“A website registered under the name of James Lee contained demands that Discovery air programming urging people to stop having babies…

“‘Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,’ says the site, http://savetheplanetprotest.com.

“‘Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!’ it says…

“He said he was inspired by ‘Ishmael’, a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1308138/Eco-terrorist-James-Jay-Lee-shot-dead-Discovery-Channel-HQ.html

Related posts:

1. Thomas Sowell: “Notional Security”
2. All Roads Lead to a Dead End
3. Come and Take It

In anticipation of President Barack Obama’s primetime address to the nation last night on the Iraq War, columnist Eugene Robinson wrote, “Now that the Iraq War is over… only one thing is clear about the outcome: We didn’t win.”

Actually, I can think of about 12 things that are clearer about the outcome of the Iraq War than the conclusion that we didn’t win: (1) Obama was wrong about the surge, (2) Vice President Joe Biden was wrong about the surge, (3) President George W. Bush was right to ignore Congressional Democrats and the Iraq Study Group and order the surge in 2007, (4) insurgent violence dropped precipitously after the surge was implemented, (5) if Democrats had had their way on the surge in Iraq, per Harry Reid’s declaration that “this war is lost,” it would have been lost, (6) Biden was wrong about dividing Iraq into ethnic partitions, (7) Biden is a loon for claiming that the Iraq War could be one of the great successes of the Obama administration, (8) Iraq is now the fourth-most politically free Middle Eastern country, after democracy Israel, republic Lebanon, and constitutional monarchy Morocco, (9) General David Petraeus’ Iraq surge set the model for beating back insurgents and winning in Afghanistan, (10) despite liberals’ bleating about its expense, eight years of the Iraq War—including training and preparation for the March 2003 invasion—now turn out to have cost less ($709 billion) than Obama’s useless trillion-dollar stimulus bill, (11) Bush’s popularity didn’t sink to the level that Obama’s is at now until late 2005, two-and-a-half years into the Iraq War and well into Bush’s second term, and (12) Obama’s address last night was full of bromides, revisionist history, and platitudinous prescriptions for the future that have little relation to what will actually need to be done in the War on Terror according to a fair evaluation of conditions on the ground.

But then I’m not Eugene Robinson, who recently called those who wanted an investigation into Park51 mosque supporter Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s radical ties “loudmouths,” “fraidy-cats,” and “professional victims,” dismissed Tea Partiers as racists, and called Dr. Alveeda King a “puppet” for appearing at Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor rally.

Oh, and: (13) if anyone deserves to give a triumphal speech marking the end of combat operations in Iraq, it is Bush, Petraeus, Vice President Dick Cheney, or Kermit the Frog—anyone but Obama, who opposed the war from the start and voted as U.S. senator to defund it.

And: (14) Obama has learned nothing about the danger of prematurely promising to remove our troops by a certain date and the fortifying effect this has on our enemy, as demonstrated by his declaration in his speech that we will begin removing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 according to his preordained schedule, and by his standing commitment to remove all 50,000 troops still stationed in Iraq by the end of 2011.

Not to mention: (15) the most factual elements of Obama’s address could have been cribbed from a Bush speech on Iraq from five years ago, such as “We must never lose sight of what’s at stake.  As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us,” and (16) Obama wasn’t honorable or honest enough to give Bush credit for the surge, saying only that “[N]o one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security,” which is about as controversial to his antiwar base as saying, “No one could doubt President Bush’s support for his family, or his love of his wife and children.”

Robinson’s liberal fantasy proclaims, “The war was on its way toward becoming a disastrous failure until the country’s Sunni minority turned against the al-Qaeda jihadists who had flooded into Iraq to fight against the hated Americans,” then adds, as an afterthought, “and Bush’s troop surge, ably led by Gen. David Petraeus, capitalized on this shift of allegiance.”  Yes, sectarian conflict facilitated conditions in which the surge could flourish, but: (17) Bush and Petraeus were savvy enough to recognize this shift in conditions on the ground, prepare a successful strategy to take advantage of it, execute this strategy despite the histrionics of Congressional Democrats, and persist until it yielded its intended results.

Give Obama credit for this: his Iraq speech was the best speech he has ever given from the Oval Office.  Of course, the only other Oval Office speech he’s given was on the BP oil spill, an address that even liberal supporters at MSNBC and The New York Times panned as amateurish and ineffective.

Bonus fact!: The Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index reports that 79% of Iraqis believe that conditions in their country will be the same as or better in 2010 than in 2009—more than you can say for residents of the United States.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act (foxnews.com)
• The Ambiguity of War’s End (realclearpolitics.com)
• Troops yet to give Obama full salute (washingtontimes.com)
• Nation Building Works (nytimes.com)
• Obama speech on Iraq has risks (washingtonpost.com)

Related posts:

1. Joe Biden Sees Iraq Success for President Obama
2. Spotted on Biden’s Palm: “Iraq War Bad, Afghanistan War Good”
3. Cheney: Biden Should Give Credit for Iraq to Bush

“According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

“The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/

Related posts:

1. Two or Three Things I Know About the Iraq War
2. Jake Tapper: Stimulus Overhype?
3. Jake Tapper Uncovers More Obama Lies About Unspent Stimulus Money

“In two close races, endangered Democrats are even running ads touting how they oppose their leadership…

“In some races, endangered Democrats are trying to carve out their own separate identities from the national party — even if that means bashing Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…

“Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly, a second-term congressman, is airing a new TV ad in his South Bend-area district pointing out that he voted against ‘Nancy Pelosi’s energy tax on Hoosier families…’

“It’s a spot that is strikingly similar to one Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire is running, which features supporters praising the second-term Democrat for ‘stand[ing] up’ to Obama and Pelosi.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=ABEF4646-18FE-70B2-A8627E91170C1A5F

Related posts:

1. House May Try To Pass Senate Health-Care Bill Without Voting On It
2. Michael Barone: Dems’ Health Strategy Doesn’t Add Up to a Win
3. Harry Reid Adopts Sharron Angle’s Position on the Ground Zero Mosque

“The NY Post reports that Gamal has a signficant unpaid tax bill:

“‘Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show.

“‘El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

“‘The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel…

“‘The utility said it would have to review any possible lease violations.’”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/cordoba_mosque_developer_tax_d.html

Related posts:

1. Hardhats Vow Not To Work On Controversial Mosque Near Ground Zero
2. Obama’s Mosque Remarks Reverberate
3. Harry Reid Adopts Sharron Angle’s Position on the Ground Zero Mosque

“Crist told a local TV station Friday that he would have voted in favor of President Obama’s healthcare proposal were he in the Senate. That was a reversal of his previous position against the healthcare law.

“‘I would have voted for it,’ Crist said in the interview…

“But now, Crist says he ‘misspoke’ in that interview. His campaign sent out a statement Friday afternoon clarifying Crist’s position on the healthcare law.

“‘If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: the health care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much,’ Crist said in a statement. ‘Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.’”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/116145-crist-says-he-misspoke-on-healthcare-

Related posts:

1. The Phony Centrism of Charlie Crist
2. Obama’s Mosque Remarks Reverberate
3. Crist Not Expected to Dilute Rubio’s Support

“IDF Lt.-Col. (res.) Dov Harari, 45, was killed and Capt. (res.) Ezra Lakia was seriously wounded, as well three LAF soldiers and one Lebanese journalist killed, when both sides exchanged fire after IDF soldiers attempted to cut down a tree on the Israeli side of the border…

“UNIFIL later confirmed that the IDF troops were on the Israeli side of the border when the incident occurred, contradicting LAF claims that Lebanese sniper fire directed at the Israeli troops had been justified by an incursion upon Lebanese territory.”

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=186197

Related posts:

1. Israel’s Barak Calls Off Paris Visit Amid Threats
2. Pat HAMAS Buchanan: Qaeda Attacks on US Justified b/c of Israel
3. Paul Ryan Is Not Ready to Give Up on Health Care

“Local residents said settlers tried to reach a spring, which religious Jews view as a biblical site, by crossing through a mosque courtyard.

“Israeli police said Palestinians then took to the streets in violent demonstrations, throwing rocks and firebombs at police and vehicles, burning six cars.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE67P08V

Related posts:

1. Palestinians Threaten Peace Talk Walkout
2. Reuters: Republicans Contest Obama’s Supreme Court Choice
3. Reuters: Obama Opposes Detainee Abuse Photo Release

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently characterized the likelihood of a resolution from upcoming U.S.-force-fed peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as “difficult but possible.”

He has it exactly backwards—it is easy but impossible.

“Possible” implies that both parties are on the same terrain, respect the other’s interests, and are acting in good faith.  “Difficult” implies that the two parties are far apart, but that with creativity and temerity they may be able to trade off competing interests and find win-win solutions.

“Impossible” implies that one party is inherently opposed to the interests of the other, and therefore would not negotiate in the conventional sense even if it left both parties satisfied, because the first party by definition is not satisfied if the second party is.  “Easy” implies that the first party’s demands could yield an instant solution if given up, if that party were thinking and acting rationally—or if the second party were willing and able to use overwhelming force to obviate the first party’s demands.

I think it’s safe to say that the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships are not on the same terrain, inasmuch as the preferred outcome of the conflict as expressed by Palestinians is for Jews to literally be driven off of that terrain into the sea.  Given that Israel does not wish to voluntarily self-destruct, that’s where “impossible” comes in.

If they haven’t already done so after a half-century of murderous genocidal rhetoric and blood-spattered conflict, I also doubt the Palestinians will charitably give up their demands tomorrow, which rules out “easy.”  That leaves only the overwhelming force option.

Fortunately, the Palestinians actually seem to respond rather well to that option.

The number of Palestinian deaths in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1987 is on the order of 7,500; Israeli deaths number approximately 1,500.  This disproportionate figure reflects, not the bloodthirsty, excessive use of force on Israel’s part, but their use of more sophisticated and deadly weaponry.

Israeli deaths ranged from 0 to 34 per year from 1987 to 1992.

After Israel agreed to the Oslo Accords in 1993, the number of Israeli deaths did not decline, but rather spiked at 74 in 1994 and 75 in 1996.

Following the Camp David Summit in 2000, Israeli deaths did not decrease, but skyrocketed from 43 in 2000 to 192 in 2001.

This was the same year in which the Taba Summit was held.  The next year, Israeli deaths shot up to 419.

Under George W. Bush, who subsequently ignored the futile “peace process” for the rest of his administration, since it had obviously yielded no results, Israel fought back against acts of aggression from Palestinians and their terrorists allies, thus inducing some of the highest yearly Palestinian casualty rates since the start of the conflict.

In response, the Palestinian leadership—which has proven it responds only to force, not reason—eased up on Israel: the number of Israeli casualties dropped from 419 in 2002 to 185 in 2003, and to 108 in 2004, and has been in double digits every year since 2005.

So Hillary Clinton may loftily announce, “There have been difficulties in the past; there will be difficulties ahead.  Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles.  The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks.  But I ask the parties to persevere.”

Barack Obama can pragmatically declare, “For any agreement to endure, peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be negotiated directly by the leaders who are required to make the hard choices and compromises that take on history.”

Benjamin Netanyahu can tell us, “We come to the talks with a genuine desire to reach a peace agreement between the two peoples, while protecting Israel’s national interests, chiefly security.  Achieving a peace agreement between us and the Palestinian Authority is difficult but possible.”

But anyone with a sense, not just of history but of the rigid, irrational thought system underlying Palestinian and Islamist ideology, knows exactly what a load of rhetorical crap all this is.

The Palestinians’ negotiating position recalls that of Ground Zero Mosque promoters Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, who claim they want to “build bridges” with those wary of Islam.  Sure, they want to build bridges—as long as the other side sketches the designs, supplies the materials, excavates the banks, pours the concrete, lays the deck, paves the roads, and then tosses itself off and plunges to its death.



Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israeli PM: Peace ‘difficult but possible’ (google.com)
• Palestinians Threaten Peace Talk Walkout (news.sky.com)
• Mideast peace talks raise stakes higher for President Obama (usatoday.com)
• Israel faces difficult choice on settlement freeze (yahoo.com)
• Mideast peace talks to look forward to? (washingtonpost.com)

Related posts:

1. Israeli PM: Peace ‘Difficult But Possible’
2. Palestinians Threaten Peace Talk Walkout
3. Michael Barone: Obama Needs to Brush Up on Middle East History

“By kicking off the process now, Obama gives Israel an incentive to extend its moratorium on West Bank settlements…

“Obama plans to meet separately Sept. 1 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas before the two sit down together with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the next day…

“Netanyahu told his Cabinet on Sunday that any deal must recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people. It also must provide for Israel’s security and end all armed conflict…

“The concept of renewed negotiations is unpopular in Ramallah, particularly with no permanent freeze on Israeli housing settlements in the West Bank…

“‘When they reach an impasse, and they will, the expectation will be that the president has to come in and fix these things…  Does he really understand what he’s getting himself into?’”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-23-peacetalks23_ST_N.htm?csp=34

Related posts:

1. Israeli PM: Peace ‘Difficult But Possible’
2. Palestinians Threaten Peace Talk Walkout
3. Flashback – Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran