Right Wing Nut House

Glenn Greenwald has the right wing internet all atwitter today. And the only thing that has been running through my mind as I’ve perused the gleeful “gotchyas!” and astounded “ah has!” from my fellow righty bloggers has been a sadness born of the realization that it matters not about Greenwald’s sock puppetry or resume padding. The left will still adore him. He will still have standing with the fawning, drooling mass of brainless twits who think his nonsensical screeds against conservatives has any merit whatsoever. And the gaggle of lefty bloggers who think he’s the second coming of William O. Douglas will continue to nod with vigorous approval at his vapid, empty absolutist denunciations of anything and everything the government does in its efforts to protect us.

In short, when all is said and done, tomorrow morning the sun will still come up in the east, set in the west, and Greenwald will yet be prattling on with pious protestations regarding his monk-like objectivity and political centrism while proving to all but the most willfully self deluded that he is a hypocritical weasel whose baseless, scurrilous screeds against all things conservative are the most rank fabrications of his hysterical, hateful mind.

But a record must be made nonetheless. And Dan Riehl, a true citizen-journalist, has taken the time and trouble to research Mr. Greenwald and what he reveals in this excellent post is enough to give any decent liberal pause to reflect on their cannonization of him as some kind of civic saint and ask some questions of their own about who he is and what manner of man they are in bed with.

Dan’s article deserves to be read in its entirety. But this brief excerpt gets to the nub of Greenwald’s problems with the truth as well as the curious group of far left liberals who seem to be behind his rise to stardom:

New York Times best selling author Glenn Greenwald appears to have written a book in an attempt to lecture American patriots on how to act politically when his primary and preferred residence isn’t even within the United States - it’s actually in Brazil. Perhaps How Would An Expatriate Act would have been a more fitting title.

Several statements said book’s publisher, Working Assets, currently uses to promote the book and author appear to be false. And while Greenwald’s Liberal blogging buddies recently lambasted conservative author Ann Coulter for alleged ethical transgressions - lifting copy from her columns for inclusion in her latest book, Godless, it seems as much as ten-percent or more of How Would A Patriot Act was actually “culled” from previously published material on the author’s popular blog, Unclaimed Territory, available free to all on the Internet.

He must be a liberal given his apparent fondness for re-cycling.

New York Times best selling author, Glenn Greenwald may also have allowed readers to assume something of an exaggerated perception of his professional credential with a prestigious New York City law firm. That’s less clear, but certainly Greenwald can clear it up. Still, once you get beyond Matthew Hale, the high profile case experience associated with Greenwald’s public image isn’t exactly obvious to even a somewhat more than casual observer. Perhaps that’s another item Greenwald will eventually get around to fleshing out.

There is evidence below of a larger effort to prop up both the book and his image as part of an orchestrated campaign to elevate his visibility and status and ensure that his anti-Bush punditry was picked up on by the MSM at a critical time.

Greenwald’s completely inadequate and typically disingenuous response is here. Not only is it inadequate, it’s confusing and doesn’t directly address many of Mr. Riehl’s points about his law practice that Greenwald, in fact, now claims is dormant.

And Greenwald glosses over the most serious ethical matter associated with the oppo research that has come to light recently thanks to some excellent research by Ace, Patterico, and Goldstein regarding the curious coincidence of 5 different commenters with 5 different names all having the same Internet Provider (IP) address - an address that Patterico has confirmed belongs to one Glenn Greenwald. In addition, the comments all contain basically the same “defense” of Mr. Greenwald - bragging of his accomplishments and belittling his opponents in exactly the same language.

Greenwald dismisses the charge:

Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

Is it possible that Mr. Greenwald’s partner left those comments under 5 different names? While that is certainly something to consider, it begs the question as to why his companion would use so many pseudonyms when his own name was suitably anonymous. And if Greenwald did in fact leave all of those comments, it would reveal a sickness of thought and reason not to mention a towering intellectual hubris that should worry anyone who takes the man with a modicum of seriousness.

In the end, however, he’s not worth the trouble. For all the work done by the bloggers I linked above, the fact of the matter is that Greenwald’s kind is a dime a dozen on the left. He and others of his ilk will continue to use drugstore psychology, over the top invective, hysterical fear mongering, and outright lies to smear their way to stardom. And unless there are those on the right ready to refute their lies, exaggerations, and laughable attempts at armchair psychoanalysis, they will continue to have the mouth breathing masses on the left groveling at their feet in worshipful and slavish devotion.

I pointed out when I first fisked one of Mr. Greenwald’s posts the monumental task it was to attempt and refute so many strawman arguments, obfuscations, exaggerations, and dissociative explanations for conservative ideology that spewed forth from Greenwald’s pen. It reminds me of why most reputable scientists won’t spend much time debunking their pseudoscience nemeses. It simply takes too long and really isn’t very interesting work.

In essence, Greenwald isn’t worth it.

UPDATE

This is the first line from Greenwald’s defense:

“As I’ve noted several times in the last couple of weeks, my focus on the lawlessness, extremist rhetoric and violence-inciting tactics of the Bush movement and its followers in the blogosphere…”

“Lawlessness?” Who? Where? What statute? Unless Mr. Greenwald now considers it criminal behavior to criticize the press or Bush haters like him (or perhaps make tasteless but perfectly legal jokes about stringing up reporters or Greenwald himself), I fail to see any lawbreaking in writing one’s thoughts down on a blog.

Civil liberties attorney? Maybe for Kim Jong Il.

Almost 5 years after 9/11, the Israeli-Islamist War has revealed the shocking fact that the CIA is still getting “surprised” by events in a part of the world where the life and death of the United States can be effectively decided:

The power and sophistication of the missile and rocket arsenal that Hezbollah has used in recent days has caught the United States and Israel off guard, and officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria.

While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said.

American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said.

At the same time, American and Israeli officials cautioned that they had found no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the antiship missile themselves.

But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

The list of “surprises” handed to the CIA just since the end of the Cold War is astonishing. Pierre Legrand:

Man I tell you I was shocked, shocked I tell you when I read that our intelligence agencies were caught “off guard” by the sophistication of the missiles being fired into Israel. After all they have had such a sterling record of prognostication these last few years, being caught “off guard” by India’s test of a Nuclear weapon, being caught off “guard by Pakistans test of the same, etc…guess super sleuth Joe Wilson was busy.

With people like Valerie Plame working for them I would be surprised if the agency could predict which part of the horizon the sun would rise on. Ooh sorry I “outed” a supersecret agent…”outed” hehe…love that word makes me feel so like an insider. We need to “out” a few hundred/thousand more incompetents in the CIA before we can hope to get our money’s worth.

Since 9/11, the CIA has been so busy leaking to cover its bureaucratic ass for the massive number of mistakes they’ve made and playing partisan politics against an Administration whose policies and people it despises, that it has failed in its primary duty of giving our policy makers a heads up about the kinds of threats posed by our enemies. Suppose for the sake of argument (and I do not support this supposition) that a situation arose where our navy would have to engage in combat with Hizballah. While I don’t think any of our ship captains would make the same mistake as the Israeli skipper who sailed into a war zone with a de-activated missile defense system, not knowing the offensive capabilities of the enemy could still lead to big trouble. And the blithe manner that it appears the CIA approaches analyzing these capabilities calls into question the competence of the career bureaucrats who are running the various desks and departments at the agency.

Consider that the CIA National Intelligence Estimate (leaked last summer) estimated that Iran was at least a decade away from being able to build a nuclear weapon. This is the estimate from a group who has been wrong about every nation that has gone nuclear since the 1960’s when they were surprised by the Chinese bomb in 1964. They were surprised when India first exploded a nuke in 1974. They were surprised when Pakistan detonated their own nuclear device in 1998. They have been surprised, astonished, puzzled, perplexed, ignorant, and clueless about America’s enemies for decades.

Well, it doesn’t surprise me that they’re clueless about Hizballah. And their confident assertion that no Iranians helped Hizballah with launching the anti-ship missile doesn’t make me feel any better. Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been reported in the Bekaa Valley for years, facilitating Iranian aid and helping to train Hizballah terrorists. How they can make such a confident assertion when they missed the overall picture of Hizballah weaponry and capabilities is beyond me.

The agency is still dysfunctional 5 years after the towers fell. Somebody somewhere at some point has to change the “corporate culture” at the CIA or we will wake up one morning and all of us will be “surprised” as we were that horrible September day.

UPDATE

The Commissar has renditioned me to Bulgaria. My only complaint is that they’re still not giving me any sour cream with my borscht.

Join me today from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM central time for The Rick Moran Show. You can access the stream by clicking on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar.

Today, we’ll update the war news, celebrate the 142 anniversary of the Battle of Cedar Creek, have a look at what I believe to be Israel’s cynical war aims in Lebanon, and an examination of the hypocritical left.

You can call into the show toll free at 1-888-407-1776.

Attention Hugh Hewitt Readers: The post Hugh was trying to link is here.

Let’s play a word game. We’ll call it “Word Nonsensing.” The object of the game is to make up words out of thin air and guess which ones would have the best chance of gaining wide acceptance and usage on the left.

Vagindisestablishmentarian. Noun. An anti-feminist. Or a conservative wanker.

Republifantakluxer. Noun. Someone who thinks all Republicans are racists. Or Dave Neiwert. Or, a conservative wanker.

Mascupenamourocon. Noun. Someone who is anti-gay rights. Or, a male blogger who thinks he’s a conservative. Or a conservative wanker.

Elminationist. Adjective. Describing rhetoric used by a conservative that a liberal disagrees with. Or, (n)someone in the act of peeing. Or, a conservative wanker.

Each of those words above are made up out of whole cloth. There is no English language dictionary on the planet that contains any of them. And yet, when trying to stifle debate about many of their cockamamie ideas (or simply to demonize the opposition) the left routinely invents words like “eliminationist.” This kind of disrespect toward language is par for the course as the lexicon of the New Left has been used as an effective public weapon against the right for nearly 50 years.

Certainly the English language is constantly in flux and words fall in and out of usage. Also, about 20,000 new words come into usage in any given year. But it isn’t so much the fact that the word is created but rather the reason it is used and the context in which it is applied.

This post is a perfect example. To call a liberal or liberal ideas “evil” does not in the slightest imply that the purveyor of the idea should be “eliminated.” And yet, such a construct is used routinely on the left in order to stifle debate on an issue that they do not wish to discuss or that they want to turn the tables on their conservative interlocutor in such a way as to delegitimize their critique.

Accusing a liberal of “treason” or of being a “traitor” may be hyperbole but it is not hate speech. I find it fascinating that liberals would be so touchy about being tarred with these epithets seeing that they find they words “patriotism” and “patriot” so problematic, “the last refuge of scoundrels” being a common add-on whenever the terms are used.

In short, the use of this made up word has become a convenient way for the left to ascribe almost criminal behavior to the right. It even extends to the use of humor and satire. The most recent kerfluffle involves Glenn Greenwald’s spectacularly ignorant take on “violence inciting” rhetoric used by the right.

It is perhaps de rigeur of moronic nincompoops like Glenn Greenwald that a kind of grim humorlessness permeates their writing. Portraying conservatives as homicidal racists or thuggish homophobes is serious, exhausting work. No time for laughter. No room for humor. The very concepts are alien, as if cracking a smile will cause an immediate and irreversible case of the jollies. Joking about “hanging journalists” or judges, or liberals for that matter is cause for an outpouring of the most hysterical, over the top, exaggerated, laughably overwrought spleen venting screeds imaginable. Does he really believe that conservative bloggers are serious about hanging another human being? Or that Ann Coulter (talk about over the top) is actually calling for judges to be executed? Or that any conservative polemicist, in the process of skewering liberals for one sort of idiocy or another, actually wishes physical harm to befall their target?

Perhaps when liberals talk about “feces flinging monkeys” and conservatives in the same breath we should take them to task for forcing animals to behave badly and call the ASPCA on them. Better yet, maybe the next time Mr. Hysterical uses the word “eliminationist” when talking about some right wing blogger who makes a joke about liberals, conservatives should empty their bladders on Greenwald’s book. After all, it’s not enough to use “eliminationist” rhetoric. We should practice being bladder eliminationists in real life. Besides, by peeing on his book, it will alleviate the stench of arrogant, self righteous, miasmic absolutism that wafts from its pages like a malodorous cheese.

I’m with Dan Riehl. I’ve had it with this guy. The bile he spews toward the right is beyond the normal mud wrestling and eye-gouging of political warfare. It has a special kind of frantic paranoia to it, as if he’s hiding under the bed and saving the republic from conservative perfidy at the same time. Delusional, a fantasist, and as Patterico has pointed out, an out and out liar, I am sick to death of him.

Begone and be good, Glenn. And if I were you and saw someone wearing a “Karl Rove Rocks!” T-shirt walking toward me carrying a rope, I’d shoot first and ask questions later.

Join me from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM central time for The Rick Moran Show on WAR Radio. To listen, click the “Listen Live” button located on the left sidebar.

Today, we’ll cover events unfolding in the Middle East. We’ll take a hard look at what the Israeli offensive against Hizballah is doing to the nation of Lebanon - its people and its infrastructure.

We’ll also discuss reaction to the conflict in the Arab street as well as Arab governments. And we’ll examine the war’s domestic political consequences here at home.

You can call into the show toll free: 1-888-407-1776.

This will necessarily be one of the most difficult posts I will ever write. Not because of the subject matter, mind you. It’s the way I type.

You see, in order to maintain the family-friendly nature of this site (can’t you see all those impressionable little 10 year olds clicking over to the House in order to discover the latest in the Glenn Greenwald soap opera? Or perhaps to pick up the latest inventive invective I spew toward the left?), I made it a hard and fast rule that I not spell out 3 of the more colorful metaphors in the English language.

You know which ones they are. I know which ones they are. I know you know which ones they are just like you know that I know which ones they are which means I don’t have to repeat them. The fact that my site is on the sh*t list in most libraries across the country already due to its “racist, sexist, homophobic” (did you forget anti-illegal immigrant?) slant, just makes my care to not use vulgarity on the site all the more puzzling. Chalk it up to a residual belief in Catholicism that posits the notion that my mother is reading what I write up in heaven. A pleasant thought, that. On the other hand, she was a Roosevelt liberal so I’m sure she clucks her tongue at some of the things that end up on this website.

Since I have voluntarily rejected spelling out completely the word “sh*t” and substituting the ubiquitous star, I might as well reveal that I am not a very good typist. Don’t ask me why but I only use three fingers on my left hand and one on my right. Weird, huh? Of course, that means that getting my fingers up to that sh*tty star on the keyboard can get to be a real f**king nuisance, ya know what I mean? I mean, sometimes I feel like a real paste eater when typing.

Maybe I should get some pointers from Goldstein on that. Or maybe TBogg could be helpful in this respect; he was one of the first to refer to Goldstein as a paste eater. Obviously, he knows all about paste eating - not much else - but paste eating seems to fall within the scope of his knowledge.

At any rate, what brought this unfortunate subject up is that absolute sh*tstorm that has been unleashed all because the President of the United States used the word “sh*t” at the G-8 banquet last night. And every lefty blogger in Christendom (if they believed in that sort of thing) is writing about it, linking each other in a frenzy of chattiness and gossip mongering reminiscent of 12 year old girls at a slumber party. Since liberals usually behave like 12 year old drama queens anyway, I’m sure they’re comfortable as hell feeling themselves up on the subject.

I know, I know…one would think that considering the mouth on some former occupants of the White House who will go unrecognized that the left wouldn’t be casting stones so close to glass houses. He-with-the-constantly-unflaccid-penis swore like a sailor as did his wife: She-who-throws-ashtrays-like-frisbees. But to be fair, the drama queens are also chattering about other things the President said.

As he chats with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Bush expresses amazement that it will take Putin and an unidentified leader just as long to fly home to Moscow as it will take him to fly back to Washington. Putin’s reply could not be heard.

“You eight hours? Me too. Russia’s a big country and you’re a big country. Takes him eight hours to fly home. Not Coke, diet Coke. … Russia’s big and so is China. Yo Blair, what’re you doing? Are you leaving,” Bush said.

I have a challenge for you liberals out there. Bug your neighbor and tape his conversations for a couple of days. This has two advantages. First, you’ll be doing us all a favor (including the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, DHS, and probably a couple of super-duper secret agencies we know nothing about but that you’re paranoid of anyway) by ascertaining whether or not your next door neighbor is a terrorist. But more importantly, you’ll discover what human beings talk about during their waking hours.

The Nobel Prize winning playwright (and anti-American dolt) Harold Pinter used to go to the park near his flat in London, sit on a bench, and listen to people talk. What he found was absolutely startling. In their unguarded moments, even people who’ve known each other for 50 years talk about nothing at all. Pinter’s plays are full of disjointed, disconnected dialogue that works because everyone recognizes it for what it truly is; the grunts and sighs, the vocalizations of human beings talking not to communicate but to assure each other that they mean each other no harm. In short, people talk like Bush do in order to put people at ease in a social situation. (I’d love to see Dr. Sanity delve into this).

Those fellows at the summit don’t know each other all that well - not in the biblical sense (although watching creepy Putin kiss that kid on the stomach last week chilled my bones) and certainly not in the way that long time friends relate to each other. Making polite small talk as Bush was doing was a fascinating example of Pinterian dialogue. His comments about Russia’s size, the time it takes to fly home, and especially his recognition that Blair was leaving - all of this could have been lifted from a Pinter play. It’s how everyone talks. And the fact that it doesn’t sound “Presidential” or “intelligent” shouldn’t surprise us.

It is strange and fascinating to catch a President in the act of being human. But of course, there was also the President expressing what was clearly frustration at the United Nations for not getting on Syria’s tail and getting Hizballah to stop shooting and face facts:

Bush expressed his frustration with the United Nations and his disgust with the militant Islamic group and its backers in Syria as he talked to British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

“See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t and it’s over,” Bush told Blair as he chewed on a buttered roll.

Ezra Klein not only puts the entire incident in perspective, but recognizes how low “political reporting” has fallen:

That’s a big deal: Bush believes it within the Syrian government’s power to calm the conflict. Theoretically, that should have major implications for American diplomacy and, possibly, policy. So what’s CNN’s headline? “Open mic catches Bush expletive on Mideast”! The story is not that his substantive views on the issue have been uncovered, but that the president curses. Indeed, the article even speculates on how such a stunner slipped out, arguing that “the escalating crisis in the Middle East prompted him to use an expletive in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.”

This is your press corps. The President has a potty mouth is a more pressing story than the President believe sufficient pressure on the sovereign nation of Syria could be the key to ending an intensely volatile war in the Middle East. What a proud day for my profession.

Don’t get out the self-flagellating whip quite yet. Not when every top lefty blog is all atwitter over the President’s potty mouth. Saying sh*t out loud in a public place may have lost almost all of its shock value since the left has degraded language and meaning. But all of that is forgotten when Bush uses the term. All of a sudden, the word is indicative of the President’s (please choose only one) 1) incoherence, 2) simple mindedness, 3) confusion, 4) lack of vocabulary, or 5) stupidity. I suppose when an intellectual like TBogg or Jane Hamsher uses the word, it’s fraught with subtext and meaning. But when our Texas President uses it, it just shows what a sh*tkicking cracker he truly is.

I am glad I am finished writing now. Reaching for that star was getting to be a pain in the ass. Almost as hard as typing the words “intelligent” and “liberal” when they’re right next to each other.

Thankfully, I’ve had no occasion that I can recall offhand where my fingers were called upon to make that kind of effort.

It isn’t pretty.

Watching as the Israelis systematically denude Hizballah of its capability to harm the Jewish state is both a painful and sorrowful experience. We feel for the Lebanese civilians caught between the terrorists and Israeli warplanes. We sympathize with the Lebanese government who, like their counterparts in Iraq, have found it impossible so far to disarm the angry men with guns in their midst.

It’s no accident that those angry men with guns in both countries have the same patrone: The Iranian mullacracy. And while it is doubtful that Iran specifically ordered the aggression against Israel that has precipitated this latest round of Middle Eastern violence, everyone agrees with the notion that the mullahs are supporting it. President Ahmadinejad has made at least that much clear. They will take action against Israel if the IDF goes too far:

“We hope the Zionist regime does not make the mistake of attacking Syria, because extending the front would definitely make the Zionist regime face unimaginable losses,” foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.

“Iran is standing by the Syrian people,” he said of the Islamic republic’s sole regional ally.

Civilians in Lebanon are suffering not only from being bombed thanks to their proximity to Hizballah targets but also because the Israelis insist on “putting pressure” on the struggling government to rein in the terrorists by bombing Lebanese infrastructure and even the army. This is an extraordinarily risky strategy. Putting pressure on an already weak and fragile government may cause it to collapse if taken to an extreme. But the Israelis have evidently decided that they must change the situation on their northern border completely:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

It should be interesting to watch how Olmert changes how he “relates” to Syria who also sits on his northern border and who also supports Hizballah. Bashir Assad, reportedly already in trouble with some of his military and political elites for being kicked out of Lebanon, could find himself being measured for concrete galoshes if his fellow gangsters feel that they have absorbed a couple too many well aimed blows by the IDF. This is what is apparently staying Olmerts hand - for the present. The prospect of who would follow in his footsteps if Assad should fall has policy makers in both Israel and America lying awake at night. The prospect of someone smarter, tougher, more experienced, and bolder makes that nightmare scenario too horrible to contemplate for some.

The call by Arab countries for Hizballah to stop its “adventurism” was certainly a welcome addition to the dialogue. Now if we can only get them to be as united on helping Iraq with their difficulties, they may gain a measure of respect from the west. And how about helping the United States in their confrontation with the mullahs in Iran? Just think if a united Middle East could confront the bully boys in Tehran over their aspirations to dominate the region not to mention their nuclear program, the Iranians would be in a much weaker position. This could affect the negotiations over their drive for atomic weapons, although I’m doubting it. But when push comes to shove with the Ayatollahs, it would help immensely if the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians could be as united as they are now against Hizballah.

The way out of the present morass is clear; move Hizballah so far away from the border that their rockets would be useless. The Israelis have now set more reasonable conditions to stop their offensive:

Israel would agree to a cease-fire in its six-day-old offensive against Hezbollah if the Lebanese guerrillas withdraw from the border area with Israel and release two captured Israeli soldiers, a senior official said Monday.

The official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy, said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had conveyed Israel’s position to Italy’s prime minister, who is trying to broker a cease-fire deal.

Israel had previously demanded the full dismantling of Hezbollah as a condition for ending hostilities.

(HT: STACLU)

Some kind of UN force on the border would give Prime Minister Siniora of Lebanon the cover he needs to move the Lebanese army into areas once occupied by Hizballah. It is doubtful the terrorists would give up those positions without a fight - unless they were blocked from doing so by UN troops. All depends on how badly Hizballah wants to start another Lebanese civil war. The people - all sects and factions - would be dead set against it. But the prospect of Hizballah fighting the Lebanese army for control of the south could cause the disintegration of the armed forces leaving Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizballah leader, in the drivers seat. This would be a catastrophe, of course, and would probably lead to another Israeli intervention in Lebanon. I’ll be Olmert loses sleep over that scenario.

In the meantime, the Jewish state keeps up the attack. Another couple of days and Nasrallah will have to either ask openly for Iranian/Syrian support or give in and accept a reduced role in the south as well as the probable disarming of his supporters. At the very least, he will lose his missiles. And Israel will be sure not to give him too much to crow about.

The Israelis are breaking a lot of eggs right now. We can only hope whatever emerges is appetizing enough for all parties to stop the violence.

Join me from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM central by clicking the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar for The Rick Moran Show.

Today, we’ll talk about Lebanon - it’s history, the civil war that went from 1875-1990, and what’s happening today.

We’ll also talk about the deteriorating situation in Iraq as well as the future of NASA.

You can call into the show with toll free your comments and questions at 1-888-407-1776.

UPDATE

After a somewhat forgettable show (I was distracted when talking about the history of the Lebanese Civil war by my cat among other things) the Commissar has put me on trial for “spreading foul lies over the airways.”

I wish I could get upset with our Fearless Leader but at the moment, a few days in the Lubyanka sounds swell. Could I have a little sour cream with the borscht?

This is so outrageous that I’m going to take a break from what’s happening in the Middle East long enough to spout off about this piece of jaw dropping idiocy from the New York Times.

It seems that in one of the newspaper’s online slide shows of photos from Iraq, a photographer for the paper snapped a few Polaroids of he and his buddies in the Mehdi Army killing American citizen-soldiers:

The caption under the picture reads - incredibly - “A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.” Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments:

“Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”

Goldstein nails this idiocy:

Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such self-congratulatory enthusiasm, but it seems to me that actual “incredible courage” would have entailed, say, Joao Silva getting word to US troops, or his bumrushing the sniper and beating him unconscious with a heavy telephoto lens.

Hinderaker adds:

It would have required courage to hang out with the Mahdi Army, if there were any likelihood that a member of the Iraqi “insurgency” would regard a representative of the New York Times as an enemy.

Apparently this Mr. Silva has an entire book of these photos of him cozying up to the jihadis entitled Me and Mookie’s Boys or maybe its called Moral Relativism for Fun and Profit.

Whatever the real name of the book, I will not identify it nor will I link to it. And perhaps some clever reporter type may want to do an indepth interview with Mr. Silva. If he did, I’d love it if he asked the photographer the Dierks Bentley question; “What were you thinking?”

For a little perspective, let’s imagine it’s 1944 in France. Here’s the “courageous” Mr. Silva covering the invasion - from a unique vantage point.

GERMAN SOLDIER PLAYING CATCH WITH AMERICAN GI

Given the cluelessness exhibited by his editor in being so profoundly touched by his “courage,” I doubt very much if Silva or the Times gave much thought to the mother or wife of that American soldier the fanatic was killing at the time he snapped the picture.

Maybe we should ask Mr. Silva to stop by the widow’s or the mother’s house and explain himself while looking her right in the eye.

Now that would take courage.

UPDATE

Dan Riehl:

I’m not sure which is more disgusting, a New York Times employee observing snipers targeting our military, or the lofty prose with which they are surrounding the pictures in a new book.

Here’s what he’s talkng about. It’s a blurb selling the book:

“This photographic body of work, recorded over twelve months, richly captures the Shi’as’ intense commitment to their faith and their indomitable spirit of sacrifice.”

“Indomitable” indeed.

UPDATE II

In my haste to compile this post, I neglected to mention that the folks at Little Green Footballs were the ones who ferreted this stupidity out in the first place.

I apologize to all Lizardoids who may have been wondering how I possibly could have forgotten them.

“A bad peace is even worse than war.”
(Publius Cornelius Tacitus)

The offensive against Hizballah is continuing with no sign from the Israelis that they plan to let up on the pressure they are applying to the Lebanese government to rein in the terrorists who continue to fire rockets willy nilly into northern Israel. In this, Prime Minister Olmert is apparently dead set; Hizballah will cease to be a threat to the citizens of Israel. He will break a lot of china in Lebanon in order to ensure that goal.

But time is not on his side. Air strikes in southern Beirut are killing dozens of civilians - women and children - while the IAF desperately tries to destroy as many of the 15,000 rockets stockpiled by the terrorists in houses and apartment buildings as they can before the death toll stirs the world community to action. The cowardly tactics of Hizballah, who use civilians as human shields to protect their arsenal of Iranian and Syrian bought missiles is once again being given a free pass by the world’s press. Hence, while Israel may be delivering massive blows to Hizballah, the “guerrillas” (as most are calling them) are winning the propaganda battle.

This is Olmerts big gamble. That he can dramatically weaken Hizballah militarily without strengthening them politically inside Lebanon. That he can do this quickly enough to forestall Syrian and Iranian assistance from amounting to much, thus humiliating them in the Arab world. And that by scrambling the politics of Lebanon, he can alter the security situation in the north by forcing the Lebanese government to finally establish sovereignty over their own border by moving army units to take up positions abandoned by the terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that each one of those elements could get wildly out of control. Hizballah could become the dominant political force in Lebanon. Syria and Iran would thus be strengthened enormously. And Lebanon could dissolve back into a state of civil war if Hizballah refuses to give up their sanctuaries bordering Israel.

Olmert has made it clear that the war will change the situation on his northern border permanently:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that the fighting in the north would have “far-reaching implications” on how Israel would relate in the future to the northern border and the entire region.

Olmert, in his first public comments on the situation since Wednesday, opened Sunday’s cabinet meeting saying this is a difficult morning for Israel, and by characterizing the situation as “a wicked war by Hizbullah against the people of Israel.”

“Israel cannot accept this situation,” he said. “We have no interest in harming the Lebanese or Palestinian people. We want to live our lives quietly and as good neighbors. But unfortunately, there are those who interpreted our desire for peace in the wrong manner.”

How might the Israelis accomplish this ambitious goal?

The very first targets for the IAF in Lebanon were major bridges both north and south of Beirut. The destruction of these bridges will prevent the large scale movement of Hizballah fighters into some of the bigger cities including, it is hoped, Beirut itself. It also prevents Syria and Iran from resupplying the terrorists.

Does this presage a massive ground assault by the IDF? Not necessarily. But if Olmert and the cabinet choose that option, they have certainly set the table for it. Lebanon is locked up as tight as a drum. And not only is Hizballah prevented from taking refuge behind civilians in many population centers but their ability to concentrate forces has also been degraded significantly.

Ultimately, Israel would like to kill as many Hizballah fighters as possible. That would seem to be the only way to significantly degrade their capabilities as rockets and missiles can be replaced relatively quickly.

With Hizballah weakened, the Lebanese government, with the help of the international community, could move their forces into the border region with Israel and thus make the lives of Israelis much more secure. In a speech to the nation yesterday, Prime Minister Siniora tearfully asked the international community - specifically the UN - to help them in moving their forces south. Even with the cover of UN peacekeepers, it is unlikely that Hizballah will take such a challenge to their independent status lying down:

According to Nadim Shehadi of the London-based Chatham House think tank, the Lebanese government lead by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora “has not accepted” the abduction of Israeli soldiers as legitimate. On the other hand, Hezbollah and the Amal faction are fully supportive of the move the sparked the conflict with Israel.

[snip]

In December, 2005, the Shi’ite ministers left the cabinet over the role to be played by the International Criminal Court in the case of murdered former prime minister Rafik Hariri.

The conflict between the parties, so far successfully avoided, seems inevitable right now, Shehadi said Saturday. Lebanon would be hard pressed to function normally under such circumstances, according to the analyst.

Would conflict between Hizballah and the Lebanese army mean that the civil war that tore the country apart for 15 years be automatically reignited? No one knows the answer to that question, least of all Olmert whose gamble in this respect is his biggest. Unlike the last civil war go around, Hizballah are presently the only ones with the guns outside of the Army. Clearly, with better trained and armed men, Hizballah could run the table in Lebanon, especially if in the face of sectarian conflict, the army disintegrated as it did 30 years ago.

Such a prospect - a terrorist state with close ties to Iran and Syria on Israel’s borders - would negate any positive outcomes from the war Israel is waging against Hamas in Gaza. In short, it would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel and the west.

Finally, there must be a clock ticking somewhere in Olmert’s head regarding how much time he has to accomplish these ambitious goals. How patient can Washington afford to be? How long before Syria and/or Iran would feel compelled to intervene (if ever)? The Prime Minister has already warned the Israeli people to be prepared for a “difficult time that won’t end quickly.” How long? How quickly? Surely Olmert hears the clock ticking not only on his window of opportunity militarily but also with the Israeli people. Right now, they are united in their support for his actions. But how long before the carping, the criticism, and the backsliding occur? These questions must occupy Olmert’s thoughts as decisions are made about escalating the conflict in order to go after his Hizballah tormentors.

The only sure thing about this war is that it will eventually end. At that point, the Israelis will have to take a hard look at what they’ve gained and lost on the battlefield and at the conference table. Whether the use of force will improve their security situation in the short term is not in doubt. Whether it will have salutary effects in the long term is what Olmert’s gamble is all about.