Haiti Exposes The UN Myth


The U.N. Security Council is meeting, but would require forces other than those under U.N. command to do anything. Canada, the U.S., the Dominican Republic and Brazil are among countries which have sent troops to rescue their own and other foreign nationals, from what many of them believe will be the worst combustion in living memory. But unless the Bush administration commits itself to another Clinton-style incursion, under the weight of the bad election-year advice it is currently receiving, it is hard to visualize a coherent foreign occupation force.

Opponents of our invasion of Iraq often point out that we did it without UN support. As the punchline to an apocryphal Vietnam story goes, that’s true, but it’s also irrelevant.

The fact that is being pulled to the forefront in Haiti is that although the U.S. can act without the UN, the UN cannot act without the U.S.

As David Warren points out, “unless the Bush administration commits itself to another Clinton-style incursion, under the weight of the bad election-year advice it is currently receiving, it is hard to visualize a coherent foreign occupation force.” As unsettling as that might be to the Transnationalists, that is the facts.

We need to quit pretending otherwise

Nice Try Max

Max Cleland: A leader to make us safer

Everyone who has ever worked in government knows, of course that Max Cleland did not write this column. He makes appearances, waves his bloody stumps and tells everyone to leave the their problems in Democratic hands. Hand? This column was probably written by some staffer. But let us pretend that it actually is Cleland’s column.

He makes the point that his Republican opponent in the Senate race was not playing fair when he made an advertisement that Cleland was willing to play politics with the Homeland Security Bill. He wasn’t satisfied with a huge new bureaucracy to take the security burden off the airlines and put it on the taxpayer, he also wanted those new employees to be in a Union. So they couldn’t be disciplined or fired when they screwed up and allowed bombs or weapons on board airplanes. In fact, he admits that the ad simply pointed out his record and he resents that fact.

You might remember the story: My Republican opponent, who is now a U.S. senator, aired a political attack ad that showed my face alongside Bin Laden and Saddam simply because I voted against President Bush’s version of a homeland security bill. His point was that I was weak on national security and not much of a patriot, even though I had been one of the authors of the original bill, had a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and lost both my legs and an arm in Vietnam.

His point, I guess, is that he is a wounded Vietnam Veteran and therefore is not responsible for his actions.

No dice, Max. Nice try though.

He even further complains that even former war protesters are looking at John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his subsequent protests when he returned from his abbreviated tour and finding them wanting.

Even Friday, on the pages of this very paper, contributor David Pence took issue with my friend John Kerry for his service in the war and subsequent protest upon his return.

I guess they think that Vietnam service somehow absolves you of taking responsibility for anything that occurred since.

Max sings the praises of Kerry, extolling him for his brilliant Senate record.

It doesn’t have to be this way. From my vantage point, the one person who can reclaim politics and patriotism for all Americans while making the United States safer is Sen. Kerry.

Quite simply, Kerry has a better understanding of foreign relations and national security than any presidential candidate I have seen in my lifetime. In 18 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has been a leader in the battle to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to modernize our military, promote human rights abroad and improve our nation’s security.

Well, he’s right about some things. John Kerry has a better understanding of Foreign relations. Unfortunately, it’s his French relations that he understands. He did try to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but luckily his votes against every major weapons system that the military now uses lost. He know about human rights, due to his tireless work, Robert Mugabe now sees the error of his ways, Fidel Castro has instituted democracy in Cuba and Kim Jong Il is now merely the proprietor of a roast dog emporium in Seoul.

Get a grip, Max. All Kerry wants to do is talk about human rights. To the best of my knowledge, human rights have never been advanced by yakking the abuser’s ear off. It either stops when force is used, when they run out of victims or the tyrant dies. Kerry and Cleland prefer options two or three. Never option one.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, Al-Qaida averaged one attack every two years. Since then there has been an attack every three months.

But none of those attacks have been in the U.S., have they Max? Maybe it’s now too hard to attack Americans. There haven’t been a whole hell of a lot of attacks on Americans overseas either. Why’s that? Maybe they think attacking Australians, Filipinos, and Europeans is a whole lot safer.

John has outlined a plan for a new internationalism, shaped by basic American values and backed by a strong military. It doesn’t mean giving the U.N veto power over our security. It means believing once more that diplomacy is a tool of the strong, and war a last refuge of the just.

A new internationalism? You mean begging the dictator’s club at the UN for permission before we do anything? Fuck that!

Kerry’s strong on the military? Could have fooled me. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see his voting record in the Senate for supporting a strong military. Maybe his vote on the $87 billion for the troops in Iraq was just a fluke. Maybe he can explain his complaints about lack of proper equipment for the troops while justifying his votes against military spending. I’m easy, just show me.

He’s strong on diplomacy, huh. I’m sure he is. But diplomacy is a means, not a goal. Bush tried diplomacy, at the UN, with the Turks, with all the nations that joined us. Some of it worked, some of it didn’t. What’s Kerry gonna do? Show them his picture with JFK? Remind them that his hair greatly resembles Kennedy’s? Let them know that he served in Vietnam? Maybe show them home movies of his excellent adventure on the Mekong?

Sorry Max, nice try, but no cigar.

More Questions About Kerry’s Record

Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record

Taking a look at Mr. Kerry’s much-promoted Vietnam service, his military record was, indeed, remarkable in many ways. Last week, the former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor,W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Mr. Kerry’s recollection of their discussions:

[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt,told me – 30 years ago when he was still CNO – that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam,just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. “We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control,” the admiral said. “Bud” Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions – but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.” And this statement was made despite the fact Zumwalt had personally pinned a Silver Star on Mr. Kerry

Andrew Returns To Some Semblance Of Sanity.

www.AndrewSullivan.com – Daily Dish

If all legal precedent fails, if DOMA is struck down, if one single civil marriage in Massachusetts is deemed valid in another state, without that other state’s consent, I will support a federal constitutional amendment that would solely say that no state is required to recognize a civil marriage from another state. By that time, we might even have had a chance to evaluate how equal marriage rights play out in a single state or two. How’s that for a compromise?

I enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan. Most of the time he and I are in the close vicinity of agreeing with one another.

Unfortunately this Federal Marriage Amendment had pretty much driven him off the deep end for the past few days. I kept checking to see if he was back and today, it appears he has returned.

It’s true that the “God Hates Fags” people love the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but that is not why many people are supporting it.

Charles Krauthammer laid out the case for most conservatives in this column. In fact, we have had ample evidence that our courts are totally out of control. The Michigan Affirmative Action decision made absolutely no sense from the “equal protection” standpoint but Justice O’Conner ruled for it while plainly stating that unequal treatment is all right if it is for a good reason.

Andrew does not think the courts will rule that gay marriage is a constitutional right and argues that we should wait until the deed is done before we take steps to reverse it.

I think he is mistaken, judges see themselves as omniscient righters of wrong and pay no attention to the written law until after they have made their decisions.

If the courts ruled that gay marriage is a right, it would become a nearly impossible task to reverse that. The proponents would argue, rightly at that time, that we were trying to remove rights from citizens.

If we wait, I can see it being imposed by the courts. That scenario will them play out much as the abortion debate with demonstrations, counter demonstrations and always the threat of violence.

This is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary. If we allow that, we may as well disband the legislature and send them home to find honest employment, for the fiction of self-government will be revealed.

Not Bad For An “Amiable Dunce.”

Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets (washingtonpost.com)

In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.

This is really going to frost the Democrats balls. Watch for them to denounce Reagan as a murdered for thwarting the plans of the Russian Workers Paradise.

Senate Throws Gun Control Fanatics A Bone

Handgun-Safety Proposal Advances (washingtonpost.com)

The fight for child safety devices was spearheaded by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who argued that law enforcement authorities believe the number of accidental shootings of children would “go way down” if safety locks were required and used. As of now, FBI statistics show that one child is killed in a firearms accident every 48 hours.

The “safety lock” requirement is meaningless . It is not going to stop anything, but it might assuage the feelings of the gun controllers. It’s requirements can be easily satisfied by throwing a trigger lock in the box. The smart gun owner will throw it in the bottom of a drawer somewhere and forget about it. But the gun controllers can hug themselves and announce to the world their worthiness and compassion.

The FBI statistic is stated in a way to make the number appear large, in fact, deaths of children under 14 from firearms are now at the lowest level ever. Take the “one every 48 hours” number. That translates to one every other day or 132.5 per year. The number of deaths from heart disease among ages 5-14 was 272 in 2001.

Never mind, the gun controllers will try their best to scare you. They know what’s best for you. They know that firearms are inhabited by demons. Demons which will seize control of the best of us and turn us into mass murdering fiends.

I myself have never had this experience, but I don’t doubt their sincere belief. They must be basing it on their own reactions. Maybe gun controllers should not be allowed to have guns.


John Kerry: Stuck in a Vietnam-era time warp

Evidently, John Kerry was prescient enough to know that the incident on the Mekong that he was awarded the Silver Star for, was a defining moment in his life. It was so important that he bought a movie camera and went back and filmed the area and reenacted the whole thing.

The article doesn’t mention when it was that he filmed this, but it was done with a super-8 movie camera and he was only in Vietnam for 4 months, so I would guess it was sometime in that period of 1969.

I think on any of his later trips to Vietnam, he would have used a camcorder, not a movie camera.

I would appear that he is fixated on that one period of his life to the exclusion of any other. It’s all Vietnam, all the time.

Kinda creepy, isn’t it?