Thursday, December 06, 2007

Well Worth Reading...


Here are a few worthwhile tidbits from the blogosphere for Joshua's Army members:


  • Democracy Worked In Russia And Venezuela by Ralph Peters, someone longtime Joshua's Army members are familiar with. Peters examines the votes in Venezuela and in Russia and concludes that democracy worked in both places, even if the Russians used it to vote against their freedom. Peters also looks at why, with a superb analysis of the Russian national character ...







Enjoy...

Romney On Faith

GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney finally gave `the speech' today, addressing the controversy over his Mormon beliefs.His hand was obviously forced by Mike Huckabee's rise in the polls in Iowa,and Huckabee's sly sidestep when asked in an interview for his views on the matter.



The location of the speech was interesting in that it was given in College Station,Texas rather than in Iowa, at the George H.W.Bush Presidential library, and that Romney was introduced by the ex-president..which may possibly indicate that the Bushes (including the one currently occupying the White House) have tacitly endorsed a candidate.

The speech was well crafted, and well delivered; Romney had a few things on his mind and decided it was time to open up. It was obviously intended to imitate John F. Kennedy's famous speech on his Catholic faith.

As such, it was successful,if a bit obviously over rehearsed..but perhaps unlikely to change many preconceived minds in my view. If someone distrusts and dislikes Mormons, this speech is unlikely to reassure them.

I'll admit, myself to a bit of bias on Mormons....most of the ones I meet, I rather like.

In my particular part of the world, there happen to be a number of Mormons, who I value as friends and neighbors. I admire their community spirit, their self-reliance, their self-discipline and the importance many of them give to living their spiritual values. Having read the Book of Mormon, and explored their beliefs,I can't imagine why Romney's faith is as big an issue as it appears to be.

And Romney was entirely right to remind us that there is no test of faith to hold office in America.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

More On The Iran NIE...Disinformation From Iran?


Intel and terrorism expert Kenneth Timmerman has an illuminating article that examines the background of the men who created the NIE.

His conclusion is that the report is a product of Iranian disinformation:

"..Washington has fallen for “a deliberate disinformation campaign” cooked up by the Revolutionary Guards, who laundered fake information and fed it to the United States through Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers posing as senior diplomats in Europe.

{..}The National Intelligence Council, which produced the NIE, is chaired by Thomas Fingar, “a State Department intelligence analyst with no known overseas experience who briefly headed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research {..}

Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations. As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in "Shadow Warriors." ( Timmerman's book -ff).

Collaborating with Fingar on the Iran estimate, released on Monday, were Kenneth Brill, the director of the National Counterproliferation Center, and Vann H. Van Diepen, the National Intelligence officer for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Proliferation.

“Van Diepen was an enormous problem,” a former colleague of his from the State Department told me when I was fact gathering for "Shadow Warriors."

“He was insubordinate, hated WMD sanctions, and strived not to implement them,” even though it was his specific responsibility at State to do so, the former colleague told me.

Kenneth Brill, also a career foreign service officer, had been the U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in 2003-2004 before he was forced into retirement.

"Shadow Warrior" reports, “While in Vienna, Brill consistently failed to confront Iran once its clandestine nuclear weapons program was exposed in February 2003.."


While Mr. Timmerman is undoubtedly spot on about the background and motivations of these people and that the report is highly dubious, my take is slightly different.I think the Bush Administration wanted a face saving way of backing off from a confrontation with Iran and was sending a message to Tehran that the US military option was off the table.After all, the president picked these men himself.

The president by this time has realized that he is unlikely to get significant support for a military attack on Iran from any of our allies, that the Saudis, the Gulf States and the Chinese (all of whom also have considerable leverage on our economy) oppose it, and that he was perhaps unwilling or unable to deal with the political firestorm that would develop from a war with Iran this close to his retirement.

I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that the president has decided to let Iran be the next administration's problem, while he runs out the clock letting the State Department fiddle with various diplomatic gambits.

The Israelis will likely feel like they've been hung out to dry, and with good reason, although the president may actually be calculating that the Israelis,facing an existential threat my do the job on Iran for him and spare him the political fallout.

This decision of the president's likewise makes it more difficult for any GOP candidate running in `08 to make the case to the American people on security, national defense and terrorism issues..but then, the president has never been overly concerned about the effects of his actions on his fellow Republicans.

Watcher's Council Nominations, 12/05/07




Every week, the Watcher's Council members nominate two posts each, one from the Council members and one from outside for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week's Council nominations can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of Weasels


Do take the time and check out the non-Council links..they are always rewarding.

Council News: We have a new member this week, Wolf Howling. Aside from the fact that I love the name of the site ( reminds me of one of my all time fave singers) he has some killer content and will no doubt be a welcome edition to the Council. Check him out!



Now, here's this week's Council lineup....

1. JOSHUAPUNDIT: Bush Signals Iran: US Military Option Off The Table The new NIE on Iran took a lot of people by surprise, although it's been obvious to me that the president was leaning this way for some time. While many on the right are claiming `disinformation' or State Department perfidies, they forget that the president picked these men himself and chose to release it at this time...and it was obviously a direct message to Iran and others. I analyze why the `good news' on the report is highly unlikely, and what may have been behind the president's decision, and the likely fallout.


2. Done With Mirrors:The Greatest Generation Callimachus pays tribute to the Greatest generation in a frequently overlooked area..bureaucrats and administrators.To get a birds' eye view, I suggest a reading of General Eisenhower's `Crusade in Europe' or Manchester's `American Caesar' on Douglas MacArthur, with particular emphasis on his stewardship of Japan.

3. Soccer Dad: Hard Cell This week Soccer Dad has a great post on a distinctly unreported story - the advance in stem cell research that shows that the use of embryonic stem cells is unnecessary. He recalls the hoo hah over the issue during the `04 campaign, and Presidetn Bush's stand on the issue, for which he was roundly vilified.

4. The Glittering Eye: The Politics of Immigration Dave looks at the immigration issue an dhas some modest proposals. I would quibble with his take on it in a number of aspects. First of all, we are not speaking of `immigrants' but illegal aliens. That's an important distinction. And the earlier wave he sites was much less of a percentage than the flood from Mexico and points south, there were massive incentives for immigrants to learn English and assimilate that aren't being used today, and most importantly, there's a national security aspect that exists today that didn't exist when most immigration was controlled. I'm hardly anti-immigrant, but the illegal alien issue is is not something that will gradually `evolve' into a manageable problem without effective action.

5. Bookworm Room: Two Different Worlds Ah, the Red and Blue divide... Ms. Bookworm looks at it from the inside and relates how she copes, and also has some interesting things to say about how where we get our information effects our perception.

6. Rhymes With Right:Joe Biden: I Don't Know Sh!t about the Constitution Greg has a fair amount of disdain for Senator and presidential wanna-be Joe Biden and points out, quite correctly, that he doesn't know beans about the Constitution or its separation of powers...

7.Colossus of Rhodey:The Illegal Immigration Debate: Why You Can't Mix Religion With Politics Hube also looks at the illegal alien problem ( why do people refer to them as `immigrants'?) and takes to task a Franciscan priest who odiously compared them with Rosa Parks and Anne Frank.
As Hube points out, Rosa Parks was a legal citizen. And given the response of a significant number of Catholics during the Holocaust, particularly in Eastern Europe, Germany and France, I don't think a Catholic priest bringing up Anne Frank is exactly wise, aside from the fact that she and her family were hiding from genocidal murderers and not illegal aliens.

8. Cheat Seeking Missiles:FBI Rebuts CAIR Scare Tactics Here, Laer writes a fine post on the FBI 's debunking of CAIR's whining about `Islamophobia'. It seems that the numbers show that the minnions at CAIR are wildly exaggerating the number of incidents involving attacks on Muslims, just as they wildly exaggerated the number of Muslims living in America.

9. The Education Wonks:The Teddy Bear That Blasphemed EdWonk's piece this week concerns Gillian Gibbons who was jailed and threatened with lashes and execution by the practitioners of the Religion of Peace for letting her class of seven-year-olds name a teddy bear `muhammed'.

10. Right Wing Nuthouse: If The Huck Wins, The Right Loses Rick has a number of things to say about Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who reminds me of no one so much as Jimmy Carter in his approach in a number of areas.

11. Big Lizards: Bored Now - Turn The Page Dafydd uses John Murtha's mea culpa over the Iraq as a springboard for a piece on how the Democrats are now trying to feverishly distance themselves from Iraq as a campaign issue. If President Bush cares to, now would be the time to relentlessly and forcibly hammer the Dems to do the right thing and stop obstructing the funding for our troops in harm's way...but I digress.

12. Wolf Howling: Of Islamist Foxes, British Chickens For Wolf Howling's debut, he has a fine post of the utter dhimmitude of Britain's Labour government in the face of Islamism at home, and an examination of the recent decision to put some Islamist foxes in charge of Britain's Muslim hen house,hence the title.

That's this week's lineup..enjoy!

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

The Story Of Hanukah


Several of the members of Joshua's Army have requested some background on the story of Hanukkah. Here goes...

Hanukkah celebrates one of the important miracles in Jewish history and reminds us of the triumph of faith. It takes place every year in mid to late December. While its date varies if you go by the western calendar, in the Hebrew calendar Hanukkah always falls on the 25th day of Kislev.

Hanukkah celebrates the Jewish war for independence in the second century B.C. E. The story is told in the First Book of Maccabees, and retold in the Second Book of Maccabees. A contemporary military history of the war can be found in Battles of the Bible, coauthored by Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon.

After his death, Alexander the Great's empire broke into several parts, and Israel was under the control of the Seleucid empire, based in Syria. Israel had lived peacefully under the Persian Empire and under the Ptolemic empire (of Egypt), both which tolerated Judaism; but the Seleucid Emperor Antiochus Epiphanes was an arrogant, bigoted Hellenizer, who attempted to force the Jews to abandon their religion and to adopt Greek customs and worship.

There were those Jews who considered themselves `modern' and `assimilated' who were willing to go along with this, even to the extent of having surgical operations to reverse circumcision.

Others did not, and they were prosecuted vigorously and brutalized by the Greeks.

The start of the Maccabean Revolt sprang from a single spontaneous act of resistance. In the foothills village of Modiin in 167BCE, a Greek army unit set up an altar, and ordered the local Jewish rabbi, Mattathias, to sacrifice a pig and eat it. He refused, as did his five sons. When a Jewish collaborator came forward to offer the sacrifice, a furious Mattathias "ran and killed him on the spot, killed the king's officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and tore down the altar" (1 Mac. 2:15-25).

Mattathias, his sons and their followers then headed for the Judean hills, to launch a guerilla war. They were farmers who had no military training,fighting a professional army. There had not been a Jewish army since Babylon had destroyed the Judean kingdom four centuries before. Their only weapons were farming tools and whatever simple weapons they could construct, such as maces or slings. During this first year, Mattathias died, and his middle son Judah took over command as his successor.

Nicknamed "the hammer" ("Maccabee," in Hebrew), Judah constructed a guerilla army that staged daring nighttime raids on the Greek outposts, then melted back into the countryside. His successes attracted more supporters, and the revolt spread.

The war went on for 25 years, one of the most singular wars for independence in history. The miracle, perhaps is that it was fought at all, let alone won.

The Seleucids and Antiochus sent huge, well equipped armies into Israel to subdue the Jews. They were all defeated, at odds that seem miraculous even today. Judah Maccabee turned out to be a tactical genius, using unheard of tactics, leading the Greek phalanxes into the hills where they could not maneuver and destroying them.

In 164 BCE, the Jews defeated a force comanded by the Viceroy Lysias that outnumbered them two to one. That battle took place six miles north of Hebron, near the Jewish fortress of Beth-zur. The victory allowed Judah and his army to retake Jerusalem.

When they entered Jerusalem, Judah and his followers entered the Holy Temple on the Temple Mount. The Temple had been wrecked and horribly desecrated, with profanities scrawled on the walls and the Ark by the Seleucids.

The Maccabees built a new altar. When the time came to light the N'er Tamid, the Eternal Light of the Temple, the Jews could find only one sanctified jar of oil marked with the seal of the High Priest. It was only enough to last one evening. On the 25th of Kislev, in the year 164 BCE,the lamp was lit with this small jar of oil and, miraculously, stayed lit for eight days, until more oil suitable for the temple was made. The eight days of Hanukkah celebrate that miracle, as well as the divine intervention that had led the Jews to amazing victories over well-equipped professional armies far superior in numbers. "Therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wants and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place" (2 Mac. 10:7).

The war itself continued. In 160 BCE, near modern-day Ramallah, Judah was killed, but Judah's brother Jonathan, and then his brother Simon took command of the Jewish army, finally winning complete independence in 142 BCE. At last, "All the people sat under their own vines and fig trees, and there was none to make them afraid" (1 Mac. 14:12.).

Towards the end of the war, Antiochus and the Seleucids became so obsessed with defeating the Jews that they sacked their own cities and sold their own citizens into slavery to get money to pursue the war against the Jews.

The War of the Maccabees was the first war ever fought for religious freedom. Somehow, a group of farmers with no military training who refused to bow to their oppressors defeated a mighty empire and its immense standing armies. There seems to be no plausible explanation for the victory of the Jews except that it was a miracle.

Hannukah reminds us that with G-d's help, victory over evil is assured and no miracle is impossible. Modern Israel and the survival of the Jewish people against all odds are proof of that.


Symbols in Hanukkah

Aside from the Hanukkiah (candlesticks), the other great symbol of Hanukkah are those small spinning tops known as dreidels.













The four letters which appear on the four corners of a dreidel allude to the miracle of Hanukkah. They spell out: Nes (N-miracle), Gadol (G-great), Haya (H-happened) and Sham (S-there, meaning in Israel). Or, `a great miracle happened there.'

Indeed it did.

Chag Sameach! Happy Hannukah!


Monday, December 03, 2007

Iran And The Arabs Meet N' Greet At Doha



As regular members of Joshua's Army know, my position on the Shiite-Sunni rift is that it exists, but that the two sides will always unite when it comes to jihad against the west and will pursue their differences after the infidels are defeated.

The Bush Administration has consistently tried to manipulate the Sunni Shiite divide for strategic purposes and mostly failed, as Iran has consistently gained diplomatic ground with the Arabs, especially our `eternal friends' the Saudis.

At Annapolis, the blatant appeasement of the Arabs was done under the rationale that abasing Israel and forcing them into major strategic concessions would appeal to the `moderate' Sunni Arabs and cause them to unite against Iran.

Aside from the Saudis freeing 1500 al-Qaeda terrorists from jail after they `repented' and promised not to attack the Kingdom, another indication of how mistaken this strategy is came at the recent GCC Conference of the six Gulf Cooperation Council leaders in Doha, Qatar...where Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited for the first time, and as the guest of honor. He's seen above strolling hand in hand with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Sultan Qaboos of Oman, another US `ally'.

While he was there, Ahmadinejad proposed a security and economic pact to the Gulf Arab states, free of "foreign influence" and invited the Gulf leaders to come to Tehran to make what he called a "breakthrough decision."

"This will be a huge step toward reinforcing friendly relationship between the states," Ahmadinejad said. "Our cooperation will unite against any foreign influence or injustice. ... We should make every effort to have the region devoid of any tension or crisis."

According to my sources, Ahmadinejad's proposal was enthusiastically received by the attendees, especially by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

This is not the first time Iran has proposed this. The Iranians originally put this out when they were invited to the Arab league Summit In Riyadh back in April of this year, also a first time event. The guests of honor then were Iranian foreign minister Manoucher Mottaki and Iranian Chief of Staff General Hassan Fayrouz Abadi , who were there to follow up and solidify the various understandings and proposals between King Abdullah and Ahmadinejad at an earlier meeting.

Part of the carrot the Iranians are holding out to the Arabs is a united front against Israel and the west, a better consensus on oil, and freedom from any threat by Iran's developing nuclear weapons or missiles.

This new development may very well be part of what was behind the Bush Administration's sudden about face on Iran.

Bush Signals Iran: US Military Option Off The Table


The big news today was a National Intelligence estimate on Iran that suddenly magically `discovered' that Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003 , and says that even though the Iranians continue to enrich uranium, the earliest they could have enough material for a bomb is 2009, and the mullahs probably won't actually have one until between 2010 and 2015. ...well after President Bush is out of office. The report also comments that Iran seems to be less interested in developing nuclear weapons than previously believed and is more vulnerable to international sanctions.

I don't think the timing of this report is an accident. Translation? I see the Bush Administration signaling publicly that it is taking the military option against Iran off the table. There could be a number of reasons for this..a secret quid pro quo we don't know about, more appeasement of the Saudis and fallout from Annapolis, the State Department indulging in a new diplomatic gambit or simple fatigue on the part of the president and unwillingness to get involved in another firestorm so close to retirement. Or this could have something to do with it.

There will be considerable consternation in Israel over this, as their intel differs radically with this new estimate, and they will see themselves as left high and dry to deal with the Iranian threat on their own.

While the idea that the Bush Administration suddenly has no basis for a hard line with Iran and can postpone things will be pointed at with glee in certain quarters, it flies in the face of logic and all available evidence. For one thing, skeptics might ask themselves how they could acknowledge that Israel could take out a nuclear weapons facility that apparently existed for years in Syria that was unknown to both the US and the IAEA and still assume there was nothing like that in Iran. I would remind my readers that it wasn't the Bush Administration's intel or the IAEA who first busted Iran's illegal clandestine nukes program..it was Iranian dissidents, and that was four and a half years ago. And it had been going on for over a decade.

If Iran really gave up its quest for nukes back in 2003, why the expensive and advanced air defenses around `harmless' facilities? Why the secrecy and lies? Why the failure to accept huge economic incentives from the west in exchange for transparency and abandoning the development for nuclear weapons? Why the threats?

Somehow, I weigh the answers to these questions and the evidence behind them a little more heavily than an intelligence summary leaked at a particularly interesting time. And one wonders about the rationale of making this information public now, given Iran's belligerence. And the idea espoused by the new report, that the Iranians suddenly stopped their nuclear weapons program in 2003 because of `international opinion', something the Iranians have never given a pistachio nut for in the past is an insult to my intelligence.

As for the Iranians themselves, they've drawn an increasingly hard line..another little fact that isn't being reported too much here in the west, but again indicates that Iran has something to hide and is much more interested in developing nukes than this report would have you believe. There simply is no other explanation for their behavior.

Iran's new chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili was harsh and explicit with EU appeaser -in-chief foreign policy chief and head negotiator Javier Solana.After monologuing for an hour an a half about Islam, the will of the Iranians to support nuclear enrichment and several other topics, he told Solana that any understandings he had with his predecessor, Ali Larijani were irrelevant.

"Everything in the past is past, and with me, you start over. None of your proposals has any standing."

Just in case anyone had problems understanding that, Jalili said that "There is no longer an Iranian nuclear problem. The matter is closed."

Solana described that failure of the talks by telling reporters that he was “disappointed.”

The French officials were a little more candid, and described the meeting as “a disaster,” adding “Jalili essentially said, ‘Everything that Larijani has proposed is a dead letter and we have to start from zero.’” The French official was quoted as ending, “We have in front of us the real Iran.”

The hard-line position from the Iran should be a clear confirmation, if nothing else, that they have no intention of any compromise and that there's something brewing with the nuclear program that they are developing that they'd rather the west didn't find out about until it's too late.It's also important to remember that the difference between a peaceful nuclear program and a nuclear weapons program is largely one of application. The technology needed is the same, and applying to weapons technology is a matter of a few months, if that.

The Bush Administration could be merely sowing disinformation to give Iran a false sense of security before the kill, but I doubt it. Given the political climate here in the US and how the dinosaur media has made this a top story, I don't see how they could risk the political fallout.

Iran has regarded itself at war with us since 1979, and they have conducted themselves accordingly. If the Bush Administration truly is involved in what it still refers to as `the war on terror', than confronting Iran, a major supporter, financier and enabler of Islamic terrorism has to be a major part of winning that war. One can only hope that the Bush Administration has some kind of plan to achieve this beyond mere `diplomacy', which the Mullahs continue to treat with contempt.

However, if President Bush really is throwing in the towel, relying on sanctions and simply waiting out the clock, it's something we will long remember and regret in the west.

Abbas' Security Forces Strike Their First Blow For `Peace'



The man you see in the picture was Ido Zoldan. He was murdered by Abbas' Palestinian police, using weapons given to them courtesy of the US taxpayer.

They lay in wait and ambushed his car as he drove past the Palestinian village of al-Punduk.

The day after the murder, the IDF received a tip on the perpetrators and raided the village of Kfar Kadum near al-Pundak. They arrested Daper Barham and Abdullah Barahm, both 22-year-old Palestinian policemen and Fatah members. Both confessed, and told the Shin Bet that they had planned this long in advance. They said they had parked their car on the side of the road and waited for an Israeli car to pass by. Once Zoldan's car appeared, they merged onto the road, passed him, and opened fire.

A third killer, Fadi Jama, also a PA policeman, is in Palestinian custody. Which means he'll be released shortly.

The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the murder.

Ido Zoldan (Z"l) was only 29 and a father of two, three-year-old Aharon and one-year-old Rachel. His whole life was ahead of him. He was born, lived and was buried in the Israeli town of Kedumim.It's also where he met his wife, Tehila.

Ido was a war hero, a decorated officer in Israel's Golani Brigade, who worked with his father in a construction company that built homes in nearly every part of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank.)Another of his projects involved sponsoring and mentoring a group of Ethiopian children, helping them to make the transition into daily life in Israel.

I write this for a specific reason. It's important that we remember that Ido Zoldan and others like him are not mere statistics, not simply fallout from some `cycle of violence' but real human beings, who were murdered not because of anything they might have done but simply because they were Jews.

They are the human victims of Oslo and Annapolis, sacrificed simply to massage the vanity and cowardice of politicians who think that continuing to appease Arab terrorists and their enablers leads anywhere.

After Oslo, the Israelis were told that it was necessary to `bolster' Arafat and make strategic concessions to him, so they did, because they desperately wanted peace that they didn't stop to consider the implications of what they were doing. And this is exactly what happened in Israel after Oslo and Arafat's `peace of the brave'.

There will be more of it - more terror, murder and bereaved families - until the lesson is finally learned.

Hat Tip: My friend Carl In Jerusalem at Israel Matzav who also has additional details on this.

How long, G-d? How long?

Venezuala to Chavez: `Why Don't You Just Shut Up?'


Venezuela's Hugo Chavez apparently has irritated more people than just Spanish King Juan Carlos. He had a setback this weekend when he attempted to make himself Presidente' for life, apply marxism to the economy and hijack what remains of his country's liberty.

In a referendum, the Venezuelan people defeated constitutional changes designed to place Chavez in charge of virtually every area of life and keep him in power.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that Chavez can accomplish most of this by decree,thanks to the Chavez-controlled national assembly passing the Enabling Law back in February, which gives the president the authority to issue decrees in economic and other matters that can last up to 18 months, and then be renewed.

So Chavez is still in a position to place the Venezuelan economy in a marxist mode and control most of the country's political life to consolidate his hold on power - it will just take longer and have to be done a little at a time.

`Teddy Bear' Teacher Pardoned And Kicked Out Of Sudan

Well, it appears that the Sudan has freed Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was jailed for `insulting religion' because she let her class of seven-year-olds name a teddy bear `Muhammed' has been pardoned by Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir and freed from jail.

She was taken from her cell to the British embassy in Khartoum, has made some properly groveling public statements and will be on a plane out of the country shortly.

The teddy bear will be beheaded for blasphemy.

OK, kidding, but for a second you thought I was serious, didn't you?

As for Ms. Gibbons, I strongly doubt she was let loose simply for good public relations, which is what British PM Gordon Brown would have us believe. A price was paid, and we'll find out what it was later.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Condi Rice Attempts To Sandbag Israel At The UN

There's an amazing story behind the unprecedented U.S. withdrawal of a Security Council Resolution at the U.N. last week.

After the Annapolis gang rape of Israel last week, Condi Rice apparently decided to ramp things up even further by getting the UN Security Council involved in a closed door session to push through a resolution endorsing the Annapolis declaration of principles signed by Israel and the Palestinians and giving the UN a role in overseeing the process - without informing the Israelis.

Accordingly, American UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad received permission from the Security Council to present the text for approval in a closed door session.

Since Israel is the only UN member not ever allowed a seat on the Security Council, that meant that the Israelis would have no opportunity for a hearing or to dispute the language of the resolution, while Qatar, who sits on the Security Council was there to represent the Arab League and would be able to supplement the Annapolis declaration with additional clauses and language detrimental to Israel, and put it up for a Council vote...which, if it passed, would have cemented any additions with the force of a UN resolution

A Security Council endorsement would have brought the UN into the process as an overseer and arbitrator, and made the UN judge, jury and possibly executioner on compliance with `the process'...or, to put it another way, given the UN's strongly pro-Arab stance, it would have added another body on the Arab side of this particular tug of war against Israel.

It also would have set in stone the deadline of December 31st, 2008 for the end of negotiations, no matter how the Palestinians behave or comply with their part of the agreement. That's exactly what the Saudis demanded all along.

Apparently there's some nasty stuff even the Olmert government won't eat.


When Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman was alerted to the closed door meeting, he apparently contacted Olmert and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni immediately and alerted them to what was going on behind their backs.

I have no information on exactly what sort of language passed between the Bush Administration and the Israelis or what was said, but I imagine it was fairly strong, because the US withdrew the draft resolution in an embarrassing about face.

Ambassador Khalilzad was recalled to Washington, and was apparently willing to fall on his sword for this faux pas until some of Condi Rice's minions at the State Department accused him of `freelancing' and not consulting with Rice, his boss. At that point the Ambassador reiterated that he had fully consulted with Secretary Rice on this.

In view of the way the Israelis were treated at the conference, I'm inclined to believe him.

A lot has come out about the way things actually went down at Annapolis, and it isn't pretty. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but at Annapolis, the Americans essentially legitimized Arab hatred for Jews. The Saudis and some of the other Arabs objected to even walking through the same door as the Israelis, let alone shaking hands with them..so the Israelis had to enter through the service entrance. And the US acquiesced to the Arabs' demand not to appear in any photos with Jews.

Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that they had bathrooms marked `Jews Only'.

Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni was reduced to asking the Arabs, during an address at the conference, Why doesn't anyone want to shake my hand? "Why doesn't anyone want to be seen speaking to me?"

"She was saying 'Stop treating me as a pariah,' " said Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, who was there. "They shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister."

When the Israeli delegates spoke, not only did most of the Arabs not bother with the customary polite applause, but many of them, including the entire Saudi delegation didn't even bother to put in their headphones to hear the translation while the Israelis spoke... a gesture of deliberate contempt conveying that nothing a representative of Israel could say was worth listening to.

Meanwhile Condi Rice made speeches about how she considered the Palestinians and the Israelis pain as `equal', and obscenely compared Israelis trying to defend themselves from Palestinian terrorism that deliberately targets civilians with white supremacists victimizing blacks in the Jim Crow south.

And this, believe or not, at a conference in which she presided over that was a modern example of segregation...against Jews.

The hypocrisy is mindboggling, and one can only imagine what other humiliations and pressures are in store for Israel in the next year.

This will come back to haunt us.

The Royal Navy ` Would Struggle To Fight A War'


That's exactly what a leaked report from Britain's Ministry of Defense had to say.

The report was commissioned by Britain's Defense Secretary, Des Brown as ammunition to counter criticism in the media and from Britain's Conservative opposition...but ended up coming to a very different conclusion than Brown expected.

According to the report, after years of cuts in spending by Labour, the British Navy has an "under-resourced" fleet composed of "aging and operationally defective ships", the Navy would have problems even repeating its role in the Iraq war and is now "far more vulnerable to unexpected shocks".

The leaked report continues: "A combination of age and reduced spending on maintenance has resulted in today's ships carrying a far higher number of operational defects, which directly erode operational capacity."

"The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary."

The report also refers to the British Navy as "thinly stretched", says its fighting capability is being "eroded" and the fleet's ability to influence events at the strategic level is "under threat".

Of course, the point man on this is none other than the present British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown...who as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair was the one who controlled the fleet's funding.

The report was created by one of the UK's most prominent sailors, Rear-Admiral Alan Massey, CBE, the assistant chief of the naval staff.

To show how badly the British navy has eroded, the report cites the following:

  • The entire naval fleet has been reduced from a fleet of 136 in 1987 to only 75 ship today, a reduction of around 44%.
  • The navy's destroyers and frigates have been cut by over half, from 54 ships to a mere 25, and those ships have an average age of 17 years. Submarines have fallen by 66%, from 38 to 13 and the navy's manpower has been cut from 66,500 in 1987 to a mere 38,860, a reduction of around 44%.
  • Britain's home fleet, its first line of defense had 35 ships operating in the UK's home waters in 1987...in 2007, there are only 10.
The report has one positive bit, when it comments on Britain's building program for new aircraft carriers and what it calls joint combat aircraft. It doesn't mention, however, how these ships are going to be protected without sufficient destroyer and submarine cover.

Of course, the Royal Navy's not the only casualty of Labour's defence cuts. Just two weeks ago, British army chief General Sir Richard Dannatt complained to the British government that it was "mortgaging" the goodwill of the Army, referring to the huge cuts in spending and in personnel forced on it by the Labour government.

This, by the way, is why Britain has to crawl to repulsive regimes when its citizens or sailors are kidnapped or abused.

Cousins, you had better pray for peace...it certainly doesn't seem like you're prepared to do much to be able to defend yourselves.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Lebanon, Another Victim Of Annapolis



The Israelis weren't the only ones who were gang raped at Annapolis.

Lebanese democracy has apparently become another victim.

Apparently the Saudis and the Syrians used Annapolis to conduct a little meeting of their own on the subject behind the back of the US and came up with the latest `compromise' candidate for Lebanon's presidency..General Michel Suleiman, head of the Lebanese Army and a Syrian puppet.

A little background...Suleiman was hand picked by the Syrians to head the Lebanese army back in 1999 when Lebanon was still occupied by Syria's Army, and he reportedly has personal connections with the Assad regime. During the 2006 war with Israel, Suleiman ordered the Lebanese army to cooperate with Hezbollah and allowed Hezbollah to use the army’s facilities, including a coastal radar station used to aim and fire the missiles which hit and damaged an Israeli ship on July 15.

Since the war, General Suleiman has been covering for Hezbollah during their rearmament in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and has refused to use the Lebanese Army to cooperate with UNIFIL to patrol the borders or stop Hezbollah from moving back into its old positions in south Lebanon.

Not surprisingly, Suleiman is Syria's number one pick for Lebanon's presidency . Michel Aoun , a prominent Syrian tool who wanted the office is backing him, now that it's clear the Syrians aren't supporting Aoun for the job. And Hezbollah is also now supporting this man. This should tell you something about whom he is.

Saad al-Hariri, Druse leader Walid Jumblatt and the rest of the March 14 democratic anti-Syrian majority had been opposing Suleiman as a presidential candidate ever since the Lebanese political crisis began. Yet right after Annapolis, they agreed to a constitutional amendment that would allow Suleiman to be elected president. The leader of the Christian Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea also signed on to the deal.

This took place almost solely because the Bush Administration invited Syria to Annapolis, and the March 14 leaders aren't fools. They saw that Syria being invited to Annapolis was a clear sign that Washington was very likely going to cut a deal with Syria over Lebanon, so they made their own bargain with Hezbollah and Syria to protect themselves.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saudi al-Feisal announcing his support for Suleiman's candidacy as well was another clear sign to the March 14 anti-Syrian bloc to make their own deal with Hezbollah and the Syrians while they could.

This means that Suleiman will almost certainly be elected, the Syrians and Hezbollah ( an dthus, Iran) will be back in control and the UN tribunal on the assassinations of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other Lebanese politicians that points directly at the top ranks of the Assad regime as the perpetrators will be stonewalled and blocked, just as it was under the last President Emil Lahoud, who was `elected' literally under the guns of the occupying Syrian army.

The odd thing is that there may not even be a US-Syrian deal on Lebanon, but simply a deal between Syria and the Saudis.The Annapolis event was pushed through by Condi Rice for one reason only...to placate the Saudis by backing the Saudi `peace' ultimatum, creating a second Arab Palestinian state no matter what the cost, and laying the groundwork for pushing Israel into major concessions. So of course the Syrians were bribed to attend, and promised that the strategic Golan Heights would be on the agenda, per the Saudis.

To the Lebanese, this was a deja vu experience, since this is exactly what happened to them back in the 1990's under the first President Bush, who allowed Syria to `handle' Lebanon as it's personal fiefdom. They have absolutely no reason to think they aren't on the block as part of Syria's `price' for going along with Rice's Middle East agenda.

The Assad regime supports terrorism, allows al Qaeda fighters across its borders into Iraq to kill Americans and has whittled down the March 14 majority in Lebanon by murdering its members one by one, along with anyone else who got in their way, but aside from rhetoric, the US has done absolutely nothing about it.

So those Lebanese who risked their lives to try to put together an Arab democracy in the Middle East and resisted a terrorist regime end up betrayed, in the end. And the Lebanese journalists, politicians, and dissidents who were killed and maimed by Hezbollah and the Syrians and who died for that dream will have died in vain.

If part of the the Bush Administration's rationale of the Annapolis meeting was to pry Syria away from Iran and safeguard Lebanon's fragile democratic government, it failed - miserably.

Friday, November 30, 2007

One Of G-d's Small Miracles, 11/30/07



From time to time, I'm going to try and post items that may not have much to do with the overall theme of this site...or then again, they may everything to do with it.

This week's miracle comes from southern California, where a young boy who was despicably ambushed and left for dead is being healed, thanks to G-d's mercy and the divinely inspired kindness,mercy and skill of his fellow humans.



Little Youssif, 5, was playing outside of his home in central Baghdad last January when he was suddenly grabbed by unknown `men',(I can barely dignify these scum with the name) doused in gas, and set on fire.

He lived, but was horribly scarred, disabled and in constant pain.

After his story was broadcast on American television, The Children's Burn Foundation agreed to pay for Youssif and his family to come to the United States for medical treatment where he's being treated by Dr. Peter Grossman, a plastic surgeon with the Grossman Burn Center who's donating his services.

Youssif is on the road to recovery after an amazing surgical technique in which Dr. Grossman inserted saline balloons in Youssiff's neck and face to provide more `good skin' by stretching it, so the worst of the scar tissue could be removed..and after surgery that took 3 1/2 hours, Dr. Grossman successfully removed the worst of Youssiff's scars and repaired his lower lip.

Doctor Grossman was amazed at how thick the scar tissue was -- about half an inch thick and "hard as wood."

When the tissue was removed, Youssif's jaw immediately relaxed, meaning that for the first time since he was attacked,there's hope he may soon be able to eat normally again. In a few weeks, when the swelling subsides, there will be other surgery to work on Youssif's looks...but this was the major one, and it went incredibly well.

"For a 5-year-old boy, he has shown a lot of courage in this process," Grossman said. "I mean he does not like it at all. But he knows this is a necessary evil."

He added, "My hope is that I can show him that it was worth it."

And Youssif's mother, Zainab? "I thank the Americans so much.They really helped my son in ways no one else did."

It is one of G-d's small miracles that the plight of a small boy in a faraway country could move people in this way..and proof again that Americans are some of the kindest and most generous people on the planet.

Take that, bin-Laden. Back at you, al-Sadr, Ahmadinejad and Zawahiri....

Have a peaceful Sabbath.

Death To The `Teddy Bear' Teacher!!


Violent demonstrations have broken out in Khartoum, Sudan, with thousands of knife and axe wielding Muslims demanding death for Gillian Gibbons the 54-year-old teacher who allowed her class of seven-year-olds to name a teddy bear `Mohammed'.

She was convicted yesterday by one of the Sudan's sharia courts of `blasphemy' and `insulting religion' and missed out on the usual sentence, forty lashes and six months in prison as I predicted she would be. Instead she was sentenced to 15 days in a Sudanese jail and deportation.

Pick-up trucks drove around Khartoum blaring out messages and inciting the demonstrators..protesters chanted: "No tolerance: execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

There were apparently a number of riot police deployed on the periphery of Martyr's Square, where the main demonstration took place, but they made no move to stop the festivities.

Again, knowing the usual pattern these people work by, I'm positive this is intended by the Sudanese government to increase the squeeze for concessions and quite possibly a ransom from the British government...perhaps a much softer line from Britain in the UN towards the ongoing genocide the Sudanese government is committing in Darfur?

Hey, it worked for Hamas with Alan Johnstone and for Iran with those British sailors, among others...why shouldn't the Sudan try it?

There's additional proof that British diplomats are still working towards getting Gibbons an `early release'. Apparently David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, met with the Sudanese ambassador, Omer Siddig twice yesterday, one time for over 45 minutes. While Miliband says he expressed concern at the jailing of Gibbons "in the strongest terms", I also venture to think that a certain haggling over a price was also a topic of discussion.

It's also interesting that many British Muslims have largely remained silent over the imprisonment of their fellow countryman. Which should also provide some food for thought to my readers in the UK.

15 days in jail in a hellhole like the Sudan is bad enough, but for an infidel blasphemer ( and a mere woman to boot) like Ms. Gibbons, there's a fair chance she might not make it home alive unless the Brits are prepared to come through with an appropriate baksheesh.

Another piece of news about the case that's come out is that it wasn't the students or their parents who complained about the bear..it was one of the staff at the school where Gibbons worked,Sara Khawad, an office assistant who was named as the complainant and who was the key prosecution witness.

There's not much more to say about this, except that hopefully it will be a wakeup call to westerners pushing multiculturalism.

And as for Ms. gibbons, I hope she gets home all right but she should have known what she was getting into by going to the Sudan in the first place. In a way, she was almost endorsing these barbarians by treating them as a normal society.

Watcher's Council Results for 11/30/07

The Council has spoken! A complete list of results can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of Weasels


This weeks' winner is:
Right Wing Nuthouse: Buchanan's New Book: “Prepare Ye for the End” Rick's well written critique of Pat Buchanan's new book.

In second place was The Glittering Eye:The Visual Imagery Society Dave's interesting speculation on how more and more information is transmitted visually, and what that might presage for the future.

For non-Council, the winner was Wolf Howling:Have Our Copperheads Found Their McClellan in Retired LTG General Sanchez? A fine post that draws a parallel between the Democrat's 1864 embrace of McClellan and the modern anti-war Left's new hero, General Sanchez. Personally,I think 2004 was more of a parallel,with `war hero' John Kerry in the McClellan role..although I hate to compare someone like Kerry with an honorable soldier like McClellan, who won the turning point battle of Antietam for the North in spite of massive screwups by his subordinates.

In second place for non-Council, the winner was:

Michelle Malkin:Letter from the Front: Turkey Day in Tikrit a fine, fine `letter from the troops' post from Iraq that I personally liked very much.


Hearty Kudos to all the winners!

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Natan Sharansky: Annapolis May Be A Catastrophe For Israel

Natan Sharansky is someone whom President Bush has personally honored and spent a lot of face time with, and Sharansky's views views on freedom have inspired the President own views on spreading democracy in the Middle East, by the president's own admission.

But Sharansky, interviewed yesterday on Annapolis said that it "has nothing to do with promoting democracy," and warned that Israel will be lucky if it does not end in catastrophe.

When asked, Sharansky said he did not feel betrayed by Mr. Bush, whom he referreed a friend. But he said, "I am upset. The greatness of President Bush is the way he would believe in the power of the idea of freedom," Mr. Sharansky said. "He believes in principles; he was willing to stand alone against all for these pressures, but it is not enough to stand for principles. He has to appoint the people who share these beliefs and who would implement them. He has not."

It's fairly obvious he has Condi Rice and some of the minions at the State Department in mind.

Back in 2002, Sharansky and Mr. Bush were on the same page... that the US should focus on building a Palestinian Arab civil society and the institutions necessary for transparent, democratic rule before trying to create a state, which is exactly what the President told the Palestinians in his famous June 24th speech, when he first endorsed the idea of supporting a Palestinian state - unless th ePalestinians lived up to their committments and foreswore terrorism, the US would not support their aspirations.

Those high minded principles are gone with the wind,apparently, as the President has bought into the Saudi peace ultimatum.

The idea, apparently,is that the Sunni Arab autocracies like the Saudis and their European enablers need to be bought off to support action against Iran..at Israel's expense.

That's exactly what Condi Rice and James Baker have been working on for the past year, and in Ehud Olmert, the weakest most corrupt and ineffectual Israeli leader in history, they have exactly the tool they need for the job.

Sharansky, to his credit, sees through this fallacy immediately.He said he thought it was ridiculous to bribe the European and the Arabs to do what is in their interest anyway by pushing Israelinto a corner.

"Fighting against a nuclear Iran, it is not a favor to Israel — it must be, it has to be the top priority in America," he said. "If America is believed to be promoting democracy, it has to be the top priority of the free world and not a favor to Israel. To think that countries like Saudi Arabia will be more cooperative in the struggle against Iran if there will be more success in building democratic societies in Palestine is ridiculous. Iran is a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia than it is Israel. The second greatest threat to Saudi Arabia is any democracy in the Arab world. A democratic Iraq is a great threat to them. They will never be an ally promoting any democratic alternatives in the Middle East."

Iran's Ahmadinejad, of course, saw Annapolis as a major victory and crowed that Israel is `doomed to collapse.'

Sharansky also questioned the US reliance on Mahmoud Abbas. "You have one force, Hamas, that does not recognize Israel, which is not going to recognize Israel, and {is going to} fight Israel. The other force, which is our so-called partner, accepted by everybody, it doesn't represent anyone, has no power, and cannot influence anything."

Actually,Sharansky may be slightly wrong there. After Israel is pushed into indefensible borders and the soul of the nation is ripped apart by giving up half of Jerusalem and turning a substantial portion of its population into refugees, Hamas and Fatah will have a reconciliation,which the Saudis and Iran are already working on. They will then cooperate and begin the next war on Israel's civilians,perhaps in coordination with Hezbollah. Or Hamas will simply put Abbas out of the way and take over the Palestinian occupied areas of Judea and Samaria,(the West Bank) just as they did in Gaza and begin the war,with all the shiny new weaponry supplied by the US to Abbas and Fatah.

Catastrophe may be putting it mildly.

Another thing that bothered Sharansky was Bush and the European nation's neutrality on the Arab's outright refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

It's obvious why the Arabs refused...they intend to make the area known to us as Israel Jew free if they can, just as they have with the rest of the Middle East.

But why President Bush and the Europeans consented to go along with the Arabs refusal is another question, and not a pleasant one to ask.

Leahy Makes An Idiot Out Of Himself...Again


Some of you may remember the hue and cry over the supposed partisan firings of eight federal prosecutors, and the threats and subpoenas issued by the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy ( D-VT).

Aside from wasting an inordinate amount of Congress's time at the American people's expense, it was a major factor in the resignation of ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

If you remember, Leahy claimed that the order for the firings came from the president and angrily issued subpoenas to White House chief of staff, Josh Bolten,former adviser Karl Rove, former White House political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, J. Scott Jennings to find out `what Bush knew about the firings'....which the White House blew off, citing executive privilege.

After wasting a great deal more of Congress's time, Senator Leahy has now come up with another brilliant insight...he's now ruled that he knows President Bush had nothing to do with the firings, and therefore executive privilege does not apply and he wants the subpoenas complied with immediately.

Let's reiterate...after accusing the president of being guilty of something that wasn't illegal (the prosecutors, like all presidential appointees serve at the president's pleasure), Leahy has now decided that Bush isn't guilty, but is demanding that White House personnel testify under oath about a non-crime of which Leahy admits the president had nothing to do with!

White House officials were "baffled" by the ruling, since Democrats have long said they wanted to know what Bush knew of the firings, said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. With Leahy acknowledging he has the answer — Bush was not involved — Congress should focus on such pressing matters as the federal budget.

"If he is now saying that the president wasn't aware of it, as we have said from the beginning, then I don't understand why he continues to have this rope-a-dope that's not going to go anywhere," Perino told reporters.

But Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Leahy had no choice.

"It's a bad idea to have subpoenas issued and then not to act on them," said Specter, the panel's ranking Republican and a former chairman. "If you cry wolf, you ought to follow up."



Actually, I disagree with you, Senator. Leahy did indeed have a choice. Instead of pursuing this insane, purposeless fishing expedition to massage his own vanity and sense of importance, he could comport himself with some dignity and attend to the nation's business.

VP Dick Cheney illustrated exactly the right tone to take with someone like this a couple of years ago. It seems to be about the only kind of language he understands.

Annapolis Fallout

I present here some believable Annapolis fallout, with the caveat that I have been unable to verify it elsewhere....according to Ynet and unnamed Palestinian officials, Israeli PM Olmert is lying about giving up the Temple Mount to Arab control...and indeed,he's already agreed to it.

"What Olmert said (regarding the Mount) is absolutely false. I think he's not yet ready to tell the Israeli public and is waiting for the right time and he fears his coalition with religious extremists will fall apart if he announces it now," said a senior Palestinian negotiator Thursday on condition his name be withheld.

The chief Palestinian negotiator ( that would be Saeb Erekat, by the way, even though the article doesn't name him) said in months leading up to Annapolis the Palestinian team was "surprised" by Olmert's willingness to give up the Mount.

"We had intense debates on many topics, which remain open and unsettled, but the Harem Al-Sharif (Temple Mount) is not a sticking point. The Israelis didn't argue with us. We were pleasantly surprised Olmert didn't debate about giving the lower section of the Mount either, which was a sticking point in the past."


Olmert, of course, is already priming the pump, telling the blatant lie that it will be `the end of Israel' if the public doesn't go along with his plans to sell out the country to the Palestinians.In reality,of course, it's exactly the reverse/

Interestingly enough, the Palestinians appear to be quite adamant that all of their demands be met, and quite comfortable with discarding any of those `painful choices' President Bush mentioned in his Annapolis speech, as I noted from Abbas' remarks.

Carl In Jerusalem at Israel Matzav has a story he claims appeared in the Israeli press and has since disappeared(which I unfortunately didn't see personally) that quoted Palestinian top aides to Abbas Saeb Erekat and Nabil Abu Rudeineh as saying that President Bush isn't negotiating in the Palestinians’ name, does not represent them and what he had to say is not relevant to the Palestinian cause. On such issues as recognizing Israel, said Erekat was quoted as saying that Bush is `not competent to determine how we act. If the US president seeks an exchange of territory, he can do this with Mexico.'

Funny how what I write here even as satire seems to become reality...

The story further claim thatAbbas’ political adviser Abu Rodeina maintained that the Palestinians made no commitments at Annapolis...which, as I noted, is the simple truth.

Again, I was unable to find the quotes or interviews directly except for Carl, who I've always found extremely reputable. But I find it eminently believable.

Well Worth Reading...



Here are a few worthwhile tidbits from the blogosphere for Joshua's Army members:
  • CITIZEN MUSHARRAF by Amir Taheri, someone longtime Joshua's Army members are familiar with. Like me, he figures that Bhutto and Sharif will engage with Musharraf and participate in the elections in January, and he's quite correct that the elections will be one of the most important battles in the War on Jihad...

  • A tribute to Howard - From Greg Sheridan in the Australian, a fitting tribute to one of my favorite politicians, John Howard.





Enjoy...