Month: May 2006

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a more appropriate allegory of the Israel lobby’s tactics than this. Thank you, Jonah.

When our public servants aren’t slaughtering Iraqi civilians, they’re telling Gitmo detainees not to trust their Jewish lawyers. (Note how in the first link, a retired general says public reaction to the Haditha investigations “will be worse than Abu Ghraib – nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib.” This guy was obviously just taking a nap.) 

Brian Ross at ABC News says that guilty-pleaders Rep. “Duke” Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have been singing like Lemmy about the corruption of other Republican friends of theirs – including the number one recipient of Abramoff money, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert.

“Whether they like it or not, members of Congress, including Hastert, are under investigation,” one federal official said tonight.

Hastert, bribed? No Way! I’m shocked!

No wonder Ol’ Denny has all-of-a-sudden remembered there’s such a thing as checks and balances and separations of power.

The DoJ denies Hastert is under investigation. The DoJ says lots of things.

Could it possibly be that some rogue US Attorney inside this “unitary” executive would actually attempt to hold accountable a high-level Republican politician like Hastert? Is there a chance that the rule of law could actually bind the power of these men?

Nah.

Discuss over at Stress.

From Amman, Jordan, Iraqis hope their stories of dispossession will reach “honest American people” while in North Freedom, Wisconsin, a father wonders if there are any.

Jonathan Schwarz takes on the whiny college professors and snobby Hollywood elitists and gay-married Saddam-lovers who accuse our president of lying about wiretaps.

Also commenting on the Iranian missile test is The Strata-Sphere (cute, huh?):

I seriously doubt Iran is so crazy they would launch missiles at US or Israeli targets (though I would not bet $1 on that premise), but the missiles do represent a very tough defense against military action by the West, whether it is pre-emptive or reactive.  This is the problem with a nuclear armed Iran.  If one of their bombs makes it to a target on the back of a suicide bomber, then attempting to deliver a response becomes a more complex problem.

And there you have it: Iran is bad, and bad countries are not entitled to self-defense. It’s not about Iran actually posing a threat to the U.S. or even Israel – unless, as he ludicrously suggests, they’re going to take us down one backpack bomber at a time, while we fume and curse those darn medium-range missiles that prevent any counterattack.

Whatever the moral merits of the “bad people have no right to self-defense” argument may be, it’s a geopolitical fantasy. No government in the world is going to say, “Yes, you’re right, we do suck. Feel free to bomb us without fear of retaliation.” To think that they would, or that a constant stream of threats will enhance our own security, is to see the world through the eyes of a spoiled child.