Posse Incitatus

Why George W. Bush rules

This ad, which isn't authorized by his campaign but should be, shows why he is such a formidable candidate.

I find it hard sometimes to fathom the hatred the left seems to hold for him. It isn't just the bitter taste of defeat at his hands, or seething resentment over his visionary efforts to reshape the global strategic landscape.

There is something more, something deeper.

I think a key element is the "AWOL" fiasco. Here you had a bunch of people with little understanding of the military (or its Guard component) trying to tell people who did understand them what to think.

In essence, they were hoping to alienate the strong support for President Bush that the vast majority of military members (and veterans) feel. When that didn't happen, the left was enraged.

They simply couldn't accept that fact that for most of us, George W. Bush is the real deal. He is a man of integrity who honorably served his country. What they were hoping was to cause the same disillusionment that they felt when Bill Clinton betrayed them.

It didn't happen, because there was no betrayal.

This drives the left to distraction.

To put it another way, each faction in our divided America lives by a code. For conservatives, the Code is simple and ancient: honor your family, your country and your God.

For "red" America, hard work and rugged individualism aren't cliches foisted on an unthinking populace by a manipulative Texas oil-seeking cabal; they are time-tested rules to live by.

People who violate this code are punished. Witness Trent Lott and George H.W. Bush. Betray "red" America, and you taste the fate of traitors everywhere. Honor and the Code demand it.

For "blue" America, rules aren't as important as intentions. There is no Code, only a lust for power. This is why they were willing to surround Clinton with a wall of their own bodies to prevent him from being impeached. His betrayal of their movement and lies were not nearly as important as the prospect of defeat.

This "win at all costs" mentality leads to strange bedfellows. We have already seen "women's rights activists" defend the Taliban. "Human rights" advocates are still shilling for Saddam, lamenting his fall and trying to protect the mullahs.

And of course "anti-war" leftists of every stripe chant the siren song of honorable defeat, surrender in slow motion. They do this because in their fevered minds, radical Islam is less dangerous than a Republican Congress.

The debris in New York City and corpses from Bali to Madrid prove them wrong, but they don't care.

They are still hiding behind the towel. They hope to convince "red" America that George W. Bush has violated the Code not because the Code has any meaning to them, but because it confers a tactical advantage.

This is why their charges that Bush was AWOL or failed to stop 9/11 ring hollow.

We know the Code. We live the Code. They don't, and never will.

Shakeup in the gaming world

A couple of modest developments for those with an eye to gaming.

Hot on the heels of i-kore's demise and rebirth (as Urban Mammoth), now comes the news that Andy Chambers, long-time Games Workshop designer, is leaving the company.

For most people, this is of little consequence. But for the Posse Incitatus and his cohorts, this is big.

The Towel Gets Thinner

The unilateral armistice imposed by France and Germany seems to have some problems.

Item 1:

PARIS - A railroad worker found a bomb with seven detonators buried in the bed of a commuter line between France and Switzerland on Wednesday, touching off a massive inspection of the French railroad network.

Last week, two newspapers received letters addressed to Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and signed by the "Servants of Allah the Powerful and Wise." That group also was not previously known to French intelligence officials. [...]

The letters threatened possible terror attacks against France and French interests to punish the country for banning Islamic headscarves in public schools beginning next school year.

Item 2:

BERLIN (AP) — German President Johannes Rau canceled a trip to Djibouti Tuesday after receiving threats that Islamic terrorists were planning to try and assassinate him, his office said.

Despite their opposition to the US liberation of Iraq, France and Germany stubbornly refuse to adopt sharia and join the other side.

Both nations think they can placate some terrorists while attacking others, trusting to the sophistication of the terrorist to pick up on the nuance of their positions.

They are wrong, and their refusal to confront reality and avoid sharing the collective danger the West faces only makes them more conspicuous targets. Spain already has fallen to this bloody blackmail. How many attacks are needed to force France and Germany to abandon their modest efforts in Afghanistan?

Have they the strength to strike back, or is their will already broken?

The Islamofacists want to know.

The Courage of Hamas

The latest dispatch from Palestine contains this gem:

Despite the Israeli threats, the Hamas leaders apparently in Israel's crosshairs — Rantisi, Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Hanieh — made rare public appearances, though surrounded by a shield of civilians.

The irony.

Would a wall of Israeli children around Ariel Sharon be anything more than an invitation to attack?

For all their bold talk, Hamas still counts on the innate humaneness of their sworn enemies – a respect for humanity that they themselves do not share.

Radical Islam counts on using our own values as weapons with which to beat us into submission. Our concepts of “lawful combat” and “protected persons” are loopholes that they exploit to deadly effect.

There may come a time when this stricture will no longer hold. Israel has perhaps reached this point.

When that happens, and Palestinian rather than Israeli children are removed from smoking holes in the ground, always remember that Hamas brought us to this turn.

What they will learn is that Hoyle’s Law also applies to war: turnabout is fair play.

Dreaming of Danegeld

OpinionJournal speaks today of vicarious terrorism, the practice by which many Westerners project their own desires onto those of the terrorists.

This is particularly common in the anti-war crowd, and Jimmy Carter is the obvious example.

The logic is, if we only do what he wants, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. will all go away.

It is a common ailment these days.

Most recently we see this in Israel, where the Sheik Ahmed Yassin this weekend recived a much-deserved death.

The usual suspects are blaming Israel for provocation, predicting bloody Palestinian revenge and of course calling on the US to sell out its beleagured ally.

Taking aside the stupidity of many of these claims (what more will Hamas do, they already use children as human bombs?), the idea is clear: give the Islamofascists what they want, and they will leave us alone.

Of course, this flies in the face of all experience.

When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they didn’t sit there and try to build the perfect Islamic society, they bankrolled and trained Al Qaeda as preparation for the larger jihad to come.

They did not let their adherence to Islamic tradition prevent the use of the standard tools of power politics: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, never let up on a defeated foe and no alliance is permanent.

Many in the West think the Little Brown People are too stupid to breathe. They think that, having succeded in driving the West into full retreat with terrorism, they would simply cast aside their best weapon.

Islamic fundamentalism is driven largely by power and the perception of strength. Sweeping the Jews into the sea, driving the Great Satan, humbled and bloodied across the ocean – these things would unleash a wave of radicalism we can’t even imagine.

Little over 500 years ago militant Islam was knocking at the doors of central Europe. Now their followers have infiltrated every Western state in large numbers. They are alienated and angry.

A “concession” like the one these people advocate would help radicalize these people, turning them into an active Fifth Column.

Would the weakened, hobbled West (abandoned by the United States) have the strength to fight as the Israelis have, pitting tanks against children with bombs?

I think not.

These people hope for something that has never happened in history: that appeasement will work. That flush with victory, our foes would then turn on each other. Of course the other regimes aren’t fools: they would instantly swear fealty to the new Caliph, who would have no need to destroy them. Instead, he would send his new Janissaries into the West to carve out domains of their own.

I’m sure the 8th Century equivalent of these fools were present in England, urging the payment of Danegeld as well. “Once they have the gold, they will return and fight amongst themselves. They are a petty, quarrelsome people. Get them drunk and they will leave us alone.”

Danegeld never works.

Radical Islam isn’t about this spot of Palestine, it is about wiping out all infidels for all time.

They aren’t looking at next year, or the year after that, they take the long view. Unless this ideology is stamped out, it will flare up with each generation.

Yet for all their fundamentalism, Muslims are shrewd politicians, not above a tactical alliance.

Witness now quickly Al Qaeda and Saddam made common cause. Notice how now Shia Iran aids its arch-enemy Sunnis, or how the Syrian Ba’ath Party, sworn enemies of the Iraqi Ba’ath for 30 years, ran them arms and oil before, during and after the liberation.

There is a reason people speak of Middle Eastern traders with awe. There is a cunning and adaptability there that has flourished since the days of Nebuchanezzar.

The anti-war crowd merely reveals their typical conceited Western ignorance of Islamic culture. They arrogantly assume they Muslims are too blinded by religious fervor to think strategically; that they have limited temporal objectives and that what larger goals they may have, their petty squabbling nature will deny them.

In short, these so-called progressives, who pride themselves on their multiculturalism, think of Muslims as simpletons, children to be petted and sated. Give them a pat on the head, a cookie and license to wipe out the Jews and they will leave you alone.

It is a viewpoint as insulting as it is foolish.

And the consequences of putting it into effect would destroy civilization as we know it.

Hiding in a towel II

When the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse, a sizeable portion of the foreign policy establishment wanted to prop it up.

The dangers of "instability," it was argued, were too great.

Better the devil you know than the possibility of unpredictable angels.

It occurs to me that part of the willful blindness affecting so many regarding the war on terror stems from a similar sentiment.

Saddam Hussein was in a "box." He was no threat. He had no WMD.

Therefore, we were safe with him in power. At least our troops weren't getting killed and the dangers of terrorism were contained.

For these people, 9/11 was a wholly separate event. Al Qaeda and Iraq were actors with no real connection to one another.

They blame President Bush for “radicalizing” the Iraqi Sunnis, dwell on the impossibility of Iraq ever developing a civil society, and claim that Bush lied about WMDs as an excuse for his disastrous war.

They argue that we have abandoned Afghanistan and put Al Qaeda on the back burner. Point out to them that the US is capable of fighting on multiple fronts and they scoff. Show them a success and they lapse into sullen resentment.

What truly angers them, however, is not George W. Bush’s policy, so much as his decision to take down the towel they are hiding behind.

The Bush administration has revealed the stunning extent of nuclear proliferation. Our liberation of Iraq has turned the strategic tables on our enemies, forcing them to openly fight us at last.

Syria and Iran now tremble before our might, fearful of their own people and the seemingly-invincible army massed on their border.

These people fear the truth – that terrorism is a pervasive threat and we truly are at war. Rather than confront this challenge and muster their courage, they cry aloud in fear in anger, denouncing the threat as imagined or instigated by Bush himself. That it was always there, hidden by the flimsiest of screens never enters their darkest dreams.

This is the challenge we now face: to awaken once again those who have tried to ignore the lesson of 9/11.

The world has changed, the balance of power shifted. We cannot predict a future of uninterrupted victories, but with courage and determination, “we will prevail.”

Meanwhile, back at the culture war

Gay groups find yet more discrimination:

Students Protest Blood Drive Screening

ASSOCIATED PRESS
MONMOUTH, Ore. (AP) - Two student legislators at Western Oregon University have launched a drive to ban Red Cross blood drives on campus, claiming the donor screening process discriminates against gays.
The two students are particularly upset about a donor question that reads: "Are you a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once?"

The federal Food and Drug Administration, which regulates the Red Cross screening process, will not accept a donation from someone who answers 'yes' to the question, in order to help eliminate potentially HIV-tainted blood.

"By continuing to allow the Red Cross on our campus, the university is telling all the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students that we don't care about you," said student senator Shauna Bates, who is co-sponsoring the legislation.

First marriage is a right, now giving blood is, too?

I don't mean to trivialize people who sincerely believe in gay marriage.

Well, okay, just a little.

I say that because it IS a fairly trivial matter. I never much cared about gay marriage one way or the other, until the courts decided to throw it in my face.

I find the attempt to equate gay marriage with the civil rights movement laughable and insulting. When Rosie O'Donnell had her (illegal) marriage on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, Bull Connor wasn't there to blast her with fire hoses and send attack dogs after her.

This country is amazingly tolerant. We're quite happy to let people do whatever little naughty things they want to in the bedroom.

But that doesn't mean we have to publicly endorse them.

Here's my wish: we reach an age where gay people are viewed as people and don't feel the need to define themselves largely by their sexuality.

Sex, when you get down to it, is pretty boring. It's fun, but it's just one element of life. Gay activists remind me a great deal of Trekkies: they focus on one thing with such monomanical zeal, it's a little scary.

I know many gay people who are people who happen to be gay. No rainbow stickers, no outrageous behavior, just folks who happen to dig other folks of the same sex.

That tells me we are doing something right in this country.

But when people define every societal distinction, from marriage to health screening as an issue of civil rights, you needlessly divide and anger people.

Okay, so it's not my most coherent post. Go easy on me, I'm still new at this.

(hat tip: OpinionJournal)

Spain's Slow Motion Surrender

One of Al Qaeda's wannabe chapters is already claiming victory

CAIRO (Reuters) - A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda said on Wednesday it was calling a truce in its Spanish operations to see if the new Madrid government would withdraw its troops from Iraq (news - web sites), a pan-Arab newspaper said.

In a statement sent to the Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombings that killed 201 people, also urged its European units to stop all operations.

"Because of this decision, the leadership has decided to stop all operations within the Spanish territories... until we know the intentions of the new government that has promised to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq," the statement said.

"And we repeat this to all the brigades present in European lands: Stop all operations."

Spain’s loss is self-inflicted. When candidate Zapatero announced he would unconditionally pull Spain’s troops out of Iraq, he made Spain a target.

Spain is now in retreat.

As John Kerry is so fond of asking: how do you tell a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?

Zapatero believes Spain’s presence in Iraq is a mistake.

Al Qaeda went after Spain because it could spin the retreat as a victory.

For terrorists, perception counts more than facts on the ground. Yes, the polls supported Zapatero’s position, but when he won not 4 days after Spain’s worst terrorist attack, it smacked of cowardice and defeat.

This bogus “cease-fire” is merely the first bitter fruit of that decision.

Spain’s forces in Iraq are now in serious danger. Al Qaeda has every reason to target them for attacks. They are all effectively short-timers and their home government has declared their mission over. The Spanish people want them home.

So start killing them and speed up the process. As more Spanish troops die, the pressure will build.

“How many MORE have to die?” the people will cry. Spanish commanders will be compelled to keep their men on only the safest duty, perhaps confining them to their defensive perimeter. They will be prisoners in their own camp.

Zapatero has just made 1,200 Spaniards hostages of Al Qaeda.

What should he have done?

In the aftermath of the election, he could have publicly questioned the need to withdraw the troops so soon.

“Under the circumstances, Spain must review her security needs and those of her allies. We do not bow before terrorists.”

The election is over, so he’s free of backlash. He can privately explain his position to his own party, to keep them happy.

Come May, he can simply announce that, given Spain’s other commitments, the troops are needed home. CentCom could claim that the rotation was planned for and won’t disrupt anything.

The terrorists would have been denied a much-needed victory, Spain would have brought its troops home, and Zapatero would have kept his word.

Instead, Spain is tarnished with cowardice and the terrorists are emboldened.

Hiding in a towel

Even with the terrorist attack in Spain, many people persist in thinking that somehow it is an isolated incident. Certainly the incoming Spanish PM seems to hope that if Al Qaeda is pursuaded that Spain's intentions are pure, they will be overlooked when the next jihadi plans his massacre.

This attitude is best exemplified in a passage from Douglas Adams' The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

In it he describes the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast Traal, a creature so stupid, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you. If confronted by one, the recommended defense is to hid one's face in a towel.

Dumb as a post, that Bugblatter Beast, but very, very ravenous.

This is how people avoid confronting the danger that faces the West. They argue that Saddam wasn't a threat; that he had no WMD; that if BusHitler and Co. had just left well enough alone, Al Qaeda would quietly fade away to universal applause.

It is, in essence, hiding behind a towel.

But as Spain has shown, a thin terricloth fabric is no protection for backpack explosives and flying shards of steel.

The enemy we now fight has no interest in negotiation; the only thing we can "dialogue" with them about is the time frame of our conversion to Islam.