Gotta love Spanish PM Zapatero, trying to sound tough after the London bombings, especially considering the guy got elected because terrorism worked in Spain. He writes in the Financial times, Global consensus needed to defeat terrorism that:

this new episode of mad violence requires us to go further. It serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to defeat terrorism.

Okay, with you there. So, how do you propose to do it? Let's see:

the full force of the law must be brought to bear on those who planned, carried out or were behind this atrocity.

a collective response on the part of the international community.

comprehend the conditions that facilitate the spread of fanaticism and support for terror.

consolidate the political consensus against terrorism...United Nations. The organisation must be given the means – including a legal framework and the operational tools – to lead the international fight against terrorism, enabling it to be waged more effectively.

a global convention against terrorism

reinforce mechanisms for co-operation among police forces, courts and intelligence services

work to spread the belief that nothing can justify terrorism.

an alliance of civilisations, based on conviction, understanding and respect for others.

regional and bilateral co-operation

Talk, meet, convene, assemble, discuss, understand, use legal means, blah, blah, blah...

In other words, we do exactly what allowed al Qaeda to go from a near non-entity into an international threat in the span of a single decade.

No Prime Minister, the answer is simple. You find the terorrists, you hunt them down, you kill them, and you go after the governments that support them. You give your speeches, offer your "support", call your assemblies, and make your promises. We'll just keep on killing them until they're all gone. You already cried "No Mas!"

You'd think EJ Dionne works for they NY TImes. But then again, the Washington Post is a very close first cousin. Here's his latest drivel:

Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?

Yes. It's called democracy. In fact, Republicans control 231 House seats (53%) and 55 Senate seats (55%) as well as 28 governorships (56%). I guess we'll just call Dionne's clever use of stats Krugmanizing the numbers.

That means that the most important questions for senators to ask a nominee have to do with his or her philosophy. It is preposterous to rule such questions out of bounds. It's also hypocritical.

No, hypocrisy is senators fillibustering qualified judges simply because they disagree with them. Hypocrisy is 40 senators hijacking the senate. Hypocrisy is planning out this legal strategy with "special interest groups" long before Bush nominated any judges. Hypocrisy is demanding special consultation with the minority, something which has never occurred before. Did Orin Hatch demand an audience with President Clinton before he picked Ginsberg?

But another story in the same edition quoted a planning document for Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It urged its side to avoid disclosing the "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue" of Bush's prospective nominee. The idea, as the story put it, was "to focus on qualifications rather than specific issues."

Yes, becasue things like law school, scholarly work, years on the bench, and juris prudence have absolutely nothing to do with being a justice. "Issues" allows liberals to attack qualified minorities without fear.

Many Republicans are already saying that since Bush won the last election and since Republicans control the Senate, the president's choice should be confirmed with dispatch. But as former judge Robert Bork wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court "is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy." Today's Republican majority, based on Bush's 50.7 percent of the vote in 2004, has no inherent right to exercise near-total control over that "most powerful branch."

Consider that since 1992 the Republican presidential vote has averaged only 44 percent and the vote for Republican House candidates has averaged roughly 48 percent. In 2004, with large margins in some of the largest states, Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate received nearly 5 million more votes than their Republican opponents.

Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote, coming closest in '96 with 49%, yet liberals never had any qualms about his policies or nominees. Republican's majority is based on far more than 50.7% and even if it was, that's how a democracy works. The majority governs. The minority can oppose, can offer alternatives, but in the end, the government elected by the people must be allowed to function. The people will get their shot again. Or do you not trust the people?

Nice use of numbers too, "Republican presidential vote has averaged only 44 percent...". Big deal. I don't recall any liberals demanding Clinton govern cautiously as he garnered a whopping 43% of the popular vote. We have a system in place and that's how it works. You don't subvert the system, whine and try to take the ball and go home because somebody else is winning.

But if the only legitimate way to stop a nominee is to discover or allege some personal shortcoming, all the incentives are in favor of nasty ad hominem attacks. If senators disagree profoundly with the philosophy of a nominee who happens to be a perfectly decent human being, isn't it far better that they wage their battle openly on philosophical and political grounds? Why force them to dig up bad stuff on a good person? Paradoxically, denying that politics matter in confirmation battles makes for uglier politics.

Fine. But in the end, senators should, must, be allowed to vote yes or no or the system fails.

Liberals like Dionne want to change the rules as they go, want to ignore electoral results, and shape the system to suit their needs. As for Dionne, he's a moron. And pardon my French, he's a whiny little b*****.

A few weeks ago, I wrote let the beatings begin as I learned everyone in my district would undergo "diversity training". This is of course in response to the silly, unwarranted, and stupid lawsuit being levied against my school and principal.

Now, beatings have begun:

SANTA CLARITA -- Local high school administrators are participating in diversity training workshops over summer break, the beginning of a staff development program created after complaints of racism surfaced on some campuses.

Read the rest for all the good news, but here's the best part:

Diversity training is focused on helping staff members come to terms with their own feelings and attitudes, to recognize incidents of harassment or discrimination and to deal with them.

When I stop alternating between laughing and puking, I'll post more detailed thoughts. But could there not be anything more typifying of public education than this.

First, how do you solve something? Form a committee. What's the solution? Have a training seminar. How does it work? We'll "come to terms with our feelings". Arnold, please, please, if you do nothing else, please stop funding public education. Please.

I had read this and thought, ah, time for another V-Q award. But I realized that for someone to be worthy, their words or actions must be of significant effect. Publishing false stories about Koran abuse, holding mock impeachment hearings, or worse, comparing our troops to Nazis suffice. No, Babs is just brain dead, and nobody pays any more attention to her.

The "esteemable" Babs Boxer is from my home state. For all of you out there, please let me offer my sincerest and most heartfelt apologies for California giving you not only Pelosi but Boxer as well. If you never buy a bottle of California wine or plan a vacation here, I wouldn't blame you.

Now, onto the stupidity. Senator Boxer (fresh of her moronic display attacking Condi) has this to say about Iraq:

That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists. With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes.

Let’s be clear: “What we have done in Iraq,” terrorism expert Peter Bergen explained, “is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams…It’s hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.”

A report issued by the CIA’s think tank found that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists. But, the tragic irony is, terrorism was the result of the war, not a reason for waging it and so we are in greater danger.

I believe our mission in Iraq is this: Security for Iraqis provided by Iraqis. We need a Manhattan project to train the Iraqi soldiers and a successful plan to tighten the borders, which should include troops from around the world.

And what about our democratic goals? Yes, we must help the Iraqis create a government in which everyone has a stake, including the Sunnis. But, while we will likely continue to play an advisory role if asked, we cannot tie current troop levels to the goal of a well-functioning democracy, which, even under the best circumstances, takes generations to perfect. Ours certainly did.

And that brings me to this point. The Administration continually compares Iraq’s struggle for democracy to our country’s struggle for democracy. Fine. But we fought for it with our own people. That’s what countries do. Others helped us, sure. But the people power was American.

If there is to be a free Iraq, and I certainly hope there will be, then the Iraqis must want that freedom—and be willing to defend it—as much as we want it for them.

Boxer pulls out the old leftist canards, "we are creating terrorists", "terrorism was the result of the war", etc. She rehashes the Dick Clark, Paul O'Neill, and Gen. Shinseki stories. She cites Carter's NSC Brzezinski and a journalist who works frequently with (Saddam's apologists) CNN.

Can't she do any better that that? Is she really that simple minded? This is just another magnificent display from the mainstream of the democratic party.

Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. The war of necessity was the war against Osama bin Laden that we launched after 9/11…the war that every single Senator voted for…the war that was a clear response to the vicious attack of that day.
...
And the President? He had to know al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. [SHOW CHART]. His own State Department issued a report right after 9/11. It lists 45 countries in which al Qaeda operated. Guess who was not on that list? Iraq.

This is why liberals are so dangerous. Al Qaeda not in Iraq before the war? The 9/11 commission report said there were long standing ties between al Qaeda and Saddam, and there is ample evidence (posted several times here) that it involved training in chemical and biological weaponry.

Congressman Schiff, could you please run against her next democratic primary. I'll work for you.

From LA Daily News (and yes there is another LA paper)

Here's SoCal congressman Adam Schiff:

The Democratic congressman from Pasadena started visiting farmers markets in his district three months ago as a way to keep in touch with constituents. Schiff's office set up a stand in a corner of Glendale's market Thursday on a grassy field at Wilson Avenue and Brand Boulevard, and voters stopped to speak their minds.

Several people who approached Schiff were opposed to the war in Iraq. Schiff voted in 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq in a resolution that passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 296-133.

"Which, in your opinion, is the greater priority -- going after Osama bin Laden or securing Iraq?" Don Fine of Los Angeles, who does not live in Schiff's district, asked the congressman.

"In my opinion, we have to do both," Schiff said.

...

Sharon Weisman, 58, of La Crescenta talked about Thursday's terror attacks in London.

"It's the lack of American support for civil liberties that feeds terrorism," Weisman said, adding that the United States has acted immorally in the way it has detained terror suspects.

"And I think we're creating more terrorism against America and our allies," she said.

Schiff disagreed.

"I have a very different view of what happened in London today," Schiff said. "I think that people who would carry out these kinds of terrorist attack will attack us regardless of what our policies are."

Whoa!!! Stop the presses. Here's a democrat saying we can go after bin Laden AND Iraq. Here's a democrat not buying into the far-left mainstream democratic belief that we're responsible for 9/11 and that the war in Iraq was the reason for the London bombings.

Congressman Schiff, please save your party.

If Kos Was Around on 9/11...

Every time I think I can coexist as a member of the DailyKos universe, I get reminded just how ridiculous the hard left can be. And how much of a burden they are on Democrats.

In response to this thread at Kos, extolling the virtues of George Galloway's near traitorous remarks on the London bombings, I posted a diary today at Kos entitled "Galloway is sub-human." It linked to my Galloway post here, with a short summary. The predictable swarm of haters showed up. I responded. I still try to move my fellow Democrats along on the security stuff, and refuse to shy away from debate. The thread is here...

...without my responses. When I tried to respond, every single comment I posted on the thread got banned and removed. The thread is still there, but all 6 comments I posted in response to the haters was removed. It was incredible. I'd post the comment. It was gone in a matter of minutes.

As a Democrat, I'm very happy that the lefty blogosphere wasn't around much on September 11. Because if they were, and they uncorked the response they are uncorking to the London bombings, Democrats might never be electable again in my lifetime.

Should we be surprised. Any divergence from dogma is attacked. Any speech to the contrary is eliminated. How Stalinist!!

The left today is a most conservative and reactionary group more resembling the medieval Church, especially when confronted by science. We need democrats like democracyguy. Not because I agree with him on everything, because as he commented later, he's a very Clintonite democrat. We need him because I've long argued we need two strong parties and we don't have them.

Often times my students ask me what scares me the most. I often respond that nuclear weaponry in the hands of terrorists are what I think the greatest threat to humanity is. But in my heart, I know this is untrue.

My greatest fear is not what they can do to us, it is what we can do to them. Save for self-imposed restraint, what is there stopping us from doing unto the entire middle east and beyond what Alexander did to Persia, Rome to Carthage, Europe to the Aztecs and Incas, or even America to the Indians. What is the history of the 20h century but Europeans trying to annihilate each other from the face of the earth. And the truth is, Germany damn near accomplished it.

My greatest fear is that one day Europe will wake up from her slumber. Remember, this is a continent with a long memory and a long history of being very very deadly with very little remorse. One day, they just might "rememebr the Hagia Sophia" they way Texans "remember the Alamo". And if that day should come, they won't just find some silly excuse, wage a war against them, take a big chunk of land, and build a railroad across the land.

Our enemies really have no sense of history. Sure, they take a nom de guerre of some seventh century tribal chief who conquered some part of Arabia, but they don't realize this is the continent that defined genocide. They have no idea what Europeans are capable of, nor any appreciation of what they have done. Do not underestimate 50 years of pacifism. It masks more than two millenia of barbarism on a scale of which their ignorance is exceeded only by their hubris. A few videos are not going to lessen any of that.

For all the bluster of a Khomenei, a Khadaffy, or a Hussein, how many Dresdens and Tokyos have they in their past? How many einsatzgruppen have they unleashed? Who but the West has shown not only a proclivity, but a passion to turn their entire efforts towards systematic, callous, cold, ruthless, and methodological killing. That Srebenica caused no concern, no outrage, stirred no action should be an awful warning. Just remember who it was that intervened.

Westerners have shown an uncanny ability and desire to be far more than a bit excessive when aroused. You burn flags in streets while we burn civilizations to the ground.

We are in a world war, a war of cultures, a truly epochal struggle. Half a century of modernity has made many soft. Modern leftism has let their own successes mask the brutal realities that they presume reason and logic have solved. It wasn't the success of leftism but rather the drain that militarism had taken that finally subdued the Goth, the Vandal, the Hun. Wax philosophic about the Saracen or the Seljuk, but know what neither could have or would have done.

Now, more or less freed from self immolation, and if given proper motivation, the former can turn their furies on the latter. Reason and logic were nowhere to be found in Flanders Fields, yet a generation later, there they were again. So, should those same energies, which I do feel are ever present though currently dormant, feel the power of renewal, the losses won't be counted in thousands or even hundreds of thousands. It won't even be counted in millions.

Perhaps that is why it is ever vital that the dreaded neocon idea reach fruition, for the alternative, either way, is far far worse. We might find the successes of clerical barbarism somewhat distasteful, a Taliban or pre-assault Fallujah awful reminders of the true nature of their victory. But those victories will always be small and trivial in comparison. It will always be some backwater town, some desolate country. But neither they nor their progeny will have the might or ability to be more than a terrible threat. There will never again be al Andalusia.

Their greatest security lies not in defeating us but in becoming us. Their only hope is that which they have eschewed for far too long. And by their hope, I do mean the hope we have for them, not they for themselves.

While London never will, we do know all to well from experience that Baghdad or Tehran could very well end up another Tenochtitlan. Combine all the force of arms of the entire Islamic world into one large army and they would stand as such: no air force, no navy, no technology, no industry to back them, no trade to sustain them. The one commodity they have is far more a curse. That they need the dreaded infidel to extract, process and ship it is testament to their weakness. That we have an insatiable appetite is testament to our wealth and strength. Don't confuse the two.

What an historical anomaly, that for such paltry a force we show such respect. Let Gaugamela be a reminder that raw numbers do not matter. Look no further than Rorke's Drift if one needs to know what the few can do to the many. A thousand drug induced infantry with spears are no match for one trained bearer of a Martini-Henry. Thus it is rather ironic that their only salvation, their only hope, is in the begging, borrowing, and stealing of weaponry the result of such a society they themselves would never tolerate. That their hated enemy provides the very means by which the can achieve some semblance of parity must be the greatest insult of all.

Perhaps that is why they seek our destruction, not out of hatred but self loathing. We are what they never could be. Destroy all vestiges and be free from the scathing truth that 200 million Arabs could not drive 3 million Jews out of Palestine. Be free from the humility that you were reduced to begging for help from the very society you hate, relying on thier own centuries old hatreds to do the job for you. And do it at the UN no less. Be shamed into corralling your might to wage a vendetta against the hated infidel in the most anachronistic manner: voting, in this case at the general assembly.

Learn from history and learn well dear enemy for you shall not like the results. You have once before been destroyed but 1258 was a very long time ago and very different enemy. Then you faced one who more or less resembles yourself today, a nomadic despiser of civilization. And you too share their same defects: factionalism, tribalism, cultural stagnation in the face of change. And you too can share their same fate: extinction.

So go ahead and wake the lumbering old fools in Europe. Send in your advanced parties, weaken them, besiege them, undermine them, cause them angst and persuade them to turn against themselves in a temporary moment of self doubt. But do it ever so quickly. And if you succeed, you'd better be prepared to do what you've never done before. And if you fail, you'll only need a history book to know why.

Its apparent that the terrorists have had a serious lack of history classes. Have they no knowledge of the last group that tried bombing London? Perhaps they never read these immortal words:

We shall never surrender.

My heart felt sympathies go out to the fine people of Britain. You are our true friend and ally. God Bless you as you continue the fight.

You've faced far worse. So have we. We shall, as the man said "go on to the end".

I'm about half way through David McCullough's new book 1776 and it is a truly remarkable work. It must be required reading for all high school seniors. It should be for many reasons, not the least of which is this passage from page 34 in which he describes the army laying seige to Boston late in 1775:

The great majority of the army were farmers and skiled artisans, saddlers, carpenters...
It was an army of men accustomed to hard work, hard work being the common lot. They were familiar with adversity and making do in a harsh climate. Resourceful, handy with tools, they could drive a yoke of oxen or "hove up" a stump...They knew from experience, most of them, hardships and setbacks of life. Preparing for the worst was second nature. Rare was the man who had never seen someone die.
To be sure, an appreciable number had no trade. They were drifters, tavern lowlife, some the dregs of society. But by and large they were good, solid citizens - as "worthy people as ever marched out of step"...
It was the first American army and an army of everyone, men of every shape and size and makeup, different colors, different nationalities, different ways of talking, and all degrees of physical condition.

This has described every singe American army since Boston 1775. Save for different (if any) uniforms, would not the continental soldier be nearly identical to the soldier in Sherman's army, or Pershing's, or Patton's, or even today in Iraq. This single trait has been the greatest strength of the American fighting man throughout two plus centuries. But today, I fear something terribly amiss.

No, it's not the army, for McCullough's description is verily accurate, but the problem rather is with society. Simply put, the army doesn't represent all of society. And it scares me terribly. When the army, at least in free societies, no longer represents the nation it serves, revolution or dictatorship ensues. There is no comparison between the Roman legions that fought Hannibal and the legions of Caesar than conquered Gaul. The former was a citizen army called to serve to defend from invasion, the latter a paid professional conqueror. Caeasr didn't cross the Rubicon to repel an invader but to conquer Rome itself.

In Stuart England the army split along who it would serve, the king or the Parliament. We must keep in mind that by the mid 17th century, England was relatively properous and free, especially when compared to Spain or France. Charles' army was being raised from a select group of citizens and was being paid to help reclaim the Palatinate for his Brother-in-Law. His had become as much a mercenary army on foreign expedition, hardly the citizen soldier of a free republic. By 1642, England was engulfed in civil war.

Now, where does that lead us to today? The concern is not that the army is a paid and highly professional army. The concern is that how much of society does the army acually represent.

The last two generations have been raised in such wealth and security, free from the burdens of conflict, want, and fear. Look at how we've morphed from an entrepreneurial and industrious society to a litigous and dependency society. Lawsuits and Ritalin have replaced responsibility and commitment. Kids graduate from college and expect high paying jobs, with low stress, little effort required, and plenty of excitement. They don't expect to work hard and pay their dues. Somehow what has always been is now a crisis.

When we think of today's generation, do the words duty, sacrifice, and patriotism come to mind or do slacker, malcontent, and selfish? Do we think we can raise another "greatest generation" if needed? The question is not can we produce a warrior class, for that we most certainly still can. The question is why can't we produce enough of them, for that we most surely aren't.

Part of the recruiting woes the army faces is directly related to this. There is no longer, in large segments of society, the belief that what we have is worth fighting and dying for. There is no longer a widespread sense of national purpose and unity.

How many can truly argue that most kids today are "accustomed to hard work" or "resourceful", "knew setbacks", and are "good, solid citizens". Sure, many still are, but fewer and fewer can lay claim to these. And, as the recruiting pool grows smaller and smaller, the army itself represents a smaller and smaller segment of society. How long will those that are willing to fight and die to preserve this great land continue to do so for so many who feel it is not worthy of defending? How long are they going to continue to fight a war they believe in but the public does not? And what happens then?

The army has a hard time recruiting new soldiers, but no problem with retaining current soldiers. It is not, I don't think, an illogical proposition. Consider for a moment the recently graduated class of June, 2005. Now consider for a moment the graduating class of June, 1941. Would the percentage of those willing, ready and able to serve from 2005 be anywhere close to 1941? Would it even be half?

The American armies encamped outside Boston in 1775 or Gettysburg in 1863, fighting in the Marne 1918 or the Ardennes in 1944 were truly an "American army and an army of everyone" in every sense of the word. The turning point most assuredly came with Vietnam and the condition is much the same today. The army in Iraq defends America but I fear, in many ways less and less does it represent America. And that is a shame on us, not the army.

Hat tip Quietist

Liberals are fond of calling war supporters who never served chickenhawks. Fine. If you haven't served, you can't make decisions about war. I guess they never bothered to read the constitution. The Founders specifically wanted civilian control of the military, which is why the abililty to raise and maintain an army and navy and declare war is left to the Congress.

Pedro has another idea:

Let's make a deal: I'll agree that non-military citizens can't support the War on Terror once leftists agree that they can't support raising taxes until they lead by example and donate extra percentages of their wages to the IRS.

If you think taxes are too low, then just send the IRS more. How easy is that.

So, I've come up with another chicken- : Liberals are all too happy to spend other peoples' money, and more importantly, people who don't pay taxes are all too happy to vote for liberals who spend. So, if only veterans can decide military policy, then only taxpayers can vote when spending is concerned.

If you don't pay taxes you can't vote. Sounds good to me. And when you think about it, should people receiving government checks recuse themselves from voting anyways. Wouldn't that be called conflict of interest?

Hat tip Powerline

Drudge is reporting that Schumer and the democrats are going to war over Bush's unamed as of yet supreme court nominee.

Well, it's about time the democrats decided to go to war, except that once again, they have no idea who the enemy is. This just confirms my long held belief that the democrats would rather destroy this nation then have anything positive happen if it benefits Bush, or any Republican for that matter.

They truly do hate this country. They will tear us asunder. They are willing to destroy anyone, anytime so that they can have their way, the public and election results be damned. They are not a sad or sorry lot. They are a disgusting and deranged group.

Just remember this, they are unwilling to go to war to defend America, but are willing to "go to war" to defend abortion and gay marriage. And they will do anything it takes to accomplish this. Is there not one of them with the decency or the courage to stand up and say "enough".

Ann Althouse makes an interesting observation about the O'Connor retirement and Bush's appointment:

There are a lot of people who worry that they are going to lose rights they believe they are entitled too.

Herein lies the entire crux of the problem we are having in this country, that is the idea of rights. A right is the freedom and ability to do something of one's own free will and volition, providing that it imposes no cost or burden onto anyone else. A right is also the freedom from coercion to do something that otherwise one wouldn't do, unless that action is necessary and legal under due process guidelines.

For example, I have freedom of speech. I have no right to expect anyone to listen. Nor do I have any right to demand the government provide me with a typewriter and editor.

I have freedom of religion, but no right to demand the government build me a place of worship.

I have freedom of travel, not because it is enumerated, but becasue I can't be compelled to stay home for unwarranted reasons.

Now this is the tricky part. If there's a fire, I can be forced to leave my home for safety. Or I can be forced to stay put if there's a gas leak. I can be forced to relocate due to eminent domain, made all the more easier by Kelo. I can be compelled to or not to travel, as long as I was accorded due process, the laws were administered fairly and equally, and the laws were imposed without discrimination.

Too many people think rights are granted by courts. Look, if it's only a right because 5 out of 9 say so, it isn't a right, it's a privilege. Rights are unassailable and undeniable. Freedom of religion isn't so because the courts say it, or even because the Bill of Rights say it, but because it is a basic and fundamental part that was already recognized a priori as being a necessary condition of a free society.

Worse still, Professor Althouse's use of the word "entitle" is the heart of the problem. Many people think that they have a right to take things from someone and give them to another, or at the very least, have the government do it for them. Health care is not a right. It can't be. Someone has to pay for it and compelling one to pay for another's health might be legal, it might even be ethical, but it's not a right.

What the left will be fighting to protect aren't rights, because if they were such, they'd need no protection. And we all know exactly what the fight will be about: abortion.

So, since this is where the left draws their line in the sand, let's make them this proposal.

Abortion is a medical procedure. If women have a right to abortion, they have a right to silicone breast implants. Who are we to choose their health care. Thus, if a woman should choose silicone breast implants, she then has a right to expect they'll be on the market. Thus, agree to drop any pending and future attacks against makers of such, renounce all past legal victories, and let women choose what they want to do with their bodies.

See, they can't do that, which just proves that no medical procedure, an "optional" one at that (well, isn't that what choices are, just options?), is a right. If one procedure can be arbitrarily banned, then others can as well. If some procedures can be regulated, then others can as well.

5 out of 9 is a great day at the plate. It's not how we decide what rights are.

No society can exist in a state of total freedom, what Rousseau called the state of nature. There must be limits placed on all aspects of life, and we choose to place those limits by holdig free elections and going through the legislative process. This is how free societies achieve balance and moderation, how a diverse and pluralistic people achieve social harmony, a state which the courts have often thrown completely out of whack.

This is why cities can enact curfews, zone real estate, and ban smoking on beaches. Revoking this ability of legislative moderation is totalitarianism, not the expansion of freedom.

Ailing Colon has a healthy performance

I thought it was more NEA funded performance art. Turns out it was a baseball game. Who'd have thought?

Okay, sorry for the street patois. Interesting article by Gen. McCaffery in today's OpinionJournal.

Iraq has changed dramatically in the year since my last visit. Last month I was honored to visit the coalition leadership in Baghdad, as well as Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. Army and Marine combat units throughout the country.
...
Two new realities have emerged since the successful elections of the Iraqi interim government. First, the Iraqi Security Force (ISF) is now real and appearing in great numbers (169,000 police and army). They have real equipment (automatic weapons, some tanks and armored personnel carriers, personal body armor, light trucks, radios), and the beginnings of a national command and control and logistics system. They are increasingly well prepared for operations by the national training system created by the incredibly talented Lt. Gen. Dave Petraeus.

Many of these forces (perhaps 60,000 plus) are now operating in the cities and rural areas of Iraq and confronting the insurgency with courage and resolve. The ISF has taken horrendous casualties--600 killed and 1,800 wounded since the election. The losses have deepened their commitment. Recruiting has gotten easier--not more difficult. By next summer there will be 250,000 Iraqis in the uniforms of their Armed Forces and the Interior Ministry Police. The Iraqi units that I observed in training and action are patriots with a commitment to creating a new Iraq. I don't use these words lightly--the creation of the ISF is the crux of the war. In my view, these ISF units by next summer may well allow a significant drawdown of a third or more of the deployed U.S. forces.

Read the whole thing. It's really significant.

As I was reading the article the name McCaffery kept coming back to me. Then it hit me. McCaffery was a Kerry supporter. He was one of the big name 4 stars that were critical of the Bush administration. It is nice to see him more positive on the situation in Iraq.

Now what really irks me is this.

He says that

From the beginning, I have believed Iraq was the right war, in the right place, at the right time. President Bush showed great political and moral courage knocking down the sanctuaries of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe it would have been nice had your candidate felt as much. But even more than that, when it was all going down the crapper, it was all Bush's fault. Now that it's getting much better, you don't mention the administration at all. What gives?

Now we have the right forces in Iraq, superb leadership, growing traction of the ISF, a developing Iraqi-led political strategy, and an Iraqi economy that is struggling off its knees. We are also in a race against time. The U.S. Army and the Marines are too undermanned and underresourced to sustain this security policy beyond next fall. They are starting to unravel. Congress is in denial and must act. In addition, the American people are losing faith in the statements of our Defense Department leadership. Support for the war is plummeting along with active-duty and National Guard recruiting.

This is so duplicitous in so many ways. General, first let me say that I highly regard your service to the country and your military leadership, but I find your politicing somewhat very umbecoming. Why are the right forces in Iraq? Where is the "superb leadership" coming from? Why are we in a "race against time"? Why is support for the war "plummeting"?

You know the answers to these questions but you refuse to acknowledge them. Let's forget the Iraq war strategy which, possibly, might have been right from the beginning. Maybe the "too small" force was what was needed to get the Iraqis to take the lead. It's no different in my classroom. If I answer all the questions, the students never will learn how. The less I do, the more they have to do. And no, I didn't need an MA in Ed to know this.

But that's a small bone to pick, let's get to the meaty parts. You know full well what happened to your army during the 1990's. If you forgot, take a look back a few posts. I detailed it nicely in The readiness paradox. You also know why support is plummeting. You mention much good news coming from Iraq, but how much of it ever appears on the NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. Half the democratic senators attended a vile propagandist film, whose producer later was made a guest of honor at the DNC. The president and the war has been attacked by almost the entire democratic party using speech that is many times borderline traitorous and most times outrageous. Our troops are being compared to Nazis while their leaders are calling the war lost.

Need we go further. You know the answers. You know, you could a) at least give a little credit to the president and b) at least acknowledge the damage your candidate, and his party, have done to the war effort.

Now is the time for nonpartisan, collective leadership to support and guide our strategy in the ongoing operations in Southwest Asia. Lack of political will and clarity will surely snatch failure from the impending realization of our objectives if we do not act to support those who have given so much to America's defense.

Yes, it would really be nice. But there are 45 (wait, 44, Joe Lieberman is the lone exception) senators just waiting to destroy the president, along with 200 (well, maybe there's a couple like Joe down there too) congressmenpeople that have the same goal. Do you seriously think Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Byrd, Pelosi, Conyers, and all the rest would give any countenance to your suggestions?