Right Wing Nut House

Posting will be light over the next two days…but I thought I’d leave you with this marvelous example of moonbattery run amuck.

I haven’t enabled any of the links mentioned…why support dingbats by throwing traffic their way?

So, Kelly…Here’s looking at you, moonbat! Please be sure to take your meds. And the bus for Bellevue leaves at 1:00 pm this afternoon.

There was no evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11. Even if there was, that is not justification for attacking a country. Afghanistan did not attack. The Taliban said they would turn over bin Laden provided the US show evidence he was behind it. The supposed dossier presented to members of the British Parliament did not contain any evidence. Many members privy to these super-secret documents openly mocked the US.

Physicists, fighter pilots, police detectives, firemen (many who are on tape claiming the building was a controlled demolition), government employees, and explosives experts have ripped apart the administration’s claims.

Well…you get the picture.

Long before Abu Ghraib, the short-lived ABC TV series “Threat Matrix” had an episode that went directly to the issue of interrogation techniques. Considered an enemy combatant, a French-Algerian man is detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Because the female FBI agent refuses to allow him to see a doctor while she is interrogating him, even after he tells her three times that he needs to see one, the man suffers a heart attack and dies.

I thought at the time that the episode was thought provoking and was dealing with questions that needed to be answered. The techniques used on the prisoner; sleep deprivation, extended interrogation sessions, making the prisoner stand for very long periods of time, cutting food rations, and the like are at the heart of the debate today on “torture” of detainees at Gitmo. Remember, this was aired months before Abu Ghraib became a cause celebre . It turns out that the FBI agent is arrested and charged with second degree murder. The jury acquits her after information gleaned from the interrogation heads off an assassination attempt that prevents war in the middle east.

In her summation, the defense attorney tells the jury that “this is the price we’re paying to be safe.” The acquittal, to me, seemed logical. And this brings us to the Gonzalez confirmation hearings, definitions of torture, and abuses of prisoners in the hands of the military.

Why must these techniques be used? Do they violate the Geneva Convention? Are terrorists POW’s? Why did the Administration seek to change the rules on how prisoners are treated?

Only the most partisan amongst us would dismiss these questions and simply say that the Bush Administration is evil and has committed war crimes. This is nuts. Leaving aside the frat house antics of the ill-disciplined rabble who were in charge at Abu Ghraib, what we have here is something that’s never happened before in the history of warfare; combatants with no allegiance to any country that we’re at war with who seek to do the US massive injury. And let’s not forget that these same combatants used our forbearance in interrogation techniques against us. This from City Journal:

Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.

Even if a prisoner had not previously studied American detention policies before arriving at Kandahar, he soon figured them out. “It became very clear very early on to the detainees that the Americans were just going to have them sit there,” recalls interrogator Joe Martin (a pseudonym). “They realized: ‘The Americans will give us our Holy Book, they’ll draw lines on the floor showing us where to pray, we’ll get three meals a day with fresh fruit, do Jazzercise with the guards, . . . we can wait them out.’ ” (HT: Instapundit)

In the meantime, our guys are at risk in the field. This is when the administration began looking at the problem in a new way. The “Gonzalez Memos” that have taken center stage at the confirmation hearings, if read closely, lead one to the conclusion that the Administration was groping in the dark, wrestling with the problem by looking at what was going on in real time on the ground in Afghanistan; not beholden to any prescribed or nebulous strictures listed in a nearly 100 year-old document with little relevance to fighting a war against murderous, stateless criminals. Especially since traditional interrogation methods simply weren’t working:

“Love of family” often had little purchase among the terrorists, however—as did love of life. “The jihadists would tell you, ‘I’ve divorced this life, I don’t care about my family,’ ” recalls an interrogator at Guantáname. “You couldn’t shame them.” The fierce hatred that the captives bore their captors heightened their resistance. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan reported in January 2002 that prisoners in Kandahar would “shout epithets at their captors, including threats against the female relatives of the soldiers guarding them, knee marines in the groin, and say that they will escape and kill ‘more Americans and Jews.’ ” Such animosity continued in Guantánamo.

The “stress techniques” the Army came up with, were the least radical alternative available.

Many of the interrogators argued for a calibrated use of “stress techniques”—long interrogations that would cut into the detainees’ sleep schedules, for example, or making a prisoner kneel or stand, or aggressive questioning that would put a detainee on edge.

Joe Martin—a crack interrogator who discovered that a top al-Qaida leader, whom Pakistan claimed to have in custody, was still at large and directing the Afghani resistance—explains the psychological effect of stress: “LetÂ’s say a detainee comes into the interrogation booth and heÂ’s had resistance training. He knows that IÂ’m completely handcuffed and that I canÂ’t do anything to him. If I throw a temper tantrum, lift him onto his knees, and walk out, you can feel his uncertainty level rise dramatically. HeÂ’s been told: ‘They wonÂ’t physically touch you,Â’ and now you have. The point is not to beat him up but to introduce the reality into his mind that he doesnÂ’t know where your limit is.”

But is it torture?

Clearly, what happened at Abu Ghraib and perhaps to some extent at Gitmo, was an unforeseen consequence of higher-ups in the military chain of command putting pressure on interrogators to increase the flow of information that could be used on the battlefield. Did they specifically ask for or condone more extreme methods like electric shock or humiliating or degrading treatment of Muslims? This goes back to the stress techniques. Did they work?

Did the stress techniques work? Yes. “The harsher methods we used . . . the better information we got and the sooner we got it,” writes Mackey, who emphasizes that the methods never contravened the conventions or crossed over into torture…”

In effect, the interrogators were victims of their own success. The more information they got using these “harsher methods” the more the higher ups put pressure on them. It was, perhaps predictable (though not inevitable) that the entire interrogation process would get out of hand; especially when less disciplined National Guard troops became involved at Abu Ghraib.

So, how much blame should actually be assessed the Administration? Unhappily, the entire question has now been placed squarely in the sphere of partisan politics which makes any rational discussion of these very important issues impossible. It’s become a “gotcha” game where Democrats seek to undermine the war effort and the President’s authority by trying to pin the Abu Ghraib hijinks on the Administration. What appears to be a good faith, thoughtful effort on the part of lawyers at the White House and the Justice Department to come to grips with issues never faced by any civilized nation in history is being attacked as planning to torture the poor, hapless terrorists. This has become known as the “torture narrative:”

A master narrative—call it the “torture narrative”—sprang up: the government’s 2002 decision to deny Geneva-convention status to al-Qaida fighters, it held, “led directly to the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq,” to quote the Washington Post. In particular, torturous interrogation methods, developed at Guantánamo Bay and Afghanistan in illegal disregard of Geneva protections, migrated to Abu Ghraib and were manifest in the abuse photos.

This storyÂ’s success depends on the readerÂ’s remaining ignorant of the actual interrogation techniques promulgated in the war on terror. Not only were they light years from real torture and hedged around with bureaucratic safeguards, but they had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib anarchy. Moreover, the decision on the Geneva conventions was irrelevant to interrogation practices in Iraq.

According to sources, the Army has abandoned all stress techniques in favor of more traditional interrogation methods. As a consequence, we’re getting much less intelligence of an inferior quality. And when the next terrorist attack occurs on American soil?

The very same people screaming about “torture” will take the administration to task for poor intelligence. Bet on it.

UPDATE: DOES TORTURE ALWAYS PRODUCE “LIES?”

Ace has a unique take on the issue:

Isn’t it the case that our own military expects our soldiers to break eventually under torture, but tries to get them to at least hold off on spilling anything important for 48 hours or so, after which point, hopefully, their information will now be stale and operationally useless (or at least less useful)?

Furthermore, the fact that coercion may produce a lot of lies is hardly a reason to say it’s useless. All interrogations, including non-coercive police interrogations of common criminals, produce 90% lies.

The problem, of course, is the question of American values and how torture relates to an image we’ve created for ourselves.

The “harm,” I suppose, is that we diminish ourselves by sanctioning such brutal methods.

As for absolute morality– I don’t know if I buy that, especially in wartime, and especially against such monstrous animals as we’re fighting.

Spot on. Democrats always appear to forget that we’re fighting a war; a war, as I say in the post, against “murderous, stateless criminals.” The idea of extending Geneva Convention protections to people who, at the drop of a hat, would shoot us in the back with less compunction than you or I would step on a roach is mindless moral posturing. Does this mean we should immediately take every terrorist in our custody, attatch electrodes to his nether regions, and turn on the juice? Of course not. But to hear the Democrats posturing at the Gonzalez confirmation hearings yesterday, you’d probably think so.

UPDATE II: WELCOME ACE OF SPADES READERS!

Thanks to Ace for the link…the second time in a month that I’ve been so blessed. While you’re here, check out my post on “Headlines You Won’t See in 2005.”

Spoiler…”Michael Moore Explodes“…

Man, it’s days like this that make blogging a whole lot of fun! Moonbats in full flowering moonbattery! The “Reality Based Community” at its oxymoronic best!

Today is the day that the November election for President of the United States is certified by the Congress. That is, the electoral vote count from the vote held December 10, 2004 when the Electoral College convened will be tallied and agreed to in a Joint Resolution by the House and Senate.

A mere formality, right?

One would think so. Hell, even Kos seemed to have thrown in the towel;

Us liberal bloggers like to brag that we live in the “reality-based community”. It’s kind of hard to be reality-based when people are claiming that Kerry won with no hard evidence to the contrary. Was there fraud? Sure. There always has been. Was the GOP ready to steal the election if necessary? No doubt. But they didn’t have to steal this one. This wasn’t 2000. Bush rode his fucked up war to victory, whether we like it or not. History will judge us right, but until then, we’re stuck with the results.

Now, I was open minded at first, letting the fraudsters do the analysis, ready to pounce if the smoking gun was found. But after myriad diaries crying wolf, claiming that this was the evidence to seal the deal, well, it got old. Then it got counterproductive, then it got embarrassing. (HT: Wizbang)

Leaving aside the usual blatherings of this blithering, idiotic, nincompoop about why Bush won and the judgment of history (FLASH! Moonbats confuse history with fantasy!), Kos seems to have given in to the inevitable…or has he? This from yesterday:

After giving this much thought, I am signing on to the notion that indeed, Democratic Representatives and Senators should contest the Ohio electors tomorrow. That was not my opinion a week ago, but it is now. I’ve changed my mind not because new evidence has been presented, or new arguments have arisen, but because, in the climate of today, right now, this moment, I believe that Congress is in a tactical position to make a difference.

I do not believe any evidence exists to claim that Kerry definitively received more votes in Ohio than Bush, and I believe the oft-cited exit poll evidence, in particular, is weak. But this election needs to be contested on more fundamental grounds; as an objection to the behavior of partisan election officials, unwilling to take seriously the sacred nature of their duties.

Here’s Kevin Alyward’s take:

“Ah, contest the Ohio electors as a form of political grandstanding. Good luck with that. I’m sure the voting public will be quick to forgive and forget that Democrats couldn’t concede an election they clearly lost by invoking a maneuver they could not even bring themselves to use in 2000…“

Representative John Conyers, the uber-liberal from Michigan has written a “report.” I put that word in quotes because a report is supposed to contain facts. Mr. Conyers doesn’t let that kind of nonsense stand in his way:

The 102-page report titled “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio?” lists such problems as unusually long lines, a shortage of voting machines in Democratic-leaning areas, confusion over provisional ballot rules and computer problems.

The report also contends there were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation, improper purging of voter registration lists, a lack of inspection for about 93,000 ballots where no vote was cast for president, and vote totals not matching registration numbers or exit poll data. (HT: Captains Quarters)

The Capn’ summarizes the record and offers a reason the Democrats lost in words of less than three syllables so that even moonbats could grasp what he’s saying:

We’ve gone over the nuts and bolts — mostly nuts — of Conyers’ arguments on this blog and others. After a costly recount and the move of just over 300 votes, Conyers and the Democrats know that further recounts won’t win them the election, and so they intend on casting aspersions on the legitimacy of the contest itself. They have chosen Kenneth Blackwell as their bete noir, just as they smeared Kathleen Harris in Florida four years ago. As I wrote below, in the face of the inexplicable (How could Bush actually beat Kerry?), conspiracy theories grow like mushrooms in the dark.

Of course, the explanation that the Democrats fielded a terrible candidate that ran a lousy campaign never occurs to them.

All Representative Conyers needs is one Senator to co-sponsor his effort to contest the Ohio election result and we’d have a mess on our hands. It’s unclear whether or not there could be an immediate up or down vote in each Chamber to reject the objection. If not, a Joint Session of the House and Senate would have to be called to consider the objection.

Madness! Even Conyers admits there’s no way to overturn Bush’s victory. Why then proceed with the charade? And what would be the consequences?

Clearly, some Democrats have decided that any election they can’t win fairly at the ballot box must be delegitimized in the eyes of the public. What does this strategy hold of the future of the Republic? Here’s Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush with some thoughts on that:

We are awaiting events right now - we are waiting to see if a Democratic Senator will join into the lunacy of a challenge to the crystal-clear victory by President Bush. If such a challenge is issued, then it is a very sad day for the United States - it will be, I fear, merely the first page in a long and bloody story to be written. I base this fear upon the understanding that if a free and fair election is to be held illegitimate by a substantial majority of the citizenry then we are not a united people by any stretch of the imagination - that a segment of our population has essentially renounced the United States and holds it illegitimate. Of such emotions civil wars are made - and if the Democrats take this fateful step, then a river of blood may eventually flow from their actions.

This may be a worst case scenario and not very likely…but the precedent Mark cites is spot on. With the country divided the way it is now, nothing is beyond imagining.

We’re at war. The entire world watches every move the United States makes. Every attempt to hurt the President cheers our enemies and depresses our friends. We used to call this kind of thing “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

Now it’s just part of the game of politics.

Cross Posted at “The Wide Awakes“

When the World Dials 911

America’s fine, still leads the way.

Russ Vaughn (Courtesy Reil World View)

Burns Cliff
Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

The success of the two Mars Rovers Spirit and Opportunity have revolutionized planetary science.

For the first time, its been confirmed beyond doubt that water flowed in liquid form on another planet besides earth. The implications for finding life elsewhere in the universe are staggering. From what scientists here on earth have discovered about life–that wherever life CAN arise, it will–the fact that Mars had water for tens of thousands of years (perhaps millions of years) could mean that some kind of life developed there.

Using ingenious instruments actually designed to “look inside” rocks, scientists have found minerals that could only have formed in the presence of water. Some of the rocks have revealed that water probably flowed intermittently for millions of years, giving rise to speculation that fossilized microorganisms may be present.

While there are no instruments currently capable of confirming such a hypothesis, NASA is planning a mission to actually bring Martian rocks back to earth. Scheduled for 2013, that mission will determine whether or not life actually existed at one time on the Red planet.

Blueberries
Originally uploaded by elvenstar522.

Hematite-rich rock modules dubbed “Blueberries” proving that water once ran in liquid form on Mars

Attention! The next moonbat who opens their slimy gob about “stingy” US contributions to the relief effort…PLEASE READ THIS: (HT: Powerline)

Most interesting to me was this memo written by Dutch diplomats and circulated at an EU meeting in Indonesia:

The US military has arrived and is clearly establishing its presence everywhere in Banda Aceh. They completely have taken over the military hospital, which was a mess until yesterday but is now completely up and running. They brought big stocks of medicines, materials for the operation room, teams of doctors, water and food. Most of the patients who were lying in the hospital untreated for a week have undergone medical treatment by the US teams by this afternoon. US military have unloaded lots of heavy vehicles and organize the logistics with Indonesian military near the airport. A big camp is being set up at a major square in the town. Huge generators are ready to provide electricity. US helicopters fly to places which haven’t been reached for the whole week and drop food. The impression it makes on the people is also highly positive; finally something happens in the city of Banda Aceh and finally it seems some people are in control and are doing something. No talking but action. European countries are until now invisible on the ground. IOM staff (note: this is a USAID-funded organization) is very busy briefing the incoming Americans and Australians about the situation.

And how about the United Nations? What have they been up to? This from the Diplomad, some Bush-loving State Department folks (very lonely folks, indeed):

Well, dear friends, we’re now into the tenth day of the tsunami crisis and in this battered corner of Asia, the UN is nowhere to be seen — unless you count at meetings, in five-star hotels, and holding press conferences.
Aussies and Yanks continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the burden, but some other fine folks also have jumped in: e.g., the New Zealanders have provided C-130 lift and an excellent and much-needed potable water distribution system; the Singaporeans have provided great helo support; the Indians have a hospital ship taking position off Sumatra. Spain and Netherlands have sent aircraft with supplies.

The UN continues to send its best product, bureaucrats.

The United States has TWO Carrier Battle Groups with more than 80 helos plus 50 or so C-130 Cargo Transports.

Where’s the French Navy? The Norwegian Air Force? The Swedish National Guard? Any Belgium Marines out there?

The fact is, they don’t exist. Which is why they call the United States military to get the job done and save hundreds of thousands of lives.

Goddamnit, I’m not asking for the Euroweenies and the rest of the Third World kleptocrats to get on their knees and grovel…but don’t you think just a little bit of acknowledgement is in order here? Maybe a resolution of thanks passed in the UN General Assembly? For once, can’t these hypocritical bastards do the decent thing?

Guess it’s too much to ask.

Looks like Washington, D.C. is going to be inundated with moonbats come inauguration time:

The Jan. 20th inauguration — shaping up to be one of the most heavily secured and expensive in history — will be the scene of small and large demonstrations. Organizers from dozens of local and national groups are planning marches, rallies and acts of civil disobedience on Inauguration Day and the days before and after. (WAPO:1/4/05)

Things sure have changed since I was a kid. When we went somewhere to demonstrate, we DEMONSTRATED! Not these chaps:

The D.C. Anti-War Network is sponsoring two actions — a rally and march from Meridian Hill Park in Columbia Heights and a “die-in” to symbolize those who have died in Iraq or because of Bush policies. The details of the die-in are still being planned, but the street-theater action will take place near the parade route, organizers said.

A “die-in” is where the protestors all lie down and pretend to be not only brain dead (which, of course, they are) but like really dead. I’ve got just two words for that:

BOR-ING!

No imagination. Why not have a “kill-in?” Why not arm yourselves with some uzi’s or AR-15’s and, instead of representational street theater, actually gun down the requisite number of Bush supporters? You could get Ramsey Clark to take time out from defending Saddam Hussein to come and make the case that you were simply exercising your constitutional rights of free speech and free expression.

No guts…no glory.

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has done the world a tremendous service. After exhaustive research, John has come up with the “40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004.”

Let’s just say he had a lot of material to work with.

And lest John be taken to task for rampant partisanship, there are several quotes in there from Republicans; like this gem from Alan Keyes:

15) “Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.” — Alan Keyes

No wonder Keyes lost by 40 points.

How about this, said on LIVE TV by Convention producer Don Mischer:

38) “Go, balloons. Go, balloons. Go, balloons - What’s happening balloons? There’s not enough coming down. All balloons! Why the hell is nothing falling? What the f*ck are you guys doing up there?” - Democratic Convention producer Don Mischer on CNN as balloons failed to drop from the ceiling of the Fleet Center in Boston

Here’s one of my favorites:

35) “(Bush is) just a sick f***. I think we’d be hard-pressed to get someone worse than Bush. I think if you had to sum it up he’s an incredibly selfish man and his administration in my opinion puts Americans ahead of people in other countries.” — MCA from the Beastie Boys

Imagine that! Putting “Americans ahead of people in other countries.” Jeez…and I thought we elected an American President to put the interests of people from Tonga ahead of us silly yanks! Maybe we could get Clinton to feel their pain. Maybe we could get Michael Moore to fart in their general direction. Maybe we could get Margaret Cho to say more silly things like this:

34) “Despite all of this stupid bullsh*t that the Republican National Committee, or whatever the f*ck they call them, that they were saying that they’re all angry about how two of these ads were comparing Bush to Hitler? I mean, out of thousands of submissions, they find two. They’re like f*cking looking for Hitler in a haystack. …George Bush is not Hitler. He would be, if he f*cking applied himself.” — Margaret Cho at a MoveOn Award Ceremony

Ah yes…and this passes for intellectual discourse on the left.

Here’s more Bushitler. One wonders if the left isn’t just a teensy bit obsessed with the Austrian Corporal…maybe to the point of preternatural paranoia:

28) “People don’t realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves….I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don’t know anything about the Iraqis, but they’re angry and frustrated in their own lives. It’s like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we’ve got a new bunch of Hitlers.” — Singer Linda Ronstadt

Ronstadt had the distinction of making the list twice. Remember this goody?

9) “It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I’d rather not know.” — Singer Linda Ronstadt

Next time I’m at a Linda Ronstadt concert to listen to a medley of her greatest hit, I’m gonna bring a 50 foot sign saying “JESUS WAS A REPUBLICAN.” That just might do the trick.

Finally, here’s my personal favorite:

2) “Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.” — Markos Moulitsas Zúniga on the four Americans who were murdered by terrorists and then had their corpses desecrated in Fallujah, Iraq

And we’re supposed to take “compassion lessons” from nitwits like this? This guy has the temerity, the cohones, the unmitigated gall to accuse Republicans of being unfeeling, uncaring monsters?

What else should you expect from the “Reality Based Community.”

What’s the #1 most obnoxious quote? You’ll have to follow the link to find out!

Wouldn’t you like to have been a fly on the wall at THIS meeting:

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 2 - The meeting of veteran foreign policy experts in a Manhattan apartment one recent Sunday was held in strict secrecy. The guest of honor arrived without his usual retinue of aides.

At the gathering, Secretary General Kofi Annan listened quietly to three and a half hours of bluntly worded counsel from a group united in its personal regard for him and support for the United Nations. The group’s concern was that lapses in his leadership during the past two years had eclipsed the accomplishments of his first four-year term in office and were threatening to undermine the two years remaining in his final term. (NY Times 1/3)

I wonder what they told him? How “blunt” do you think they were?

Do you think they told him that his position had become untenable as a result of the corruption and bribe taking of his son Kojo during the oil for food program?

Do you think they asked him to resign as a result of high-level malfeasance on the part of close aides?

Do you think they advised him to pack up and head back to Nigeria as a result of the scandalous behavior of UN Peacekeeping troops in Africa and elsewhere?

Of course not. These were, after all, the vanguard of one worlders, multilateralists, and Eurocentric lickspittles who so weakened the United States during the 1990’s. The meeting was held at John Kerry’s designated Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke’s apartment.

Others in attendance were John G. Ruggie, assistant secretary general for strategic planning from 1997 to 2001 and now a professor of international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations; Timothy E. Wirth, the president of the United Nations Foundation, based in Washington; Kathy Bushkin, the foundation’s executive vice president; Nader Mousavizadeh, a former special assistant to Mr. Annan who left in 2003 to work at Goldman Sachs; and Robert C. Orr, the assistant secretary general for strategic planning. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, was invited but could not attend.

Being worried that the oil for food scandal, the sexual harassment charges against one of his top aides, the vote of “no-confidence” by UN unions, the criminal behavior of Peacekeepers in Africa, the ongoing genocide in the Sudan, the deliberate interference of himself and UN nuclear watchdog Mr. Baradie in the November elections, and the general impotence and hypocrisy that runs rampant throughout his administration of the United Nations might…just MIGHT…”eclipse the accomplishments of his first four years” is either a bad joke by the NY Times reporters (not likely) or self-deluded nonsense on the part of the Clintonistas who are so anxious to “save” the UN.

And what were those “accomplishments” for the first four years of Mr. Annan’s tenure?

1. While Mr. Annan’s UN dithered and wrung their hands, 400,000-800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda.

2. The UN became openly hostile to Israel, the only democracy in the middle east and coddled the Palestinian terrorists.

3. In the biggest bribery scheme in history, Saddam stole nearly $20 billion from the oil for food program, kicking back nearly $12 billion to officials in countries with seats on the Security Council.

4. Turned a blind eye to North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran as they all benefited from A.Q. Khan’s black market nuclear bazaar and developed nuclear capabilities.

Only moonbat multilateralist, one world nincompoops would think that this was a record worth admiring. Annan’s and Baradei’s blatant and deliberate interference in our elections should alone be enough to call for Mr. Annan’s scalp.

Instead, Holbrooke, Gelb, and Wirth et al tried to give Annan advice on how to bury the record, paper over differences with Washington, and pretend that Mr. Annan’s “authority” hasn’t been damaged by the most scandal plagued secretariat since Kurt “Heil Hitler” Waldeim’s administration.

Save Kofi? Save the UN?

What for?

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

The winning Council post comes to us via Alpha Patriot with some thoughts on the “numbers behind the numbers” taken from the November election. I gotta say, this is the kind of stuff I love…”inside politics” with a dash of humor and thoughtful analysis. Great stuff!

The winning non-Council post was written by Lashawn Barber whose post on David Horowitz recounts his troubles with lefty academics.

Horowitz was a radicals radical back in the 1960’s. Gradually, however, he realized the threat these moonbats posed to western civilization and when his beloved Black Panthers killed a key witness in a murder case involving Black Panther leader Huey Long, Horowitz had a very public and very messy break with his ideological soulmates. For this, he was threatened both professionally and physically. Ever since then, he has championed academic freedom and contributed in no small way to the debate over islamic fundamentalism.

I wasn’t as radical as Horowitz back in the 1960’s. But after reading his excellent book on the Kennedy’s (written with Peter Collier) I realized that I’ve taken an intellectual journey not dissimilar to his. Horowitz sponsored a symposium called “Second Thoughts” out of which came a book containing a dozen or so essays from former 60’s radicals and sought to explain that journey. Among the other contributors are Joshua Muravchik, Richard Neuhaus, Arturo Cruz, Jr., Jeffrey Heft, K. L. Billingsley, Doan Van Toai, and Barry Rubin. The perspectives of an earlier generation of “second thoughters, ” such as Martin Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Hilton Kramer and Irving Kristol are also included.

P. J. O’Rourke has an excellent essay on the conference in his book “Give War a Chance.”

If you’d like to submit a post for consideration, you may do so by following the instructions here.