IDF under Ariel Sharon.
BUT HERE we enter the heart of the matter. The moment Israel left Lebanon, the political cost - both domestically and internationally - for contending with the growing threat from Hizbullah was raised exponentially. After bragging about how brilliant we had been to enable Hizbullah to build fortifications adjacent to Metulla and Kiryat Shmona, how could the government have taken action against a few thousand silly missiles? Particularly in light of the media's pro-European pacifism, the reputational cost of striking Hizbullah was too high for politicians to bear.
By propagating its own delusions Israel had maneuvered itself into a position where it could take no preemptive action against Iran's proxy force at its doorstep.
Yet, one may argue, Israel's intelligence capabilities are such that the IDF didn't need to maintain its presence in Lebanon to contend with Hizbullah. Our spies in the Mossad or Military Intelligence or the Shin Bet could have taken on the missile threat through "massive infiltration with a small signature," to quote the poet.
Yet to argue this is to ignore one of the side effects of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. When the IDF pulled out it abandoned the best allies Israel had ever had - the soldiers and officers of the South Lebanese Army, who fought side by side with the IDF for nearly 18 years. After this betrayal it doesn't take a genius to understand the kind of difficulties Israel experienced in finding spies.
It is clear, then, that our irresponsible and incompetent leaders have placed us in a situation where no effective action is being taken to fix what is clearly broken. It is similarly apparent that they wish to lull us again into complacency by investigating everything except the cause of everything. They intend to capture our attention with juicy stories about various generals' malfeasance on the third or 13th day of the war, and so delude us into believing that something is being done.
But the only way for something to be done is for the current leadership to be replaced. The only commission of inquiry that will be capable of clearing out the rot is general elections.
The only way we can remedy our operational and tactical woes is by having leaders who can understand, and are brave enough to correct our strategic mistakes.
Anger over the anger caused by Pope Benedict XVI's quotation from Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus in a recent speech, could lead to a cycle of increasing anger that may only be stopped by the administration of drugs, according to a report we have seen.
Fears are growing that Muslims, already angry over the Pope's comments, could be angered even further when they find out that Catholics had become angered by their anger.
In an attempt to combat the cycle of increasing anger throughout the world, emergency services are preparing for a massive airlift of high blood pressure tablets to various hot spots around the globe. Teams of experts in 'calming' neck massages are also being told they should be ready to be flown out to anger hot spots at short notice.
But high blood pressure tablets and neck rubs may not be enough, according to a spokesman for High Blood Pressure Paramedics: "It's a vicious cycle and it's difficult to see how it can be resolved without a few deep breaths and maybe a nice cup of tea together."
-x-x-x-
theVoiceofReason.com has carefully gathered together the headlines from a number of blogs from around the world:
Didn't God Give Us Different Languages So We Could Talk About Other People Without Them Understanding What We Say? How Many Muslims Speak Italian Anyway? (Catholic Translation Today)
100 Other Things The Pope Should Never Have Said (Muslim World)
Why The Pope Was Wrong (Protestant Now)
Now That The Pope Has Said What He Said, Should We Expect Another Spanish Inquisition? (Monty Python Today)
What If The Pope Had Never Said What He Said? (What If Magazine)
Oi, Pope, NO! (Tabloid Today)
Who Is This God Person Anyway? (Existentialism Now, Incorporating Douglas Adams Daily)
#2
"Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/20/2006 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
It is clear from the events of the last week that dhimmitude is here right now.
Id never had much time for Oriana Fallaci, the outrageous Italian interviewer and journalist, but appreciated her diatribes against Islam in the years since 9/11, and wrinkled my nose on learning that she was being sued for insulting the faith. But the head of the Italian journalists union marked her death last week by saying that she was a
great, courageous and scrupulous journalist but also an intellectual whose most recent views were unacceptable and in many respects dangerous.
What can you call that but dhimmitude?
Then there is the flap over the Popes remarks at the University of Regensburg.
The Christian God is a reasonable God, he asserts, the Word made flesh. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, independent of reason or anything else. Then he headed off into a learned apology for the Christian God, the union of the Hebrew prophetic tradition and the Hellenistic logos.
Since it is merely a couple of weeks since two Fox News staffers were kidnapped and forced to convert to Islamwithout a peep of outrage from the moderate Muslim communityId say that it was the Popes duty to raise the question of jihad with the Muslim world. If the head of the Catholic Church wont do it who will?
But the international media was united in condemning the Popes remarks as a gaffe, an insult to Islam. And now the Pope says he is sorry for the way people reacted, if not for what he said.
That was when the scales fell off my eyes. Whats all the fuss?
In fact, we have the same system here in the United States. Call it liberal dhimmitude. Every conservative lives under its oppressive yoke.
Disagree with the liberal line and you better expect to be attacked and humiliated. Thats how the system works.
The progressive left stirs up a conflict and blames the international middle class. Maybe its Marx blaming the bourgeoisie for the subsistence wages of the industrial working class. Maybe its Lenin claiming that every European is an imperialist. Maybe its liberals dividing black and white in the United States with racial quotas, or declaring upper-middle-class women the victim of the male of the species.
Now liberals are united in protecting Muslims from insult and tossing away our tradition of free speech. The only thing that matters is to make westernersor Christians, or Americanstake the blame, to make them into dhimmi, second-class citizens afraid to stand up for the Christian God, the rule of law, and the bounty of the market.
If you read the Popes speech at Regensburg carefully you can appreciate the radicalism of the Christian message. The idea that God is a rational God, who invites us to discover His nature through an exploration of reason, is radical. It makes the claim that, in the end, we will find out that the universe makes sense.
It is the same claim that western science makes, that we can understand the universe by discovering its laws. Both Christianity and science are grounded in the same faith, that there are indeed laws that describe the universe.
But Islam and western postmodernism make a different claim. For them there is no In the beginning was the Word, the logos of reason.
There is only power: divine power or secular power.
The Chinese have a different take on the modern world. According to David Aikman in the book Jesus in Beijing, the Chinese have been wondering for generations what it is about the west that makes it so powerful. Now Dr. Wu of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says that they have found us out.
In the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful.
That is also what Pope Benedict XVI is saying in different words.
#4
Compared to MADONNA + Divine Power, SECULAR-MATERIAL POWER IS NO POWER AT ALL. Nice to have to pay the bills but won't stop Gabriel's Sword worth a spit.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Richard Durbin should be relieved. Last year, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat compared U.S. treatment of an accused al Qaeda terrorist to that accorded to prisoners in the Soviet gulags, the Nazi concentration camps and Pol Pot's killing fields. 
