A Bit Much, No?

You know, I get that a lot of people really dislike, even loathe Jimmy Carter. I'll certainly cede that Carter's presidency wasn't really an example of competence, and that he's made some regrettable statements with regards to our foreign policy, but shouldn't the fact that he hasn't been President for 25 years spare him from this?

BTW, they've got a petition, so this is more than just a counter- response to criticism of the warrantless surveillance program. Let it be known, this group HATES Jimmy Carter.

Remembering The Mission

A while back I wrote a piece on the necessity of honest debate about the war, and how essential it was for us to grasp the big picture. I'm proud of that piece, but Owen West does an infinitely better job than I did. He really hits the right targets, with clarity and courage, like the brave soldier that he is:

Soldiers are sick of apologizing for a sliver of malcontents who are not at all representative of the new breed. But they are also sick of being pitied. Our warriors are the hunters, not the hunted, and we should celebrate them as we did in the past, for while our tastes have changed, warfare — and the need to cultivate national guardians — has not. As Kipling wrote, "The strength of the pack is the wolf."

Finally, today's debates are not high-spirited so much as mean-spirited. To allow polarizing forces to dominate the argument by insinuating false motives on one side or a lack of patriotism on the other is to obscure long-term security decisions that have to be made now.

We are clashing with an enemy who has been at war with us in one form or another for two decades. Our military response may take decades more. We have crossed several rivers and the nation is hoping that ahead lie streams. But if they are oceans, we should heed Lincoln's call: "With malice toward none, with charity for all ... let us strive on to finish the work we are in."

Read the whole thing. You won't regret it.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Hitchens on Memorial Day

"Always think of it: never speak of it." That was the stoic French injunction during the time when the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been lost. This resolution might serve us well at the present time, when we are in midconflict with a hideous foe, and when it is too soon to be thinking of memorials to a war not yet won. This Memorial Day, one might think particularly of those of our fallen who also guarded polling-places, opened schools and clinics, and excavated mass graves. They represent the highest form of the citizen, and every man and woman among them was a volunteer. This plain statement requires no further rhetoric.



Read the whole thing, and be enlightened.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Just Remember, It's More Than a Three-Day Weekend

"Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave. Therefore do not take lightly the perils of war. "

--Thucydides


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

--George Orwell


Just keep in mind, that millions gave their lives that we might enjoy this freedom we have. Show due reverence, have fun, and drink responsibly.

Calling George Galloway A Scumbag Is Beyond Understatement

He's basically saying that an assasination of Tony Blair is justified. What, you thought this guy couldn't possibly sink any lower? I tell you, there's a special pouch in Hell all decked out for this piece of filth.

The Necessity of Tony Blair

Bull Moose has a great piece on the moral leadership of Tony Blair. Moose points out how Blair has been steadfast in the fight against jihadism, even moreso than some of our own leaders. In many ways, the War on Terror is an example of muscular liberalism. Tony Blair is a true progressive, so he gets it, infinitely more than Bush does. Blair has risked his political future on this, and holds the line despite being highly unpopular, even in his own Party. Two things have always amazed me about Blair: The fact that he was willing to strike against the Taliban in Afghanistan even if we didn't, and the fact that in past speeches, he has a made a better case for American leadership in the world than many Americans. Here's an excerpt from the piece:

And courageous leaders like Blair are viciously slandered by Lilliputians who would rather see America and the West defeated than genuine progressives vindicated. Some of the the lefties who trumpet their own moral superiority increasingly find themselves objectively serving the interests of the Zarqawis who seek to drive us out of Iraq by weakening our will. They virtually celebrate every American setback while remaining mute in the face of the homicidal terror of the enemy. These are the same folks who lament the failure of America to intervene in Darfur, but would be just fine with leaving Iraq to become a ethnic cleansing mass killing field.

Read the whole thing.

Why I'm Not A Republican, Example One

Because lack-witted poltroonery like this is given safe harbor.

Hat tip: Booker Rising

A Few Thoughts..

On the controversy over Mary Cheney's new book, and the related controversy over the "antics" in the 2004 campaign, I found an old gem by Andrew Sullivan that hits the nail right on the head.

Oh, and during that search, I found a great piece from a while back by Johann Hari on a completely unrelated topic, the late Jacques Derrida. He says what I've been thinking for a while.

Just some random thoughts. It's late.

In Mubarak's Egypt, They Put Bloggers in Jail

There's a rising internet and blogging campaign to support the cause of Alaa Abd El-Fatah, a prominent Egyptian blogger who was arrested for his pro-democracy views at a peaceful protest in Cairo. The fight is for his freedom, of course. The Free Alaa blog has details on activism (Google bombs, etc).

Sandmonkey has even more details.

Hat tip: Marc Cooper

Vox Populi? I Think Not

For your edification, consider this definition of hysteria:

hys·ter·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-str-, -stîr-)n.
Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

And now, for your further education/horror, consider this example.

To those who support the so-called Minutemen, call me all the names you want. I'm not pro-amnesty. I'm for sense and rational debate.

To the counter-protesters, just remember to keep in peaceful as always.

Pandering

Well this was a greaaat idea. Governor, for God's sake, do you really think it wise to openly pander to people who will never vote Democratic?

Look, I get the idea the idea that the image of the Democratic Party as "godless" is utterly false. I get that that image must be countered and debunked. The thing is, pandering is not the answer.

Caitlin Flanagan's Cri de Coeur to the Democratic Party

Note to the Party elite: You really ought to read this. A lot of us Democrats really think you should.

Hat tip: Centerfield

Immigration Overreach?

Just as they said they would, millions of immigrants, illegal and legal, took to the streets, and implemented nationwide boycotts. They're calling it "A Day Without Immigrants." They're walking off their jobs, walking out of school, and refusing to buy American goods. Their intent was to show the economic impact that illegals and undocumented workers have on our economy. The marches are filled with a lot of American flags ( a lot more U.S. flags, and a lot less Mexican flags are being flown). They're trying to show their support for American ideals, and as far as thry're concerned, their desire to be a part of America.

The economic impact has been clear. The thing is, will this backfire? Was this an overreach? It's one thing to remind people how much economic influence illegals have. It's another thing to actually show them. The fact is, people are taking a hit, and it may cause a backlash. This may have been the thing the hardline opponents of illegal immigration were waiting for. Could this have played into their hands?

One has to wonder if these protests, despite the creeping radicalism (many protesters are calling for amnesty, and some evidence of real live anti-Americanism), haven't forced people to come to terms with their argument. How can you one hand begrudge them for walking off their jobs, while decrying them for even being here on the other? While I think this approach runs the risk of alienating the people who'd be otherwise supportive, many legal immigrants are a part of these rallies, and you have to admit-they've gotten our attention.

I must say though, while every movement has its extremists, it's extremely important that the radicals don't become too involved in this. The last thing you want to do is to go too far, and empower the critics.

Hollywood and 9/11

The new film United 93 was released on Friday. As I'm sure we all know, this is the movie that attempts to recapture the events of 9/11, from the destructions of the towers, and the hijacking of the plane itself. I've not seen it yet-I plan to see it this week, but I've heard that its beyond intense, and that viewers will relive those events as if they were there.

There's been talk that the early turnout's been somewhat lacking. In other words, a lot of people aren't going to see the film. Numerous theories are going around as to why. Many have suggested that blue staters aren't going to see it because of Bush, etc, and that many conservatives aren't going because they don't trust Hollywood to get it right, so to speak.

Frankly, I don't think politics really play a role on this. Call me naive, but I think most mainstream Americans understand what 9/11 meant. I think the problem is, some people have almost forgotten. I say some, because I suspect a whole lot of people, chiefly the 9/11 families and those living in New York and D.C. haven't forgotten. They live it everyday. It's reasonable then to assume that many people aren't ready to see it again onscreen. I'm not going to judge them. People have to make up their own minds.

As for me personally, I choose to see it to remember. I think a lot of us do need to remember. As for Hollywood's motives, I think conservatives are prejudging. Hollywood's liberalism notwithstanding, one ought to see the movie first. For all of Hollywood's uneasiness about war, I'd like to think they at least get the genereal idea that 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, and heroes gave their lives. Besides, the real driving force behind Hollywood isn't really liberalism, but lucre. Remember when everybody predicted that Fahrenheit 9/11 would sweep the Oscars, and Hollywood would try to sway the '04 election? What happened? Michael Moore overreached, and his vulgar propaganda piece received nothing. The Passion wasn't even hyped, and it got four Oscar nods (not that Hollywood was behind the Passion either. My point is that Hollywood knows the game.

People should make up their minds as always. I really don't think we should let politics and political motives overtake this movie. God knows, there's enough politicization of 9/11 as it is.