Right Wing Nut House

When John Bolton was first proposed as Ambassador to the UN, many of us on the right cheered lustily. Bolton’s reputation for directness and a no-nonsense attitude toward diplomacy made him the perfect candidate to take the UN by the scruff of the neck and shake some common sense and necessary reforms into that corrupt and useless organization.

In this, the mustachioed Bolton has not disappointed. He is a lion among sheep, pushing relentlessly to clean up the worst of the abuses that have rocked the international community while drawing howls of rage from the left here and in Europe for not being a typical American UN flunkie, tiptoeing around Turtle Bay and trying not to step on anyone’s toes.

Bolton is not only doing a little toe-stepping, he has put the UN on the rack and is turning the screws. Following the insulting remarks of a British UN official about how “the role of the UN is a mystery to Middle America,” Bolton let him have it with both barrels and then threatened to yank funding for the UN unless someone apologized:

“Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don’t get the complexities of the world and they don’t have the benefit of continental education and they are deficient in so many ways,” Mr Bolton added. “It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticise what he thinks are the inadequacies of citizens of a member government.”

The tough-talking US envoy reiterated that the dispute could harm important reforms to the international body. He also hinted that the US Congress, which controls American government spending, might reconsider US funding to the UN, which accounts for 22 per cent of the organisation’s annual budget. “Congress has the power of the purse and they feel quite strongly on a bipartisan basis that America has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, even people from Middle America,” he said, with a note of sarcasm. “I don’t think we have seen the end of it.”

Indeed, Bolton has decided to make the gentleman’s remarks something of a causus belli. The official, Kofi Annan’s chief deputy Mark Malloch Brown, said in the same speech that that there was “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping” from conservatives and Middle Americans. Bolton’s response on Tuesday in New York was a classic:

“We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations,” he said. “To have the deputy secretary general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do great harm to the United nations.

“Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations,” he added. “Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. This was a criticism of the American people not the American government by an international civil servant.”

Taken aback by the virulence of Bolton’s broadside, Kofi Anna began to backtrack furiously:

Before Mr Bolton arrived in London, Kofi Annan, the UN chief, tried to play down the controversy. “I think the message that was intended is that the US needs the UN, and the UN needs the US, and we need to support each other,” Mr Annan said. “I think the speech by my deputy should be read in the right spirit and let’s put it behind us and move on.”

No such luck my greedy and corrupt friend. The fact that the speech was delivered by your second in command is a pretty sure sign you signed off on it, Mr. Secretary-General. What you didn’t count on was an American diplomat calling you out for your insulting and egregiously ill considered remarks.

Annan figured that he’d get some kind of mumbled apology and a promise to try and stifle the cries of outrage coming from the right. This is especially true of Fox News who have been lambasting the UN and Annan’s leadership for years over any one of a number of horrific scandals, least of which is the Oil for Food bribery scheme that has implicated Annan’s son Kojo and which may have played a large role in the decision of some of the UN’s Security Council members not to support the US invasion of Iraq.

As a genuine Middle American, I’m grateful to Ambassador Bolton for standing up to this kind of casually obscene anti-Americanism and elitist hooey. Those stuffed shirts had finally better get used to the idea that Bolton won’t stop until the UN is changed from the personal fiefdom of a few corrupt bureaucrats into a useful international organization that can truly contribute to the peace and security of the world.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

Welcome Rush Limbaugh listeners! Always an honor to have Rush give me a mention on his show. How about a little well deserved UN bashing? John Bolton is on the job and giving Kofi and his crew what for! See the latest here.

The first reaction that most Americans had to news that the Jordanian born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed in a precision bombing raid by the United States Air Force yesterday was one of elation mixed with a grim satisfaction that a huge obstacle to bringing peace and security to Iraq was permanently removed. It was one of those moments that has occurred so rarely in this war; a triumph of good over evil and a clear cut victory for the United States that all Americans should be thankful for.

Not so fast, say many on the left. Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of “a growing anti-American insurgency” and that it’s time to get out.

“We’re there for all the wrong reasons,” Mr. Kucinich said.

Although the initial reaction to the news by the Democratic party leadership was suitably positive- Senate Minority Leader Reid was particularly fulsome in his praise of the military - as the day went on, a curious thing happened; al Zarqawi shrank in size and importance until by about mid-afternoon, many on the left were asking the question “So where’s Osama?” This Reuters headline was echoed a thousand times on liberal websites and left wing talk radio shows: “Zarqawi found, but bin Laden still eludes US.”

That the media began to spin the story every which way from Sunday was no surprise. In any other context, their desperate attempts to deflect attention from the death of Zarqawi and put the emphasis on the unsuccessful hunt for bin Landen could be seen as a pitiful attempt at comedy, so riotously off kilter their killjoy attitude became by day’s end. It makes one wonder what kind of headlines they would have generated during World War II following the death of Hitler: “German Chancellor dead: No Effect on Quagmire in the Pacific Seen.”

In truth, it became de riguer on the left as the day went on to not only try and downplay the death of al Qaeda in Iraq’s most visible and violent terrorist but to actually posit the notion that the bloodthirsty jihadist was an invention of the US government, that he really wasn’t all that important a cog in the insurgency’s machine of death, and that the Bush Administration used him to try and connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. The Huffington Post gave this theme a nice boost:

Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great “Iraq experiment” in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. No one knew who he was, kind of like no one knows who else besides Kobe Bryant is on the Los Angeles Lakers. As terrorists go, he was what sportswriters might call a scrub. But once he got in the way of the Bush administration’s crusade on the banks of the Tigris, he quickly became public enemy number one. Or as Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Maliki explained, a “godfather” of terrorism.

Also particularly helpful in this effort was The Atlantic Online which published a curiously sympathetic profile of Zarqawi that had been in the works for weeks entitled “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” , a typically earnest liberal effort to “humanize” the enemy while downplaying his significance in the insurgency. The 5,000 word article reminded one of similar efforts to “humanize” death row inmates in the United States by touring their hometown, talking to people who knew them when they were growing up, and trying to get at the “root causes” of their violent actions. The problem, of course, as with death row inmates, is that there are no “root causes” to the actions of people like Zarqawi. They are dead inside; empty husks of humanity without a glimmer of conscience or a flicker of compassion. They are sociopathic monsters who deserve the worst that we can do to them.

Generating sympathy for such a bloodthirsty killer was an admittedly daunting task which is why the press and the left then turned their attention to the notion of Zarqawi’s insignificance and the idea that he was a creation of the Bush Administration’s efforts to make al Qaeda seem more dangerous than it really is. In this, they were aided by the father of one of Zarqawi’s victims, Michael Berg whose son Nick was beheaded by the terrorist in 2004.

Mr. Berg, a genuine pacifist and liberal activist didn’t disappoint. He was widely quoted as comparing George Bush to Zarqawi saying “”His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.” Berg is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware and one could rightly question not his motives, but the motives of the press in seeking out his sure-fire anti-Bush response. I suppose this is what the press refers to as “balanced reporting.”

But in order to have balance, there have to be two sides presented. By the end of the day, there were two sides alright - the side that said that Bush was a monster and the side that presented the President as incompetent liar. The latter theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration “failed” to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out Zarqawi’s lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddam’s whole rotten regime.

Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bush’s “rush to war” prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clinton’s efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we “missed” anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesn’t that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?

If I were you, I wouldn’t say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode.

The clear message by day’s end was that the death of Zarqawi didn’t mean a tinker’s damn. Representative Pete Stark led the charge, calling the killing of the jihadist, in effect, a political ploy:

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. “Iraq is still a mess — get out.”

Stark and Kucinich evidently didn’t get the memo on how to react to the good news of al Zarqawi’s death. For in the end, the Democrat’s downplaying this victory could cost them dearly at the polls.

Just yesterday, an AP-Ipsos poll was released showing support for the war at an all time low. One wonders what that same poll might be saying now that the news of Zarqawis death has spread far and wide as well as the equally good news that the Iraqis have finally gotten their act together and finished forming a government by naming the Defense, and Interior Ministers as well as the chief National Security adviser. I daresay that the American people are a little more upbeat about our prospects for total victory in Iraq now that these two very important pieces are in place.

It won’t be a large bump in the President’s numbers, but it will probably be significant. And this, of course, what all the spinning and backtracking was about in the first place. Any rise in the President’s poll numbers will give the lie to the left’s talking points that Bush is finished. And with the Iraqis now ready to finally try and get a handle on the admittedly grim internal security situation, there is a very real chance that by November, significant improvements will be visible thus undercutting the Democratic critique of the war substantially.

What will the American people make of this effort to downplay such a significant victory? One would think that they would reward the Democrats for their loyalty by refusing to give them the responsibility for winning a war whose prospects for victory took such a large step forward yesterday.

This from ESPN Soccernet.com:

In the heart of this city’s bustling shopping district, where locals and tourists move at a pace only New Yorkers would appreciate, flocks of uniformed Polizei stand amid metal barricades, blocking the cobblestone road in front of the Park Hyatt Hotel. Inside, a metal detector and x-ray machine greet lobby visitors. Beyond that, suit-wearing secret-service-esque officials demand passports and World Cup credentials.

Welcome to life on the road for the U.S. men’s soccer team. Here, Kasey Keller, Landon Donovan and the rest of the American team ride in the only World Cup team bus without a flag on its side. Here, streets are closed and traffic rerouted as 20 police vehicles deliver the team bus to and from practice. And here, everyone from team security members to state department officials keep a wary eye on interview sessions.

[snip]

Try playing with chants of “Osama bin Laden! Osama bin Laden!” raining down, the Americans say. Try getting ready for kickoff with uniformed militia guarding the field holding ready-to-fire machine guns. Try scoring a goal with rocks, batteries and bottles flying toward you. And try falling asleep the night before a match while fans drive by your team hotel, honking horns, setting off cherry bombs and blasting music.

A little extra security for the World Cup in Germany? C’mon. Try being a visiting U.S. soccer player in Central America during World Cup qualifying.

Indeed, the rabid anti-Americanism in many of the World Cup qualifying venues was sometimes frightening to see. There were 115,000 screaming fans in Azteca Stadium last March to watch the USA-Mexico match, during which the chants of “Osama” and “9-1-1″ could be heard clearly above raucous din. Although the US was outplayed in a 2-1 loss, the noise didn’t seem to affect the team. In fact, the bitter feelings against the United States may serve to bring the team closer together:

Several players say they thrive on such an “us against the world” mentality. In fact, the team is confident that overcoming the trials and tribulations of qualifying — with a giant red, white and blue target on its back — has helped prepare it for soccer’s grandest stage.

“Anytime you face adversity like that, it’s going to help you grow as a team,” Howard said. “For that 24-hour period, the only thing you can rely on is yourselves and each other. And you have to get points. No matter what is going on around you, you have to steady the ship and make sure everything is right. And that takes a strong mind.”

Said defender Carlos Bocanegra: “When you’re in a situation like that, you stick together all the time. You feel a unity with the guys who go through that with you. And that can only help us.”

Back in the early 90’s when Phil Jackson was coaching the great Michael Jordan-led Bulls teams, the squad was forced out of Chicago Stadium early in the season for a fortnight due to the arrival of the Ringling Brothers Circus in town. Jackson cannily used that 10 game stretch of away games to cement the bonds of team chemistry by emphasizing the “Us versus the world” motif, successfully molding his highly paid and talented professional athletes into a band of brothers. The strategy would payoff in a big way at playoff time as the team ended up winning 6 championships in 8 years.

But Jordan and Company never had to put up with this:

Over the last decade, at matches in Latin American countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica, U.S. players have been pelted with everything from batteries and coins to screws and saliva. In one match, former coach Steve Sampson said his players were bombed with bags of urine and animal blood. In the mid-90s, defender Paul Caligiuri was treated for welts on his back after being sprayed with a chemical substance, presumably acid.

The unwritten and unspoken motto is to expect the unexpected. Lost luggage. Fire alarms at 2 a.m. Bus drivers getting lost. And no running water at the stadium, making postgame showers nothing fancier than pouring a couple bottles of water down your back.

“It’s an experience, to say the least,” said defender Oguchi Onyewu. “Just going into an environment where you are genuinely, passionately hated. It takes a bit of getting used to.”

Will Germany be any different?

Of course, security is tight due to the real threat of a terrorist attack on the team and, by extension, the event itself. No doubt al Qaeda would dearly love to disrupt this event, seeing that it takes place only once every four years and that the eyes of the entire planet are on Germany. Beyond that, if they were able to stop the games, the financial loss to Germany as host country would be huge. And of course, they would prove that although hunted relentlessly over the past 5 years, they can still wreak havoc on the west.

Al Qaeda isn’t the only threat and the United States isn’t the only country at risk during the month long event. Long known as home to the rowdiest fans in the world, it is estimated that 40,000 English football fans will descend on cities where their team’s matches are going to be played, clogging the streets with drunken fans who proudly refer to themselves as “hooligans.” The English themselves have been quick to crack down on the rowdies ever since English club teams were banned from competing in the European Championships from 1986-91 due to riots in the stands and outside of the stadium. And the Germans are going to limit alcohol sales on gameday just to make sure that things don’t get out of hand.

Another potential target would be the Saudi Arabian team. The Saudis have security arrangements almost as stringent as the Americans. And South Korea fears protests from dissidents who live in Europe will target the team’s venues so extra security will be in place for them as well.

Some authorities are most worried about Iran. Given the Iranian President’s statements denying the holocaust, it is feared that protesters could disrupt matches played by the Iranians as well as the real possibility that the re-incarnation of the Nazi party - the NDP - would seek to try and horn in on publicity with their own protests supporting Ahmadinejad’s warped views of history. Up to 6,000 NDP protesters are expected to be at World Cup match venues, plying their hatred. The police are assuring the public that they are ready for them but given the volatile mix of Neo-Nazis and sympathizers with the victims of the Holocaust, anything is possible.

More than 280 security experts from 40 countries are working to make the games a safe and enjoyable experience for the hundreds of thousands of soccer fans who are in Germany for the Cup. Let’s hope they end up being bored out their minds.

UPDATE

The Commissar has a short history lesson on Brazil and the Cup favorites. They include the usual suspects:

After Brazil, there are three other football powerhouses: Argentina, Italy, and Germany. These four countries have won 13 of 17 World Cups (Brazil 5 times). At least one of these four countries has played in all 17 final matches.

The next basic fact is that Europe and South America dominate. Actually, after Brazil and Argentina, the powerful teams are Western European. In rough order, the countries to look out for, after the Big Four are: France, England, Netherlands, and Spain. Beyond that, one could name the Czech Republic (which is in the US’ group), Portugal, Poland, Sweden, or Croatia.

Coach Goran Erikssonn of England says that superstar forward Wayne Rooney is almost ready to go for the Cup which has to put England in the upper tier of favorites to win it all. The youngster has a world of talent but much will depend on his match fitness.

My real “darkhorse” favorite are the French. Blessed with the best striker in the world (in my opinion) Thierry Henry and a stellar defense, the French are also lucky to be in Group G along with Togo, South Korea, and Switzerland. They should hardly have to break a sweat to get out of that Group, perhaps even clinching after two games which would allow them to rest some of their key players in their final prelim match.

I’ll have a Cup preview of my own tomorrow.

No, I’m not trying to rain on the parade here unnecessarily. It is fantastic news that the walking, talking, living, breathing poster boy for abortion has gone to be judged and hopefully, have to face those who preceded him into eternity at his bloody hands.

He was killed along with seven aides, officials said. They said his identity has been verified by fingerprints and other methods.

“Today Zarqawi was defeated,” said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, appearing at a midday news conference with top U.S. General George W. Casey and American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. “This is a message to all those who use violence killing and devastation to disrupt life in Iraq to rethink within themselves before it is too late,” he added.

Zarqawi was killed in a rural house in the village of Hib Hib, 5 miles north of Baqubah, Maliki said.

The statement was met by applause among Iraqi reporters assembled in a briefing room. The announcement, which was confirmed by a Website linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq, was also met by celebratory gunfire in the streets of Baghdad.

But we’ve been talking a lot recently about “facing the reality of war.” If so, the basic reality we have to face is that killing Zarqawi, while a necessary step on the road to victory, is also just a milepost on that road and that the likelihood that this will slow down al Qaeda in Iraq is very small. That outfit is so diverse and nebulous with cells spread out all over the country that the death of its high profile leader means little to the overall effectiveness (or ineffectiveness as has been proven lately) of its operations. The amount of latitude given these cells to mount their own missions also means that outside a blow to their morale, there will be little decrease in AQI’s operations, a stated goal of which is fomenting a sectarian civil war.

And Zarqawi’s death doesn’t affect the thousands of Sunni insurgents who show little sign that their attacks will abate. The Sunni’s share AQI’s wish that the sectarian violence currently roiling the streets of Iraq escalate into a full scale civil war.

With dozens of dead everyday as a result of Shia on Sunni violence, the Iraqi people’s confidence in the government to protect them has been sorely tried. However, an even brighter spot than the death of the al Qaeda mastermind is the news that finally, the government is complete as the remaining ministerial posts in the national security establishment have been filled:

Minutes after the Zarqawi’s death was announced the long-debated interior, defense and national security posts were filled in a giddy session of parliament. Abdul Qadir Muhammed Jassim, a Sunni Arab and former Iraqi army commander, was named defense minister, Jawad al-Bolani, a Shiite, was put in charge of the interior ministry, and Sherwan Alwaeli, a Kurd, was named the country’s top official for national security.

“I call on Iraq’s various communities to take responsibility for bringing sectarian violence to an end, and for all Iraqis to unite behind Prime Minister Maliki,” Khalilzad said.

Still a Shiite in charge of Interior, but hopefully one without ties to the Iranians like the man he is replacing, Bayan Jabr. Jabr famously said when news that torture was being carried out at Ministry detention centers came out “[N]o one was killed or beheaded.” Hopefully, al-Bolani will have a little more humane concept of detention than his predecessor.

Defense Minister Jassim is a former Saddam-era General but apparently emerged as a candidate after having been sufficiently vetted by the Iraqis (and Americans, no doubt). And the fact that a Kurd, Sherwan Alwaeli, will be Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s chief national security advisor and head up a National Security Council made up of all factions in the government is good news indeed. It will be this Council that will have to make the tough recommendations on disarming the militias, reining in the roving gangs of thugs, and generally restoring order to a country without clamping down too heavily on civil liberties.

The good news about Zarqawi couldn’t have come at a better time. As the government dithered about filling the national security posts, the violence was escalating and the militias had begun to assert themselves by taking over “security.” At times, their idea of security was to kill anyone they found not of their sect. This has caused more than 100,000 Iraqis to flee their homes and either leave the country or move to more hospitable climes where they would be among their co-religionists.

But now that the government is complete, we’ll see about the leadership skills of al Maliki as well as the willingness of the Sunnis to start to participate fully in the national life of the country and marginalize their militias and gunmen who make up the bulk of the insurgency.

Eleanor Roosevelt is turning over in her grave.

Mrs. Roosevelt chaired the first Human Rights Commission for the United Nations and was a strong influence in the writing and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one of the UN’s founding documents. Article 19 of that Declaration states:

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

One would think that such a right would be self evident to everyone. Well…almost everyone:

“The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable,” said the deputy, Mark Malloch Brown. “You will lose the U.N. one way or another.”

In a highly unusual instance of a United Nations official singling out an individual country for criticism, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington’s tolerance of what he called “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping.”

“Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,” he said.

Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, said Mr. Bolton had not had time to read the speech to react to it fully on Tuesday evening. “Mr. Malloch Brown did not extend to us the courtesy of a copy of the speech,” Mr. Grenell said. “We need to read it and will certainly have to respond.”

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

Just how, praytell, would Mr. Brown wish the United States government to “check” what he calls “U.N.-bashing and stereotyping.”

Well, there are those Haliburton built concentration camps out in Utah that were constructed to hold liberal dissenters. Maybe we could round up a few UN bashers and send them to live with the Mormons.

As Godlstein points out, UN Ambassador Bolton’s mustache was twitching furiously at this bit of jaw dropping lunacy:

John Bolton’s straight-talking mustache, “Regis,” reacts to complaints by UN deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown that US criticism of the UN undermines the orgnanization’s mission:

Regis: “Yeah, whatever. Just so long as Brown remembers that when I pinch him on his ass, that means I want him to run and fetch me a sandwich and a Snapple. And none of that peach iced-tea sh*t like last time, either. Some of us still take our masculinity seriously.”

Meanwhile, the mustache’s other half was livid:

In a furious reaction, Bolton called the speech by UN chief Kofi Annnan’s deputy a “very grave mistake.”

“We are in the process of an enormous effort to achieve substantial reform at the United Nations,” he said. “To have the deputy secretary general criticize the United States in such a manner can only do great harm to the United nations.

“Even though the target of the speech was the United States, the victim, I fear, will be the United Nations,” he added. “Even worse was the condescending and patronizing tone about the American people. This was a criticism of the American people not the American government by an international civil servant.”

The US envoy to the UN said the only way “to mitigate the damage to the United Nations” was for Annan to “personally and publicly repudiate this speech at the earliest possible opportunity.”

How dare Mr. Bolton use such…such…UNDIPLOMATIC language! Doesn’t he know that the default position of the United States in these circumstances is bended knee subservience, mumbled apologia, and a promise not to let it happen again?

The UN is a vipers nest of vile anti-Americanism. Much of this has very little to do with our actual policies and more to do with pleasing the folks back home. What little good comes out of the United Nations - third world health issues, refugee assistance - is offset by its continuing irrelevancy in the face of true evil. The list is endless. The Balkans, Somalia, Congo, Darfur, and, its biggest failure in history, Rwanda.

As a supra-national aid agency, the UN functions just about as well as one would expect a gigantic bureaucracy could - just well enough not to allow too many people to die. But as an organization set up to keep the peace, negotiate disputes between member states, act as a watchdog to prevent rogue states from getting weapons that will kill millions - the UN is a total and complete failure, a danger to the continued existence of the United States and by extension, the western world. It should be downgraded considerably while regional security associations take on the task of peacekeeping. And as far as WMD, there has never been a state that sought them that failed to make them. With a record of abject failure like that, one would think that even a liberal would throw up their hands in disgust.

One would think that Brown’s remarks were approved by Kofi Annan. If not, Brown should be tossed from the top story of the UN building without a parachute. Or, failing that, Annan should fire his well-fed posterior and apologize profusely for suggesting that the United States government adopt the tactics of the dictators and thugs that the Secretary General likes to hobnob with on a regular basis.

Bolton has been working like a dog trying to reform some of the more egregious aspects of the UN. And he’s doing it the only way that the bureaucratic lickspittles at the UN can understand; by threatening to cut the purse strings:

The world body faces possible financial gridlock at the end of the month, when a 950-million dollar spending cap on a two-year 3.798 billion-dollar (3.2 billion-euro) UN budget agreed last December expires, if wealthy and developing countries fail to reach agreement on a package of management reforms proposed by Annan.

Washington has threatened to withdraw funding if the reforms are not adopted by then, and EU countries have said they will have to take another look at their contributions.

When even the Europeans might “take another look at their contributions,” you know that Bolton is dead serious about trying to reform the UN. And mostly what Bolton is proposing amounts to injecting a little accountability into the wildly unaccountable secretariat. No one knows how much money the SecGen spends to grease the wheels of diplomacy (and line the pockets of his friends and family). Getting a handle on that aspect of UN corruption would seem to be a good starting point.

The special election to fill the remainder of convicted felon Rep. Duke Cunningham’s term ended up a little closer than some Republicans would have liked but failed to reveal any hints that they are in any more trouble than they already are. In short, the Democrats still appear to have a better than 50-50 chance of taking the House in November.

The California Congressional seat vacated by jailed former representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham will remain in Republican hands after a special election Tuesday in which a lobbyist narrowly defeated a Democratic school board member.

Republican Brian Bilbray beat Democrat Francine Busby after an combative and expensive race that centered on issues of government corruption and illegal immigration. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016 votes or 49.5 percent, the Associated Press reported, and Busby trailed with 51,202 votes or 45 percent.

While it is true that Bilbray failed to crack the 50% mark (in a district that former Rep. Cunningham garnered 64% of the vote in 2002), Democrats would be hard pressed to claim much of a victory. In the 2002 contest, the Democratic challenger received a little less than 51,000 votes - about the same number of votes as Busby received yesterday. Despite a heinous corruption scandal, general discontent with Republicans nationwide, and President Bush’s low approval numbers, Democrats got about the same number of votes as they did in the last off year election. And despite the reduced turnout, it can be argued that Democratic voters, smelling blood in the water, were much more likely to turn out than Republicans.

And by removing the incumbency factor as well as a recognizing that most Republican voters stayed home yesterday, Bilbray’s totals, while nothing to crow about, are close to what one could reasonably expect. I might add that five months is not enough time for Bilbray to do much fence mending or to establish himself in the district. But unless something truly horrible happens between now and November or the economy tanks, Bilbray should win comfortably.

Elsewhere in California, the Democratic primary race in the 11th district to see who takes on House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo took a somewhat unexpected turn when a moderate Navy Vet Steve Filson was outpolled by Jerry McNerney, an establishment Democrat of a definitely more liberal stripe.

Why the national Democrats thought Pombo was vulnerable is an interesting case study in wishful thinking. In order for any challenger - Republican or Democrat - to win (barring scandal), they must have a rock solid base from which at least 25% of the challenger’s total vote can be relied upon. This is usually a state house or senate seat. Neither McNerney or Filson filled that bill which makes the national Democrat’s interest in this seat puzzling. I suppose their internal numbers showed Pombo was having some problems. But for an incumbent who received 60% of the vote in the last off year election to be considered vulnerable seems to be a stretch. Pombo should make short work of McNerney in November.

The Republicans didn’t help themselves any in the Busby-Bilbray dust-up but neither did they shoot themselves in the foot. All things considered, that’s about the best news the Republicans have had in quite a while.

UPDATE

Allah rounds up some react from the usual suspects and highlights a few other races as well.

Happy Father’s Day, oh Deity of Deities! Actually, I was thinking of giving you one of these but since you’re content with bumping up your ecosysem stats, I will grant your request.

I have pretty much ignored Ann Coulter for the last year or so. As her celebrity has grown - actually since she appeared on the cover of Time Magazine - she has had to make ever more outrageous and off the wall statements in order to maintain her position as a “controversial” commentator. This has often placed her at odds with many of us who, while generally in agreement with much of her critique of American liberalism, nevertheless recoil in horror and disgust at her rhetoric.

She has descended into a black hole of necessity from which there is no escape; where she is forced to please her rabid base of red meat conservatives usually by going beyond the bounds of decency and proper public discourse in order to make a point that could have been made without resorting to the kind of hurtful, hateful, personal attacks that have become a hallmark of her war with liberals.

Make no mistake. Ann Coulter is a brutish lout, a conservative ogre who should be denied a public platform to spout what any conservative with an ounce of integrity and intellectual honesty should be able to see as unacceptable. To descend to the level of your opponents in order to criticize them is not an excuse. And for such a gifted wordsmith, Coulter does not have the excuse of ignorance.

I have been told not to take what she says so seriously, that this is her “shtick.” I, like the Queen of England, am not amused. Neither I think, are the 9/11 widows who are using their position as victims of that tragedy to try and influence the public debate over what to do about the War on Terror and domestic security. We may violently disagree with their politics. We may scorn their portrayal by liberals as unbiased observers with some kind of moral authority that immunizes them from criticism. But as Coulter proved on the Today Show in an interview with Matt Lauer, this kind of rhetoric is uncalled for and wildly inaccurate to boot:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

There’s more but I won’t pollute my site by republishing it. Crooks and Liars has the video.

There are ways to criticize the widows without saying something so wrong, so hurtful. And what do you think their children would think if they heard Coulter’s remarks? Are they to be in the line of Coulter’s wildly off target fire as well?

This rhetoric is not designed to advance debate or even make any kind of a salient point about the political activism of grief stricken parents like Cindy Sheehan and the anti-Bush September 11 widows. The remarks were designed to hurt other people’s feelings in a deeply personal and entirely inappropriate way. Can you imagine some liberal commentator making similar remarks about Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon and who is fighting to keep the 9/11 Memorial from being hijacked by the anti-American left? We would be all over that worthy and deservedly so.

The anti-Bush 9/11 widows are not immune from criticism for their political positions nor even for the tactics they use to advance those positions. But to say that they are “enjoying” their status as widows is so far beyond the pale that anyone who makes such a statement deserves the most severe censure possible. And the networks who use Coulter as some kind of “Spokesman” for the right should be told in no uncertain terms by as many of us as possible that she doesn’t speak for any conservatives that we want to be associated with.

Coulter owes those women an apology. Failure to give it only reveals her to be a shallow, bitter, bitch of a woman whose hate filled mouthings will eventually lead to her destruction.

UPDATE

Confederate Yankee takes Coulter’s message - that grief does not bestow absolute moral authority - without mentioning her brutalization of the widows.

His point is well taken but he seems to be able to make an even stronger case than Coulter without resorting to the degradation of grief stricken widows.

UPDATE 6/7

It appears that one lefty blog in particular (although I’ve seen similar sentiments expressed elsewhere on the left) believes that I and other conservatives are trying to “distance ourselves” from Coulter’s idiocies.

An interesting concept, that. The fact that most responsible conservatives who see fit to dignify Coulter’s outrageousness in the past year or so by commenting on her over-the-top remarks end up strongly criticizing her, I wonder how much more “distance” the left wants us to maintain.

But my commenter SSheil put it nicely:

I think this post (and several others relating to the same topic) is illustrative of what I see is generally the largest difference between blogs on the right and left. As with Rick’s blog, most blogs on the right are not shy of taking our leaders, writers and speakers who represent the Right to task when they individually or collectively “step on their d*cks.”

When was the last time you saw one of Ted Kennedy’s incoherent rants brought to task by Kos kids or readers over at DU? Or Pelosi? Or Dean? Or Durbin?

I think I hear crickets chirping…

NOTE: A WORD ABOUT THE TOWER AD FOR COULTER’S BOOK

The answer is, yes I could request that the ad be taken off this site. But since I don’t believe in stifling debate (witness the insulting, degrading, comments from most of you directed towards me below), I will not make that request.

Such freedom of speech (and the freedom to abuse that right) used to be self evident in America. Nowadays, if you disagree with something written, many feel no compunction whatsoever about agitating for the offending literature to be banned.

Times have changed…

UPDATE

A few days ago in that same space, there was an ad for An Inconvenient Truth., a movie that most global warming skeptics (and even some advocates) believe is an execreable piece of propaganda.

I suppose I could have asked that it be removed since I don’t like propaganda being advertised on this site. I wonder how many people swearing at me for allowing the Coulter ad to run would be swearing at me for taking down the movie ad?

UPDATE 6/8

For the classically liberal perspective on Coulter’s remarks, you could do no better than visit my brother’s blog, The Vivid Air. And, no TBogg, my ignorant friend, not my “greater” brother. Since, as Jim points out in the comments, I have 6 other brothers, you are going to have to come up with some other shallow, simple minded way to criticize me. He’s just older, wiser, not quite as good looking, but considered by most to be a reasonable sort of fellow.

He can’t be all bad. He hates Kerry as much as Bush.

LAST WORD

Jim points out that he doesn’t “hate” Bush. Indeed, we in the blogosphere tend to toss that word around with a casual disdain for its meaning and by so doing, delegitimize the argument made. Separating the human being from the policies being promulgated or opinions expressed would serve us all well.

It was 62 years ago that US Rangers stormed the cliffs of Pointe Du Hoc near Omaha Beach. And as the veterans of that day grow oh so gray and bent, mere shadows of the lithe and limber youths who pulled themselves up the jagged bluffs, one hand over another, their comrades falling all about them, we are reminded that the word “courage” came alive that day.

Too often, we use that word in a base and cavalier way. A Hollywood movie star has “courage” because she revealed to the world that she’s a drug addict. A comic has “courage” because he made fun of the President of the United States to his face. A filmaker has “courage” because he made millions of dollars shooting a “documentary” which shows the US government complicit in the mass murder on 9/11.

And so instead of “courage” being a word with inexpressible significance and meaning beyond its simple definition, it has become a self congratulatory epithet, a hollowed out expression of empty promise and insincerity. Today, the purveyors of myth and shapers of opinion use the word to tell the rest of us who to admire and what to respect. No longer does courage imply sacrifice or a willingness to give all that one has for a cause greater than oneself. Instead, courage defines the selfish desires and overwrought egos of an ideology that sees more irony in the word than reverence.

All of this was in the future 62 years ago when the Rangers lived the word courage by taking the bluffs above the beach. And a short distance away at Omaha, Americans were dying, never knowing that their sacrifice was redefining the word courage for all time. For in their last bloody moments on earth, a titanic struggle was taking place between good and evil that 10,000 years from now, poets will still be singing songs and human beings will still be shaking their heads at in wonder and awestruck disbelief.

It takes genuine courage to confront evil. By its very nature, evil must defend itself by lashing out and destroying anything that attempts to get in its path, lest it perish ignominiously. Those representing good realize this which makes the confrontation between good and evil always a life threatening proposition and thus, an exercise in self-denial and sacrifice. The Rangers on the bluffs and the men in transports speeding toward bloody Omaha that terrible day 62 years ago knew full well what they were in for. They were willing to pay the price to defeat evil.

There were more than 700 war ships on the waters of Normandy that day, firepower never before seen on the open ocean. The men would be landing with tanks and guns and grenades and enough explosives to blow up a small town. But their most potent weapon by far was the courage to face their foes in open combat with the full knowledge that doing so was likely to get them killed. We ask ourselves quite properly, would I have been capable of such a feat? The answer will likely tell us much about ourselves.

Because in those last frantic minutes before hitting the beach, as grown men wept and prayed and steeled themselves for the supreme test of their young lives, they must have found something deep within themselves, something they could mentally and emotionally grasp and hold onto so real and palpable it must have been. What was it? An image of their family? A remembrance of love and closeness that wrapped itself around them and made them feel safe? Or perhaps it was the simple recognition of the here and now with a sublime faith that He that arbitrates our fate has placed me in His keeping and if these be my last moments, let them be meaningful ones.

Whatever rushed thoughts were coursing through their minds as they splashed ashore under some of the most intense combat ever experienced by American fighting men, their courage allowed them to disobey the most primal of instincts to flee for safety and walk into the teeth of the enemy’s fire. And then, the supreme test. Historian Stephen Ambrose:

They were getting butchered where they were all the sea wall because the Germans had it all zeroed in with their mortars that were coming down on top of them. And, “Over here, Captain,” “Over here, Lieutenant, over here.” A sergeant looked at this situation and said, “The hell with this. If I’m going to get killed, I’m going to take some Germans with me.” And he would call out, “Follow me,” and up he would start. Hitler didn’t believe this was ever possible. Hitler was certain that the soft, effeminate children of democracy could never become soldiers. Hitler was certain that the Nazi youth would always outfight the Boy Scouts, and Hitler was wrong.

The Boy Scouts took them on D-Day. Joe Dawson led Company G. He started off with 200 men. He got to the top of the bluff with 20 men, but he got to the top. He was the first one to get there. He’s going to be introducing President Clinton tomorrow at Omaha Beach. John Spaulding was another. He was a lieutenant. Many of them are nameless. I don’t know their names. I’ve talked to men who’ve said, “I saw this lieutenant and he tossed a grenade into the embrasure of that fortification, and out came four Germans with their hands up. I thought to myself, hell, if he can do that, I can do that.” “What was his name?” I will ask. “Geez, I don’t know. I never found out his name. I never saw him before, and I never saw him again, but he was a great man. He got me up that bluff.”

“Unknown but to God” and history, I suspect. In the end, whatever gave them the inner strength to keep going in the face of such murderous opposition, it was as inspirational then as it is today.

It is fitting and proper that we remember their courage today, the young men who lived and died the word courage. But we must also question ourselves about our commitment to that memory. Does it have meaning beyond the misty eyed reminisces of old men? Can we still summon forth the will to perform great deeds in a cause that reaches far beyond our narrow little corner of planet earth in which we live and love and die?

At the moment, the answer to that last question is unknown. But I daresay the fate of the nation rests upon a positive response. For unless we are willing to propel ourselves beyond our own selfish, comfortable existence and find the strength to confront the evil that seeks to destroy us, we are more likely to end up a victim of our own hubris rather than triumphant with the knowledge that we, like the men of D-Day, brought to life the word courage and made it once again something to be lived and felt in our hearts, ever mindful of the sacrifice of those who came before us.

Do you smell that?

What does it smell like to you? W.A.R. is in the air and it’s coming in exactly one month.

WIDE AWAKES RADIO is a new media venture that will feature prominent conservative bloggers in a no holds barred format that will be both enlightening and enormously entertaining.

If you like red meat analysis when talking about bread and butter issues, you are going to want to turn on the stream and keep it there all day long. Here’s an eye-popping promo for the network:

Yours truly will premier The Rick Moran Show on Wednesday, July 5 at 8:00 AM EDT. The show will air every weekday, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM EDT. We’ll have news, reaction to events, interviews with the famous and not so famous, a little goofiness, and a few rants interspersed here and there.

If you like this blog, you’ll love The Rick Moran Show. And if you don’t like this blog, you’ll still like The Rick Moran Show If you like this blog sometimes but not others, you will adore The Rick Moran Show all the time.

I guess that covers almost everybody…

In all seriousness, if you’re a blogger, you will not want to miss my show. I’ll be reading and discussing blog posts - both right and left - as well discussing news and views that will make you think.

For you non bloggers, there will be plenty to interest you. We’ll be talking about culture, sports, science, technology, history, books, and anything and everything that interests me. I don’t know how I’m going to fit it all into two hours but we’re also going to be taking your calls on whatever the topic of the day happens to be.

The lineup of hosts for W.A.R. is really quite impressive:

Pamela of Atlas Shrugs
Jim of Gateway Pundit
Emperor Misha of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Jay of Stop the ACLU
Jack Idema
Cao of Cao’s Blog
Kit and Heidi of Euphoric Reality
Gribbit of Gribbit’s World
Buckley F. Williams of The Nose on your Face
Ric Ottiano of Release the Hounds
Jake of Freedom Folks
Glenn Blagg and Cracker will present Total Kaos (and trust me; it will be)
MsUnderestimated
GM Roper
Reel Teen
Wild Bill and The Passionate American Show

And last but not least, our fearless leader and Father Confessor, Kender of Kender’s Musings. The wild Scotsman will attempt to ride herd on this unruly bunch and tuck us in at night to make sure we all get our shut eye. So actually, Kender will be both a Father Confessor and a Mother Superior at one and the same time.

Nice work if you can get it.

Watch this site for more news, promos, links, and hints when we firm up the schedules and formats. But make sure you mark your calendar because starting on July 5th…

WE GO TO W.A.R.

If you are interested in history, or manned space flight, or both, you owe it to yourself to tune in tonight as the National Geographic Channel presents Space Race: The Untold Story.

Based on Deborah Cadbury’s “Space Race : The Epic Battle Between America and the Soviet Union for Dominion of Space,”, this is a NG special that goes far beyond the documentary format and enters the realm of drama.

In fact, there is so much interaction and dialogue between the characters that the narration almost seems superfluous at times. The special effects are awesome and interspersed into the narrative are actual photographs and film of what’s took place.

This is truly a unique documentary format and makes for some absolutely riveting television.

The story follows the two titans of the space age; America’s Wernher von Braun and the Soviet’s mysterious “Chief Designer” whose name was unknown for nearly 40 years, Sergei Korolev. Von Braun, who designed and built the V-2 rocket for Hitler, was a childhood hero of mine - until the release of World War II era documents that showed he knowingly used slave labor in building his rockets. A complex character, realistically portrayed - warts and all - von Braun was one of the true geniuses of the 20th century. It is not an exaggeration to say that if he had been captured by the Soviets rather than deliberately surrendered to the Americans, it is unlikely we would have made it to the moon at all.

Korolev on the other hand was purged by Stalin in the 1930’s and spent several years in Siberia until the Russians realized they needed his expertise to steal the rocket technology invented by von Braun. Rehabilitated, his work spurred the Americans on during the entire space race.

The documentary is making a big deal about the fact that the reason the superpowers were so desperate for German rocket technology was not for peaceful purposes but rather for a platform to deliver nuclear weapons. Um…this is a surprise? To whom? Ten year old children perhaps.

That said, this is a crackling good documentary. The four hour show airs in two parts tonight at 6:00 PM central time. Check your local listings and set your Tivos.