Thomas Sowell and the election

Thomas Sowell has a remarkable way of cutting through all the debris and focusing on what really matters in the upcoming election. If you don’t read anything else today, please read his short but outstanding article in Townhall .

(Is it too late to draft Thomas Sowell for President?)

Obama on Iran

What is Obama's position with regard to negotiating with Iran? It probably depends on when you asked him, or perhaps, who his audience was. See LGF.

War with Iran

For a depressing assessment on the increasing prospects for war with Iran, see Dan Rabkin's excellent article in FrongPage. Those who want to avoid such depressing articles may prefer to click here instead :-)

Obliterate Iran

The quiz for today is, who said:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran...In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

"We should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States. But I would do the same with other countries in the region ... . You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup" (WND).

If you said, John McCain you would be wrong. The answer is Hillary Clinton. Wow! Whodathunk Hillary would out-hawk the Republicans?! Code Pink is not going to be pleased.

A nuclear Iran

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (“the UN’s nuclear watchdog”), “Iran has installed 3,000 centrifuges for enriching uranium - enough to begin industrial-scale production of nuclear fuel and build a warhead within a year.” (Guardian)

If the West has cards for a regime change in Iran, they had better play them soon because thinking sanctions will work in time is fantasy. On the other hand, “US generals are reported to have warned the White House that military action would trigger a devastating Iranian backlash in the Middle East and beyond.”

That may be true, but think of the consequences if the radicals ruling Iran are allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Those who think we can negotiate with them know nothing about Islam. These radicals do not want negotiation. They want to bring the world into submission to Islam by absolutely any means necessary. They negotiate only to gain time or the upper hand—this is a tradition that goes back to Muhammad himself.

I don’t think it is too melodramatic to suggest that allowing the current regime in Iran to have nuclear weapons will eventually change the course of human history as dramatically as if Adolf Hitler had had nuclear weapons.

Sometimes there are no easy choices. A backlash in the Middle East now is infinitely better than the “backlash” that will occur when Islamic radicals have WMD.

World War III

In my last post I noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened the U.S. about involvement in Iran. According to the New York Times, while responding to a question about that threat, President Bush suggested that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.

The same article quotes General John Abizaid as saying that there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran. He's absolutely right. All we have to do is convert to Islam.

I'd rather die.

Putin threatens the U.S.

Fox News is reporting that Russian president Vladimir Putin (who is visiting Iran), warned (threatened?) the United States and Israel today that an attack on Iran would be "unacceptable." That's about as strong as it gets in diplomatic-speak, isn't it? Russia is now providing Iran with military hardware and helping them build their nuclear power plants.

I wish my dad was still alive. I'd like to ask him what 1939 was like.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

Yesterday I wrote that parents of Columbia University should send their kids and money to other universities because of their president’s invitation of Ahmadinejad to their university.

I was wrong.

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger completely vindicated himself with his brilliant introduction of Ahmadinejad. Bollinger pulled no punches, providing an itemized list of the Iranian president’s evils including Ahmadinejad’s

1) Brutal imprisoning of, scholars, journalists and human rights activists
2) Illegitimate execution of 210 people this year alone, including children
3) Holocaust denial
4) Threats to wipe Israel off the map
5) Funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad
6) Undermining of American troops in Iraq by funding and arming the terrorists
7) Ongoing attempt to develop nuclear weapons

Bollinger told Ahmadinejad to his face that he exhibited “all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator” whose “fanatical mindset” “underlies all you say and do.” He said that Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial made Ahmadinejad “ridiculous” and that he was either “brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”

Bollinger spoke of Ahmadinejad’s “absurd comments” and his “preposterous and belligerent statements,” and expressed "revulsion of all you stand for.” Since most of Bollinger’s remarks were expressed as questions, Bollinger closed saying, “I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.” Bollinger was right.

Bollinger was calm and collected, but rude and insulting at the same time---he told the truth and it was great! There is a time—on rare occasions—when rude and insulting is quite appropriate, and this was one of those times. Ahmadinejad does not deserve to be respected but Bollinger deserves to be honored with a parade! To see the video go to Hot Air.Com.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia

Iranian president Ahmadinejad will be speaking at Columbia University today. While I support the freedom of speech that allows Columbia University to have a holocaust-denying, America-hating, WMD threatening, mentally deranged idiot speak on their campus, I also support the right of Columbia supporters to send their money and children to other universities—which is exactly what I think they should do.

WMD's in Syria

According to a report published today by the Jerusalem Post:

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the development and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a
Jane's Magazine report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers
were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas and VX gas.

I wondering how we can be sure they didn't get some of this gas from Saddam Hussein. Since this seems like a pretty significant story, I'm also wondering why I only heard about it from talk radio (Hugh Hewitt) and not TV news. I guess they were too busy covering OJ.

McCain and bombing Iran

A few days ago John McCain was asked about Iran upon which he broke out with a joking parody of “Barbara Ann,” the famous Beach Boy’s song. He changed the words to “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. I find it disturbing that the American Left (Like MoveOn.Org) seems more offended by McCain’s little joke than they were about the Iranian president’s serious threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

Anyway, as far as I know McCain didn’t finish the song so although I have virtually no songwriting ability, I thought I’d help him out and give it a shot. So with apologies to the Beach Boys, here goes:

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Oh bomb Iraaan
Please take a staaand and Bomb Iraaan.

They’ve been a mocking and cajoling
Blocking and concealing
Bomb Iran bomb, bomb,
Bomb, bomb Iran.

Tried to talk to France
They were in a trance
Russia said no chance
And the UN wouldn’t dance

So bomb Iran, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iraaan.
Oh take a staaand,
And bomb Iraaan.

They’ve been a mocking and cajoling
Blocking and concealing
Bomb Iran bomb, bomb,
Bomb, bomb Iran.

Tried talking to
All their leaders who
Spit right in our face
And I knew that wouldn’t do

So bomb Iran, bomb, bomb,
Bomb Iraaan.
Oh take a staaand,
And bomb Iraaan.

They’ve been a mocking and cajoling
Blocking and concealing
Bomb Iran bomb, bomb,
Bomb, bomb Iran.

(Don’t worry, I won’t quit my day job). Actually this doesn’t really describe my attitude toward Iran. I think there are a lot of good, decent people in Iran who hate their government almost as much as the American Left hates George Bush (if that’s possible). We should do everything possible to help the Iranian people overthrow their tyrannical government but if that fails, we simply must do something about Iran before they have nuclear weapons because by that time, Iran will make Nazi Germany look almost weak and merciful by comparison. We should have learned back then that appeasement simply does not work.

Germany and Iran

A former Hitler Youth member warns of appeasement and parallels between the rise of Nazi Germany under Hitler, and the rise of Iran:

Author Hilmar von Campe, a former Hitler Youth member and German soldier,
sees shocking parallels between Nazi Germany under Hitler and radical Islam. He
has written an autobiography describing his life as an active participant in --
and his remorse over -- what he calls the greatest tragedy of the 20th
century.

In the book, titled How Was it Possible?, von Campe discusses the
appeasement of the 1930s. "If the British and the French had realized how evil
Hitler and the Nazis were and what their real purposes were," he observes, "they
could have prevented another world war, if they had acted two years or so
earlier" (One News Now)

We really don't learn anything from history do we.

Breaking: Sailors' news conference

Moments ago the British sailors finished a press conference regarding their capture by Iran.

They said that they were on a routine boarding patrol in full accordance with United Nations mandate when the Iranian Navy came at them heavily armed and with definite intent. The British Sailors made it clear that regardless of statements they made in captivity, GPS and helicopter monitoring proved that they were absolutely not in Iranian waters. British rules of engagement forbid armed engagement and they determined that resistance would have been futile anyway. They tried reasoning with the Iranians but their words fell on deaf ears.

Once in Iran, they were blindfolded, had their hands bound, and were forced up against a wall with people cocking weapons in the background. They were stripped and dressed in PJ’s and kept in complete isolation except for brief times in the evenings when they were allowed to play chess, etc. for coverage by the Iranian media. They were blindfolded at all other times, kept in concrete cells with only blankets to sleep on and were subjected to nightly interrogation. They were told that if they admitted to being in Iranian water, they would be released and sent home. If they denied, they would be imprisoned for seven years. The only woman captive was told that everyone else had been sent home and that she was the only one left (she was not at the press conference).

The crisis is over

The crisis is over. The British sailors are now home.

During the whole affair I don’t recall hearing a single person from the Left expressing outrage over the fact that international law was violated by the Iranians, or that the human rights of the British sailors were trampled, or that the Red Cross was never allowed to visit the sailors, or that they may have been tortured or coerced to make confessions (if they made such pro-Iranian statements without being coerced, I hope they have a lot of explaining to do).

It seems to me that even allegations of the mistreatment of terrorists by America was often treated as fact by the Left, and people couldn’t even turn on the TV without hearing how horrible America was for abusing terrorists.

It's not that the Right is unconcerned about allegations of torture, but we get upset when some on the Left only seem to want to attack America.

British military in Iraqi waters

According to CBS/AP, "Iran's foreign minister has rejected Global Satellite Positioning evidence that the British military offered up as proof that 15 service members detained by Iranian forces at sea were in Iraqi waters, rather than Iranian territory as Tehran claims."

What a shocker! There is no word yet on whether Rosie O'Donnell will also reject the evidence. Her hatred for the West is so great that she had immediately sided with Iran on the crisis.

Iran captures British sailors

Fifteen British sailors were captured at gunpoint this morning is a waterway between Iran and Iraq. The British say they were in Iraqi waters. Iran says they were in Iranian waters (BBC).

In an article on the Counterterrorism Blog, terrorism expert Walid Phares believes this was part of a calculated “chess” move by the Iranian mullahs to provoke a limited counter strike by British and American forces. Why would Iran do that? Phares explains that one of the under-reported news stories is that many Iranians are “

...practically in slow motion eruption against the authorities. Students, women,
workers and political activists have been demonstrating and sometimes clashing
with the regime's security apparatus. Western media didn't report proportionally
on these events over the past few weeks.

So if Britain and the U.S. do nothing, Iran wins. If Britain and the U.S. launch a limited strike, the people of Iran rally around their government and Iran wins.

Women's rights

The good news: Thirty three brave women took a stand to protest discrimination and repression of women.

The bad news: they were all arrested and are now being held in prison (MEMRI).

Where? Iran, of course. So much for women's rights when the mullah's are in charge.

Ahmadinejad’s April surprise

An LGF headline reads “Ahmadinejad Promises an April Surprise” regarding Iran’s nuclear achievements. In light of the fact that Iran has been spreading their hatred and violence around the world for years, including the killing of U.S. Marines in Lebanon and the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the fact that the Iranians appear to be supporting the insurgency against Iraq, I think the time is comming for the United States to give Ahmadinejad a little surprise.

I’d suggest we consider a little “shock and awe” to absolutely demolish his nuclear and military capabilities, destroy any known terrorist camps, and empower pro-West Iranian revolutionary groups to bring down and take over the government. We can either fight this battle on Iranian soil now, or we can fight it on American soil later, only then it may be nuclear—unless, of course, we can appease Iran with a large enough Jizya!

Breaking: Appeasment to North Korea

Breaking News: U.S. takes the appeasement route, bows to North Korea, and agrees to pay tribute:

Kyodo, the Japanese news agency, has reported that North Korea wants an
annual energy package of two million tons of fuel oil and two million kilowatts
of electricity for taking the first steps in the agreement. It quoted
unidentifed diplomatic sources who said the North also wanted a short-term
infusion of hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel oil almost immediately. That
presumably would be a reward for shutting down Yongbyon, even though Yongbyon
does not provide electric energy to the country (quoted from Hot Air)

Those are your tax dollars at work. The Hot Air blog then comments, "This is the global equivalent of a hostage negotiation, with Kim implicitly threatening to kill Koreans on both sides of the border if we don’t give him what he wants. So … we’re giving him what he wants. No other options at this point, really."

This is what you get when you don't stop a tyrant from getting nuclear weapons while you have the chance. Today, North Korea. Tomorrow, Iran.

Tribute: "Any payment exacted for protection." "A payment or tax given by a feudal vassal to an overlord." American Heritage Dictionary]

Multiculturalism gone wild

Bernard Lewis, 0ne of the world’s leading authorities on Islam, recently had some sobering words for Europe. Excerpts appear below. America would do well to pay attention:

Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of
political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious
control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic
scholar, said on Sunday.

Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?"

"Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence," he said. "They have no respect for their own culture." Europeans had "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism,"

The Cold War philosophy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which
prevented the former Soviet Union and the United States from using the nuclear
weapons they had targeted at each other, would not apply to President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's Iran, said Lewis.

"For him, Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement," said Lewis of Ahmadinejad. "We know already that they [Iran's ruling ayatollahs] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. If they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick, free pass to heaven. I find all that very alarming," said Lewis.

Read the rest in the Jerusalem Post.