The Second Opinion

I am Piss-ant! HEAR ME ROAR!

Robert Mugabe, the stalinist thug who's single-handedly turning Zimbabwe from the breadbasket of Africa into a basket case, called George Bush and Tony Blair "the two unholy men of our millenium" at a UN conference yesterday.  According to Reuters' Phillip Pullella:

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe yesterday railed against President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, calling them "international terrorists" bent on world domination like Adolf Hitler.

Mr. Mugabe departed from his text at a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to accuse Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair of illegally invading Iraq and looking to unseat governments elsewhere.

"Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who, in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed [an] unholy alliance, formed an alliance to attack an innocent country?" he asked rhetorically.

"The voice of Mr. Bush and the voice of Mr. Blair can't decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq," he said.

What's REALLY bothering Mugabe is that HE has been under criticism for his program of urban renewal that has driven a million Zimbabweans from their homes into the countryside and crippled the country's industrial and agricultural output.

Regime critics in Zimbabwe and abroad say Mr. Mugabe's land policies have turned what was the breadbasket of southern Africa into a country facing mass shortages at home.

Aid groups estimate 5 million of Zimbabwe's roughly 12 million people may need food aid this year.

Natch, Mugabe got applause from many of the delegates.  It's a lot like a bad stand-up comic getting a cheap applause line by telling his audience, "My wife had a baby yesterday!": bashing America almost always gets a good reaction at the UN. 

Sigh... In a more perfect world, thugs like Mugabe would be doing their schtick in prison rather than at the UN.

Tell me again why we're in the UN?

Economic fear-mongering from the AP?

With the price of oil bouncing ever higher, there are fears that inflation - which created a great deal of misery in the country back in the '70s - is returning.  Perhaps it will.  I can't help but think that some people WANT it to return and not only see signs of it, but TRUMPET them.  Take, for example, this AP story by Martin Crutsinger:

Inflation Soars on Surge in Energy Prices

Scared yet?  Ready to start panic-buying before prices go out of sight?

Inflation at the wholesale level last month soared by the largest amount in more than 15 years, reflecting the surge in energy prices that occurred following the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The Labor Department reported that wholesale prices jumped 1.9 percent in September, led by surging prices for gasoline, natural gas and home heating oil after the widespread shutdowns of refineries and oil platforms along the Gulf Coast. Food prices, which had been declining, posted the biggest increase in 11 months as the price of eggs shot up by a record amount.

Wow.  An increase of 1.9% is 'soaring' inflation?

The article goes on to quote Allen Greenspan and cite number of economic indicators to show that inflation may be just around the corner.

It may well be.  I don't think that there's any question but that higher fuel prices are going to drive up the price of virtually every other product and service in the country.  The question is whether the price increases will be modest or so sharp as to cause real problems for working Americans.

Color me cynical, but I think we know what the AP wants to see.

Former French UN ambassador arrested

Former French ambassador Jean-Bernard Merimee was arrested Monday in connection with the Oil for Fraud program.  He served as Paris' ambassador to the UN from 1991 - 1995, and as a special advisor to Kofi 'Greasy Thumb' Annan from 1999 - 2002.  According to the Washington Times' Betsy Pisik:

There have been questions about Mr. Merimee's influence on the Iraq oil-for-food program since his misspelled name turned up on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list that implicated former program chief Benon Sevan. The program was suspended in 2003.

The so-called "Al Mada list,"published in Baghdad nearly two years ago, named foreign diplomats, businessmen and journalists who supposedly had been issued vouchers for discounted oil, which could be resold at a profit to oil companies.

U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer noted in his report to Congress last year that Mr. Merimee was allocated 11 million barrels of oil from December 2001 to March 2003, according to Agence France-Presse.

However, Mr. Duelfer described the transaction as "not performed," and it was not clear whether Mr. Merimee was a willing participant.

Mr. Merimee, 68, is one of the highest-ranked officials to be indicted by the French judge investigating the oil-for-food scheme.

Well, well.  Let's see what the French legal system makes of this case.  As much as I like picking on them, I think that the Frenchies take their law pretty seriously and can be expected to investigate this case with vigor and competence.

The French are also looking at other government officials:

French Sen. Charles Pasqua, a former confidant of President Jacques Chirac and a former interior minister, also was questioned by investigators. Although he has immunity from prosecution as a senator, several of his aides have been charged.

It would also be interesting to investigate some of the other names on the al Mada list, which include high officials in France and Russia.

Eventually, the truth will come out, and some people are going to owe the Iraqis BIG TIME for having stolen from them and helped prop up Saddam and his brutish government.

I must say that this is the first time in a LONG time that I find myself rooting for the Frenchies.

Whining about Miers

I've about had enough of conservatives whining about Harriet Miers.  I've heard Rush, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity do it.  I've seen other conservatives do it in print.  To all and sundry:

Please shut up.

Miers is not the pick most of us wanted.  We wanted a person of known conservative principles who we could feel sure would bring an originalist interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.  President Bush thinks that Miers will do that.  He ought to know: they've worked together and been friends for over ten years.  Yes, she may turn out to be a liberal in conservative clothing, as did O'Connor, Souter, and that idiot Anthony Kennedy.  The president, like the rest of us, can't see the future and know what effect (if any) living in DC and sitting on the bench will have on Miers and her principles.

Neither do the rest of us.

But let's be fair.  Let's see how she does in her confirmation hearings.  Let's see what she has to say over the next few weeks.  Let's give her a chance and stop whining about it.

Bye bye, Schroeder!

Gerhard Schroeder, the lefty German politician who made a lot of hay in his career on America-bashing, has resigned his position as Chancellor and will not be a part of Germany's next government.  Natch, he didn't go gracefully.  According to Reuters' Dave Graham:

"I will not be a part of the next government -- definitely not be part of it," a tearful looking Schroeder told a rapt audience of union members in his home city of Hanover.

He quickly composed himself, hitting his stride in a passionate defense of a strong German state and lashing out at "Anglo-Saxon" economic policies favoured in Britain and the United States, which he said had "no chance" in Europe.

In an apparent reference to Hurricane Katrina, Schroeder castigated Washington for liberal, hands-off policies that left it exposed in times of crisis. The Bush administration was widely criticised for its response to the devastating storm.

"I do not want to name any catastrophes where you can see what happens if organised state action is absent. I could name countries, but the position I still hold forbids it, but everyone knows I mean America," he said to loud applause.

Classy.  Very classy.  Perhaps I could name a catastrophe or two where one can see what happened if over-organized state action is PRESENT.  I could name countries, and since I don't have a 'position', I will:

GERMANY.

Schroeder clashed with Britain and Washington in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion and has been at odds with British Prime Minister Tony Blair over the direction of European economic policy.

Blair has urged European Union countries to cut back state influence on the economy, running into fierce opposition from both Schroeder and his ally, French President Jacques Chirac, of the Franco-German link in his speech, saying it was crucial for the defense of Europe's social model.

Hmmm... Europe's social model.  Let's see... Would that be the same social model that results in double-digit unemployment?  How about runaway immigration of radical Muslims?  That social model?

And when your ally is Black Jacques Chirac... well, you know what they say: with friends like him, who needs enemies?  And that's what we've had with Gerhard Schroeder.  He has been no friend to the United States, and indeed has used Bush and America as convenient whipping boys when his poll numbers have been down.

He'll soon be gone, and I think German-American relations will be better for it.

A captured letter from Zawahiri

Perhaps taking a leaf from the lefties in the US, al-Qaeda's number two man, Zawahiri, has compared Iraq to Vietnam and is hoping that we will "run" and abandon Iraq just as we ran and abandoned South Vietnam thirty years ago.  Our troops in Iraq captured a letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, which has been translated into English and made available to the public by the US government.  It reads in part:

Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them.

We know from previous statements of bin Laden that he judged the United States as a paper tiger because we ran from Somalia.  To my mind, the Zawahiri letter is is further evidence - if there need be any - of the importance of staying the course in Iraq.  What's a stake if we pull out and al-Qaeda takes over?

It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt.

The war isn't about oil, or Halliburton, or Bush making some macho grandstand.  It isn't even about Saddam any more.  The terrorists want to remake the world in their image, and the Middle East is their front line.  Happily, things aren't going very well for them.  Zawahiri speaks of the capture of an al Qaeda operative, Abu al-Faraj, though he says that the damage from this to the rest of al Qaeda was limited.  The Pakastani army is apparently causing serious problems for al Qaeda.  He also gently chides Zarqawi for the bloody slaughter of hostages in Iraq:

Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.

Zawahiri also asks about any problems due to non-Iraqis leading the terrorists in Iraq:

I would like you to explain for us another issue related to Iraq, and I think without a doubt that you are the most knowledgeable about it. Can the assumption of leadership for the mujahedeen or a group of the mujahedeen by non-Iraqis stir up sensitivity for some people? And if there is sensitivity, what is its effect? And how can it be eliminated while preserving the commitment of the jihadist work and without exposing it to any shocks? Please inform us in detail regarding this matter.

The letter is very lengthy and discusses many more topics than only these, especially the Shia in Iraq.

In all, I find the letter frightening, but also satisfying to a certain degree.  It isn't often in war that one gets such a detailed self-appraisal by an enemy commander, and Zawahiri certainly sounds as if things aren't going quite as well as he'd like.  He also seems to handle Zarqawi with kid gloves, as though he's afraid to take him to task.  Perhaps he fears that Zarqawi will bolt from al Qaeda?  Who knows?

I recommend this letter to anybody interested in how the war is going.

Wishful liberal thinking about liberal talk radio

Ever since Rush Limbaugh and his radio show became a force in American politics, prompting the rise of a legion of conservative talk radio hosts, liberals have been desperate to come up with their own talk radio show to rival the mighty El Rushbo.  Rush himself often chuckles about this.  Despite the media blitz in support of Air America, that network hasn't taken off except in very fringe markets (though it may be that Franken will soon be broadcasting on prison radio).

None of this has made a dent in the liberals' (desperate) hope that the 'conservative grip' on talk radio is slipping.  Witness this piece from Knight Ridder's Steven Thomma:

A decade after Republicans credited Limbaugh with helping them win control of Congress - they called him the Majority Maker - they still look to his conservative-dominated medium for a lopsided communications edge over Democrats. Today, they count on talk radio to rally support for President Bush, attack those who criticize or question him, and stir passions leading into the 2006 midterm congressional elections.

There are signs that the Republicans could be losing some of their overwhelming edge, however. Ratings for Limbaugh and Hannity slipped this spring in some markets. Liberals such as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Al Franken are carving out their own radio niche. And Democrats argue that they have an edge on the Internet, where explosive growth could dwarf the political impact of radio.

Riiighhhttt.

Libs hover over the talk radio ratings, looking for any sign that the mighty Rush is slipping.  When they see it, they go crazy with joy and start predicting that talk radio is dead, that the American people are getting tired of it, and that Rush will soon be reduced to a single low-power AM station in Buzzard's Breath, ND.  So far, they've never been right.  And they've certainly never been right when they've predicted that liberal talk radio is poised to take over the airwaves from conservatives.

But they keep hoping.

Jessica Biel: Sexiest Woman Alive (???)

I see that Esquire magazine has named Jessica Biel as the sexiest woman alive.

Either I am totally out of step with the rest of American men when it comes to judging female pulchritude, or the editors at Esquire need new glasses.  Jessica Biel is certainly an attractive woman in an athletic, girl-next-door sort of way.  But the sexiest woman alive???  I don't think so.

Since the '70s when Twiggy started to set an awful standard for 'sexiness' in women, the judgement of Hollywood casting directors and New York fashion photographers has really gone downhill.  The lush, curvy, voluptuous look of such women as Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch, Lana Turner, and Rita Hayworth has been thrown completely out the window.  They'd be considered 'fat' by today's idiotic standards.  Instead, we men are fed a steady diet of women who are so skinny that we can count every vertebrae in their backbones and play the xylophone on their ribs.  To compensate, they get a plastic surgeon to shove a few pounds of silicone under their chests and then dress in next to nothing or even strip 'em down and let us see the whole package.

An example: the other day when I was home for lunch, I saw part of "The Devil's Advocate".  If you haven't seen it, there's a scene near the end where the devil (Al Pacino) is trying to bring lawyer Keanu Reeves over to the dark side.  The devil's beautiful minion (Connie Nielsen) slowly and sensuously undresses to seduce Reeves.  Now, I happen to think that Connie Nielsen is a lovely woman.  But if I had been Reeves, I would have looked at old nick and said, "Look, if you're trying to tempt me into giving up my soul, you're going to have to do better than this!"  Nielsen was so skinny that I was turned OFF.  Ick.

Another example: In the movie "Euro Trip", Michelle Trachtenberg is shown in a bikini.  She's a pretty girl, but way to skinny to really be appealing without her clothes on.

In fact, as much as I generally admire the unclad female form, 'sexiness' is as much a matter of dress, deportment, and attitude as it is physical charms.  In the movie "Tombstone", Dana Delaney is 'sexy' despite wearing those all-covering 19th century dresses in almost every scene.  Carroll Baker was red-hot in "The Carpetbaggers" despite wearing clothes in most scenes that would practically be suitable for church these days.  And you ain't SEEN sexy until you've watched Joy Harmon wash her car in "Cool Hand Luke".

Sigh...

I guess I was just born a few decades too late.  Oh, well; at least Playboy still seems to (more or less) 'get it'.

Making the Nobel Peace Prize a joke

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream from the top of my lungs, "WHAT'S GOING ON???"

Mohammed El-Baradei and the IAEA have been awarded the Noble Peace Prize for their tireless work in trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Seriously.

According to the AP's Doug Mellgren:

Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency that he heads won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

See, I told you I was being serious!

ElBaradei, a 63-year-old lawyer from Egypt, has led the U.N. nuclear agency as it grappled with the crisis in Iraq and the ongoing efforts to prevent North Korea and Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Let's see how they've 'grappled' with these problems:

Iraq - An inspection program that featured, among other things, Saddam's men wiretapping the inspectors, taking material out the back door of sites while the inspectors were held up at the front door, declaring some sites as 'presidential palaces' that were off-limits to the inspectors, and finally seeing the inspectors kicked out of the country when Saddam got tired of playing games;

North Korea - Getting kicked out of the country when Kim Jong-Il got tired of playing games, leaving him free to (apparently) build several nuclear weapons;

Iran - Watching helplessly while the Iranians broke the seals on their nuke equipment right in front of the inspectors, then having endless meetings to decide whether or not they should complain to the Security Council.

Have I missed anything?

The Nobel committee said ElBaradei and the IAEA should be recognized for addressing one of the greatest dangers facing the world.

Oh, I see.  You don't actually have to DO anything to win the Nobel Peace Prize; you just have to act very, very concerned.

"At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general."

I think we can all safely assume that the Nobel Committee doesn't include military force in its definition of 'the broadest possible international cooperation'.  Endless meetings, speeches before the Security Council, attempts to appease dictators, and MAYBE empty threats, but no military action.

ElBaradei said in Vienna, Austria, that the prize "sends a strong message" about the agency's disarmament efforts and will strengthen his resolve to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

"The award basically sends a very strong message, which is: Keep doing what you are doing," ElBaradei said. "It's a responsibility but it's also a shot in the arm."

Yeah, I think the Iranians and North Koreans would second this idea: keep doing what you're doing... because it ain't stopping us from doing what WE'RE doing.  HAW HAW!

This is really absurd.  No, more than that, it shows how dangerously deluded a sizable and powerful fraction of the world is.  The IAEA has been singularly inept and ineffective for years.  They've made themselves a laughing stock in Baghdad, Pyongyang, and Tehran.  They've done NOTHING to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.  THIS is what the Nobel Committee thinks is worthy of the Peace Prize??? 

I'm going to guess that the nomination of George Bush and Tony Blair to receive the prize would be met with horror, but let's face it: they've actually done something to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.  Iraq will certainly no longer be working on a clandestine program.  Libya voluntarily gave up its secret program.  We put pressure on Pakistan to shut down A.Q. Khan's nuclear black market.  We're engaged in talks with Pyongyang to get them to abandon their program.  Blair was working with the French and Germans to try to get Tehran to give up its nuke program.  In short, Bush and Blair have DONE far more than El-Baradei and his collection of bunglers.(1)

But he gets the prize, and they get the scorn of the elites around the world.

What a world we live in.

(1)  I absolutely don't mean to imply that I approve of our handling of Pyongyang, or the Euros' pathetic attempts to cajole the Iranians to give up their program.  I think that negotiations with people like Kim Jong-Il and the ayatollahs are pointless unless they are backed up with overwhelming force.  But at least Bush and Blair were doing SOMETHING to try to get North Korea and Iran to stop their programs.

Iranian army takes over 'peaceful' nuke program

It seems that the Iranians, having found that the UN has no stomach for any kind of confrontation over their nuke program, has decided to be even more open about what they're really up to.  They've handed over control of the 'peaceful' program they've developed for 'civilian energy generation' purposes to a special wing of their military.  According to the Washington Times' David R. Sands:

Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has placed the military firmly in control of his nation's nuclear program, undercutting his government's claim that the program is intended for civilian use, according to a leading opposition group.

Leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the force created specifically to defend the 1979 Islamic revolution, now dominate Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the country's top foreign policy-making body under the constitution.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, a little-known former mayor of Tehran before his surprise election in July, is a former IRGC commander, as is new council Secretary-General Ali Larijani, who has taken the lead in negotiations about Iran's nuclear programs.

It appears to me that the IRGC is the equivalent of Saddam's Republican Guards or perhaps Hitler's SS: a special paramilitary force outside the normal army chain of command that serves as the private army of the country's leadership.  As Sands notes:

Houchang Hassan-Yari, a political scientist at the Royal Military College of Canada, noted in a recent analysis that current and former members of the IRGC now can be found throughout Iran's political and administrative bureaucracy, from lawmakers in parliament to mayors, university officials and even managers of some of Iran's biggest business concerns.

The corps is "on the verge of being transformed from a junior player in the country's military defense to a key factor in the country's military and security doctrine -- a rise that could come at the [traditional] army's expense," he noted.

Great.  Just great.  We can't even claim that we never saw this coming.  The Iranians have been working on a nuke program for years.  They've even been in 'negotiations' (HAH!) with the Euros to 'stop' the program.  We've got satellite photos of the facility.  The Iranians have bragged about how much progress they've made, and even laughed at the Euros for providing them with cover (negotiations) while they put their program on a crash footing.  Now, Tehran is handing over control of its nuke program to revolutionary guard goons.

Either we're going to have to do something about this, or...