Cartoon Character to Become Defense Secretary

Oy vey!

Obama is expected this week to name Leon E. Panetta, the director of central intelligence, as defense secretary.

Why not Mickey Mouse? Or, Daffy Duck? Or, if you insist on someone metaphysically real, how about the editor of Al Jazeera TV? Any of them will do as much to safeguard Americans.

Gates was bad enough, but as usual Obama will always find a way to make things worse. I'm just surprised it took him two years to get around to it.

Lying Muslims and Useful Idiots

Some Muslim Brotherhood spokesman named Abdel Moneim Abou el-Fotouh has been given a megaphone by The Washington Post to lie magnificently declare:

"For Muslims, ideological differences with others are taught not to be the root cause of violence and bloodshed because a human being's freedom to decide how to lead his or her personal life is an inviolable right found in basic Islamic tenets."

Uh, huh. Tell that to the relatives of the dead 14-year old in Bangladesh who was whipped to death by authorities for the crime of being raped. Oh, wait. They won't care, because it was one of their own who perpetrated the crime, then informed the authorities about her 'sin'.

The heroic Andrew C. McCarthy tells the story as an example of how sharia operates in the real world, no matter what its apologists might say.

In Bangladesh a 14-year-old girl named Hena was raped by a 40-year-old man, Mahbub, who is described in a report as her “relative.” Apparently — the report is not clear on how this happened — the matter was brought to the attention of the sharia authorities in her village of Shariatpur.

You’d think this was a good thing … except, in Islam, rape cannot be proved absent four witnesses — i.e., it’s virtually impossible to establish that what happened happened. That’s a dangerous thing for the victim — deadly dangerous in this instance — because if she has had sexual relations outside marriage but cannot prove she has been raped, she is deemed to have committed a grave sin.

In Hena’s case, the sharia authorities ordered that she be given 100 lashes. The young girl never made it through 80; she fell unconscious and died from the whipping.

Sure, it would be easy to dismiss this incident as just another savage act by the savages who occupy an unfortunate amount of land in the world. That's not the point, at least not the main one. The point is that there is a deep – but by now very obvious — connection between those acts and their ideology.

So long as useful idiots like those at the Washington Post continue to provide a neutral platform for these thugs, and for both parties to be allowed to pretend we all just have reasonable differences of opinion, this sort of thing will continue to plague those far outside Bangladesh.

On Egypt

My explanation for all the brouhaha: it's just a slow news week and the major dailies have nothing better to talk about just now. (See, I got sucked into it, too.)

If there's an op-ed explaining why we should care what happens in Egypt I haven't seen it yet, and I read 12 major publications daily.

They have little oil and no nuclear weapons. They haven't been a friend of the U.S. when it counts for many years, if ever. (Even granting the dubious proposition that countries can have 'friends' rather than just strategic, and ever-shifting, alliances.)

What's the worst that could happen? Are they going to export still more jihad to the U.S. or Afghanistan or Iraq? As if Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan don't already have that covered? Could even an Islamic theocracy block the Suez Canal for more than a day, without the government being blasted to rubble?

(Aside: by international treaty the Canal is open to all in peace and war and the other thugs in the region use it, too. And if they did block it, wouldn't that be a great excuse to blast an Islamic theocracy away? Not that we would do it, but the Russkies would, without hesitation.)

Sincere best of luck to those in Egypt who want freedom, all five of them. The rest are no concern of ours.

[Update 2/2/2011]

Daniel Pipes, who knows a thing or two about the Middle East, offers some helpful background and perspective.


P.S. Kind of interesting how Obama did nothing whatever to support the clear call for freedom in Iran when the moment came. Now, when no one knows what the hell the Egyptian people want, but an Islamic theocracy is the odds on favorite, he's all over it. The guy is a true Anti.

P.P.S. Happy to eat my words if someone can clue me in why all this is important.

Why I Don't Write About 9/11

Every year September 11th rolls around and I feel I should write something about 9/11. Every year, I don't. I can't really say why. Even though I lived in California at the time, I felt and feel deeply and very personally about the horror that took place in Manhattan that day.

Maybe that's because I used to live there, and still have friends there. It might be because I've been through the WTC countless times on my way to work and pleasure, and can't fully grasp its being gone.

Or, it could be the outrage I felt then and still feel — not only at the perpetrators and their cohorts, but almost as strongly at the political leaders who've refused to do much of anything about it.

Much of anything? After hundreds of billions spent and thousands of American soldiers' lives sacrificed? Yes. I believe that amounts to not much of anything, at least not by comparison to a real war.

War was never declared. That would be the minimum one could expect from the President and Congress when America was attacked by jihadists supported and goaded by half a dozen Middle Eastern theocracies for the past 30 years.

Worse, although from the first I strongly supported the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and still do, I always felt it was a second string effort. It always seemed too much like when the government interferes in the economy during a crisis, i.e. mostly to appear to be "doing something."

There was never any hint the U.S. would invade Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, and Lebanon — not to mention Pakistan for good measure.

Iran should have been — and still should be — the main focus of any effort to combat Islam-inspired jihad. It was and remains the ground zero of all such attacks and they won't stop until Iran is neutralized. Yet, even after it was shown six ways from Sunday that Iran was (and is) supporting the jihadists in Iraq, the President largely ignored it.

That neutralization effort would have to go beyond military conquest, too, as we did in Japan after WWII when State Shinto was dismantled in the Japanese culture. That effort, by the way, was done forcefully and without apology, unlike the mealy-mouthed diplomacy we see, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of whom have constitutions making Sharia their explicit legal foundation. [For an in-depth historical examination of U.S. efforts in Japan, see the work of Dr. John Lewis, particularly No Substitute for Victory and Gifts from Heaven, The Meaning of the American Victory Over Japan, 1945.]

Even at its peak, while our soldiers and Marines and many officers continued to act with unbounded heroism against absurd ROE, the most senior officers and civilian authorities offered tepid political support.

At his most 'cowboy', Bush never came close to emulating Churchill, FDR, or even Thatcher in his will to win the war. That many in Congress opposed him is no excuse. He ignored the pansies when he thought he should, and rightly so. If he had acted more forcefully, the American people would've made it near-impossible for Congress to pull his funding.

So, in the end, like a father whose son's murder is given short shrift by the courts — and like so many Americans I suspect — I'm left with a deep sadness and a great longing for the appropriate level of moral outrage by Washington. That, and an unanswered question about when the casualties of 9/11 will ever get the justice they, and we, deserve.

War Ends With a Yawn

Am I the only who noticed that the Iraq War ended... and nobody cares?

At the end of the European war in May 1945 there were millions cheering in the streets, here and abroad. Ditto when the Japanese surrendered in August. The relief was palpable, worldwide and visible on every street, in every newspaper, on every radio station.

Today, the last of the combat troops pull out of Iraq and there are a few thousand quiet celebrations in the homes of soldiers and a bar here and there that sees some fist bumping.

This is more evidence of my thesis that one major reason the war against the jihadists is being waged so lackluster is the American people are not engaged. Apart from the military families and their friends, it's felt as if it's happening to someone else, as if it were another country fighting the war.

And so it will continue until and unless something wakes up the overwhelming majority of Americans to the very real danger from Islamist-inspired jihad.

I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Venezuela's Socialist Makeover Nearly Complete

... and its face is showing the lacerations ever more clearly.

The socialist vice in Venezuela continues to squeeze out freedom and prosperity, leaving a bloody pulp in its place. Chavez latest move is to nationalize several mining companies. What's the justification this time?

Venezuela's socialist president said in a televised that his government was going to take over Matesi because "we couldn't reach an amicable and reasonable settlement with the owners."

It's a serious topic but this can't help but make any decent person laugh. The man lies as easily as his buddy, Barack Obama. I'm sure that Luxembourg-based steel maker Tenaris SA, the former owner of Matesi, regards the expropriation of its property as just a friendly, albeit tough bargaining maneuver.

That's the same sort of 'bargaining' Henry Paulson conducted with the banks when he TARPed them, the same sort Obama engaged in when he semi-nationalized two of the three car makers. "Accept the deal, or we just take your property." Some bargain. They're all brothers under the thin skin.

I wrote a longish essay on Venezuela's march to dictatorship three years ago. I'm sad to see that it's still ongoing, despite the heroic efforts of some of its citizens. The essay, published first in The Atlasphere, is reprinted here in full.

[Incidentally, anyone interested in seeing some of my other essays can do a search on that site by my name and bring up a dozen or so.]

Venezuela, Your Three Minutes Are Up
Venezuela has been marching towards socialism for years. News reports now reveal, with daily urgency, that the country’s march has only accelerated further under the leadership of dictator-in-training President Hugo Chavez and his cohorts.

In the many abstract debates of the merits of socialism versus capitalism, it’s easy for those of us living under a capitalistic system to lose sight of the very real horrors suffered by those living under socialism.

The following words, however, from a Venezuelan college student named Corina, bring the issue closer to home. Her English may be garbled, but her reasoning is clear enough in blog posts like this one:

Before I turn 18, I was already went to several manifestations [political demonstrations], run from the military, smell the tear gas..., seen people die not only because of political violence but also for poverty, hungry and common delincuence.

In a subsequent post (titled “Too Late”) she writes:

Hard day, after spending about an hour reading the news. When you see a red assambly (used to be a parlament), that got together for a special session in the main square of Caracas (Bolívar square, the same one where we took the first step for our freedom from Spain, in 1810) and aproved a law that gives special powers to the president; surrounded by Chavez supporters that screamed [...] ‘larga vida al socialismo’ [long live socialism]; you know that if the democracy was in danger before, now it was killed for sure... in a very legal way. Of course, people should understand, that not all things legal are democratic or fair. The law its a tool, depends on how do you use it.”

Wise words, particularly from a young college student in an increasingly third-world country like Venezuela that is experiencing the growing hardships of a socialist revolution.

Shades of Soviet Russia

Increasingly frequent reports reveal that — in true 1960s Soviet style — grocery stores in Venezuela are no longer stocking items we would take for granted, such as sugar or black beans. These items, it happens, are staples of the traditional Venezuelan diet. However, because Chavez is so determined to “help the poor,” the socialist way, soon neither rich nor poor will be able to find such items in Venezuelan grocery stores.

Chavez’s price controls are having the same effects in Venezuela they’ve had everywhere else they’ve been tried. The Venezuelan President’s moral purity — he excoriates George Bush while cozying up to Iran’s puppet dictator — is, apparently, matched by an equal understanding of elementary economics. True to form, Chavez has threatened to jail price control violators.

In addition to their gradual takeover of the media, Venezuela’s socialists, led by Chavez and his Vice President Jorge Rodriguez, are nationalizing everything in sight as rapidly as possible.

The economic effects of these socialist programs speak for themselves. Per-capita GDP in Chile is $12,600 per year. In Argentina, it’s $15,000. In Mexico — not exactly a rich country, by any standard — it is $10,600. In Venezuela, the figure is $6,900, behind even the Dominican Republic at $8,000.

Remember, this is a country that supplies 11% of U.S. oil imports, and who received over $46 billion last year in oil receipts (assuming 2.55 mb/d at $50 per barrel). Of course, as oil production continues to decline, those numbers will worsen. Revenues for Venezuela will decrease, and exports will decrease, as Chavez continues to forego infrastructure investment in favor of social welfare spending.

No Quarter for Venezuela

In the 1960s, it was common for residents of New York City and other urban areas to use pay phones to call one another. Mobile phones, at the time, were largely limited to limousines.

Inserting a quarter into the pay phone would give you three minutes of talk time. When your time was up, a recorded monotone voice would come on the line to inform you, “Your three minutes are up.” At this point, you had the option of hanging up, or depositing more money to continue the conversation.

Often it signaled the end of your conversation. Before long, however, the expression “your three minutes are up” became a euphemism for someone whose impending death seemed inevitable.

Sadly, some citizens of Venezuela will be unable to deposit another quarter — or perhaps even to own quarters — in the near future. President Hugo Chavez and his supporters will make sure of that. Those who would be willing to pay a quarter — for a phone call, a slice of meat, or other things we commonly take for granted — will simply find those things not there.

This Is Not John Galt Speaking

Recently, Chavez and his socialist government goons decided to nationalize Venezuela’s telecommunications industry. Other industries had already received similar treatment, such as the de facto nationalization of TV and other media. When Chavez gives a speech, for example, all stations are required to interrupt their programming and broadcast his speech — in its entirety — live. That entirety sometimes lasts for hours.

In at least one instance, an opposing voice was able to briefly break through Chavez’s endless tirade. As Corina put it so eloquently on her blog:

[S]uddendly theres a line in the middle of the TV screen and the rebels TV Channels shows in the right side Chávez speaking and in the left side, a familiar street of Caracas downtown, some smoke and confusion and some letters that says “1 muerto..2 muertos” [1 death, 2 deaths] And then no TV at all, no Chavez, no streets, like the TV were damaged or something.”

These days, Venezuela could use its own John Galt to ensure opposing views aren’t completely suppressed. Alas, no such thing is likely to occur anytime soon.

On the contrary, soon no one in Venezuela will be allowed to say anything of which the government disapproves — even were they able to obtain a platform in the media. To help guarantee this, Venezuela’s National Assembly recently passed its “Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television.”

Fatherland, Socialism or Death

Chavez and his gang have made no secret of their goals and plans. As the new law granting Chavez sweeping powers was enacted, for example, National Assembly President Cilia Flores declared, “Fatherland, socialism or death. We will prevail!”

Citizens of Nazi Germany would have found the rallying cry familiar. The word “Nazi,” after all, was a foreshortened German phrase for “National Socialism.” The Nazis failed in the end — but many people had to die first to bring that about.

Your Time Is Up

In January 1969, Ayn Rand published an essay titled “The ‘Inexplicable Personal Alchemy,’” in which she discussed a New York Times editorial about the Soviet trial of several young dissidents. After hearing his sentence for the crime of merely speaking his mind about the Soviet Union’s then-recent invasion, one of the young men stated, “For three minutes in Red Square, I felt free. For that, I’m happy to take your three years.”

These words rang in my ears as I read Corina’s blog. History has an unfortunate way of repeating itself.

Venezuela’s three minutes are nearly up. Given the country’s current trajectory, it’s almost inevitable that many people will have to suffer and die, needlessly, before Chavez’s increasingly harsh and unworkable socialist policies are discarded. With luck, Corina in Caracas won’t be among them, for she and those like her are the country’s best hope for the future, if it is to have one.

#

A final note: Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken Chavez this long to get around to the mining companies, given the oil companies were swallowed two years ago. The wonder is that any foreign company would still do business there. It looks like the lament I offered in that essay three years ago is even more apropos today. I just hope Corina got out alive.

Cathy McMorris-Rodgers on the Greece Bailout

Rep. McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA), one of the few politicians I positively like and admire, has written a stellar editorial on the price U.S. taxpayers are paying to help bailout socialist Greece.

Concerned that the fiscal damage could spread throughout the EU and the world, other European Union members and the IMF have pledged $145 billion to bail out Greece. And since the United States is the largest contributor to the IMF budget, our government will be funneling billions of American tax dollars to Greece.
...
And it's unlikely that Greece will be the last major EU member to seek financial help. High-debt Portugal, Spain and Italy could all face similar crises soon. Piero Ghezzi, an economist at Barclay's Capital, estimates that Spain may need a $450 billion bailout. Italy might well need more.

The United States pays 17 percent of total member contributions to the IMF; No. 2 Japan provides just 6 percent. That entitles us to a claim on the overall IMF balance sheet, not a share of any specific loan -- but it still means that our "share" of the $40 billion IMF package for Greece is equivalent to $6.8 billion.

If this isn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" I can't imagine what would qualify. When it was popular, I thought the anti-drug commercials in which teens were exhorted to "Just Say No" was silly. Here, it definitely applies.

Chavez Arrests Final Independent Broadcaster

As reported by Cato,

Today, the Venezuelan government arrested Guillermo Zuloaga, president of Globovision Television, the only remaining television on public airwaves critical of Hugo Chavez.

According to the government, Zuloaga made offensive comments about Chavez (which is against the law in Venezuela) while speaking at a conference of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) in Aruba, where media representatives criticized the Venezuelan regime’s crackdown on freedom of speech.

Anyone who thinks it can't happen here hasn't been paying attention to Canada, whom we lag by perhaps a generation on the slide to socialism, if current trends continue.

I wrote about Venezuela three years ago in an article titled "Venezuela, Your Three Minutes Are Up." The situation has only gotten worse since. "It is becoming a crime to have an opinion,” says Carlos Zuloaga.

Yet, the cretin who rules the country receives smiling handshakes from Obama, while Israel is chastised for building homes in Jerusalem. Past time to reverse the trend, I'd say — in Venezuela and here.

Not-So-Random Thoughts on Obama-style Moral Dissonance

"Taliban claims responsibility for Kabul suicide blast" (CNN Headline)

and

"Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future" (London Times)

Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

I'm more and more these days haunted by a line from the Dustin Hoffman film, Little Big Man: "Sometimes, life is jus' too ridikolous ta be believed."

Imagine even the very left-of-center FDR during WWII saying the Nazis could be "involved" in Germany's future. Imagine Truman, not exactly a right-winger, calling off all of MacArthur's efforts to de-Shintoize Japan.

Last, but nowhere near least, Obama has known of the electoral vote tally since early November, 2008. What the frack is he doing a solid 11 months later pondering strategy, when nothing in Afghanistan or Pakistan has changed substantially in that time?

The mind boggles when it looks to America's future.

Qaddafi Endorses Obama - Surely, Proof Enough

Qaddafi, madman of Libya, looking like he shares a plastic surgeon with Joan Rivers, appeared before the U.N. today. Among the other pithy statements of this long-time supporter of terrorism was this: "We would be happy if Obama would remain forever the leader of the United States."

Now, if that isn't the exact endorsement needed to convince anyone still on the fence that Obama needs to go asap, I can't think would could be more persuasive.

Obama on Iran's Digestive Discomfort

The actions of a Jimmy Carter Jr. is too mild an epithet to describe the disgraceful performance of Barack Obama in the face of events taking place in Iran. For the first time in 30 years the United States has an opportunity to positively influence the outcome — and without firing a single shot — and the heir to the Great Pretender goes beyond fumbling the ball by refusing even to admit the game is on.

Initially he said virtually nothing in order not to be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. Chamberlain would be proud, having taken a similar stance even before pre-WWII Munich. Events of the period in Germany prompted the great humorist James Thurber to write "The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble." In the short story the narrator relates how, having now been eaten by the wolves with whom they lived side by side, the matter was "strictly an internal affair."

One would hope that Obama would be on the side of the rabbits. One would, if one believed that he had any real disdain for the wolves, that is. But if he's indifferent to freedom and the individual rights to live, create, and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts — as he's demonstrated repeatedly in America these past dreary months — one would know better than to hope for any such thing.

To those who argue that strong words on his part would only inflame the situation, or actually provide aide to the mullahs in power — yes, there are such people — it's enough to point out that this is exactly what we should want. The more inflamed that situation the better for the citizens of the United States, and not coincidentally for the brave souls currently protesting and dying for even a few crumbs of freedom.

Jimmy Carter Jr., very junior (which, considering the small stature of that former occupant of the Oval Office, is approaching microscopic height), has declared:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mousavi may well be evil. He is said to have been a founder of Hezbollah and was vetted as one of four acceptable candidates out of dozens proving he was not perceived as a threat to the mullahs' rule. All that is irrelevant. Millions are not protesting and being arrested or slaughtered in the streets of Iran's cities in order to support another dictator. They are shouting "Death to the Dictator." They are asking for freedom. To fail to support that wish wholeheartedly — when it costs him nothing is a moral failure of the most serious kind.

There are those, often the same "those" referred to above, i.e. ever dependable leftist apologists for the smiling Fascist, who claim he would lose something: a bargaining advantage with the mullahs. Even a realpolitik 'realist' of the Kissinger sort should be embarrassed by this argument. Reagan called the Soviets out many times for their oppressions and yet continued to 'bargain' with them for years.

To the contrary, his excoriations were good for both the oppressed and the citizens of the United States. Making authoritarians nervous by openly noting their evil in no uncertain terms is always advantageous. Evil flourishes when good men stand idly by.

Obama is emphasizing his desire to continue bargaining with them in ways large and small, such as not rescinding an invitation to a July 4 discussion. That it is set to take place on July 4 of all days should be a clear indicator to anyone on the fence just how much contempt for the American system and its history Obama really has.

That he's willing to engage representatives of some of the world's worst dictators of the past 30 years at all is bad enough. To spit in the face of the American people by doing it on July 4 in the face of current events in Iran is grotesque amorality, that is to say, classic Obama.

That behavior shouldn't be too surprising, however, even if one knew nothing else about the mouse in the White House but that he's willing to assert that the Iranian regime has "caused some problems in the neighborhood." I don't believe even Obama is as ignorant as that, but he is that politically correct.

Supplying weapons, training, funding, intelligence, organization, and base camps in Iran in order to fight U.S. military in Iraq is bad enough. But even the State Department still recognizes — if Obama is unwilling to — that Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism as it attempts to export Islamic jihad everywhere it can.

The list of calumnies of the past 30 years can't have fully escaped even the willfully-ignorant-of-history Obama's tiny brain. He was, after all, already a teen when the Islamic revolutionaries kidnapped dozens of American officials and held them for over a year.

To describe this history as causing "problems in the neighborhood" is to cloak one's self Ribbentrop's shade of gray and concede that the frantic struggle of the Iranian rabbits is nothing but an internal matter, and only to hope that one doesn't get vomit on a new pair of Italian loafers.

Mousavi's Letter to Obama

From the Office of Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi

To the President of the USA, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama:

Dear Mr. President,

In the name of the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement "Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind," we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.

Your statement misled the people of the world. It was no doubt inspired by your hope for dialogue with this regime, but you cannot possibly believe in promises from a regime that lies to its own people and then kills them when they demand the promises be kept.

By such statements, your administration and you discourage the Iranian people, who believe and trust in the values of democracy and freedom. We are pleased to see that you have condemned the regime's murderous violence, and we look forward to stronger support for the rightful struggle of the Iranian people against the actions of a regime that is your enemy as well as ours.

[Hat tip: Powerline]

Obama on Iran's Digestive Discomfort

The actions of a Jimmy Carter Jr. is too mild an epithet to describe the disgraceful performance of Barack Obama in the face of events taking place in Iran. For the first time in 30 years the United States has an opportunity to positively influence the outcome — and without firing a single shot — and the heir to the Great Pretender goes beyond fumbling the ball by refusing even to admit the game is on.

Initially he said virtually nothing in order not to be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. Chamberlain would be proud, having taken a similar stance even before pre-WWII Munich. Events of the period in Germany prompted the great humorist James Thurber to write "The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble." In the short story the narrator relates how, having now been eaten by the wolves with whom they lived side by side, the matter was "strictly an internal affair."

One would hope that Obama would be on the side of the rabbits. One would, if one believed that he had any real disdain for the wolves, that is. But if he's indifferent to freedom and the individual rights to live, create, and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts — as he's demonstrated repeatedly in America these past dreary months — one would know better than to hope for any such thing.

To those who argue that strong words on his part would only inflame the situation, or actually provide aide to the mullahs in power — yes, there are such people — it's enough to point out that this is exactly what we should want. The more inflamed that situation the better for the citizens of the United States, and not coincidentally for the brave souls currently protesting and dying for even a few crumbs of freedom.

Jimmy Carter Jr., very junior (which, considering the small stature of that former occupant of the Oval Office, is approaching microscopic height), has declared:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mousavi may well be evil. He is said to have been a founder of Hezbollah and was vetted as one of four acceptable candidates out of dozens proving he was not perceived as a threat to the mullahs' rule. All that is irrelevant. Millions are not protesting and being arrested or slaughtered in the streets of Iran's cities in order to support another dictator. They are shouting "Death to the Dictator." They are asking for freedom. To fail to support that wish wholeheartedly — when it costs him nothing is a moral failure of the most serious kind.

There are those, often the same "those" referred to above, i.e. ever dependable leftist apologists for the smiling Fascist, who claim he would lose something, a bargaining advantage with the mullahs. Even a realpolitik 'realist' of the Kissinger sort should be embarrassed by this argument. Reagan called the Soviets out many times for their oppressions and yet continued to 'bargain' with them for years.

To the contrary, his excoriations were good for both the oppressed and the citizens of the United States. Making authoritarians nervous by openly noting their evil in no uncertain terms is always advantageous. Evil flourishes when good men stand idly by.

Obama is emphasizing his desire to continue bargaining with them in ways large and small, such as not rescinding an invitation to a July 4 discussion. That it is set to take place on July 4 of all days should be a clear indicator to anyone on the fence just how much contempt for the American system and its history Obama really has.

That he's willing to engage representatives of some of the world's worst dictators of the past 30 years at all is bad enough. To spit in the face of the American people by doing it on July 4 in the face of current events in Iran is grotesque amorality, that is to say, classic Obama.

That behavior shouldn't be too surprising, however, even if one knew nothing else about the mouse in the White House but that he's willing to assert that the Iranian regime has "caused some problems in the neighborhood." I don't believe even Obama is as ignorant as that, but he is that politically correct.

Supplying weapons, training, funding, intelligence, organization, and base camps in Iran in order to fight U.S. military in Iraq is bad enough. But even the State Department still recognizes — if Obama is unwilling to — that Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism as it attempts to export Islamic jihad everywhere it can.

The list of calumnies of the past 30 years can't have fully escaped even the willfully-ignorant-of-history Obama's tiny brain. He was, after all, already a teen when the Islamic revolutionaries kidnapped dozens of American officials and held them for over a year.

To describe this history as causing "problems in the neighborhood" is to cloak one's self Ribbentrop's shade of gray and concede that the frantic struggle of the Iranian rabbits is nothing but an internal matter, and only to hope that one doesn't get vomit on a new pair of Italian loafers.

Rosett On UN-Iran Lovefest

Another great column from Claudia Rosett, in Forbes.

To chair the 2009 governing board of the U.N.’s flagship agency, the multibillion-dollar globe-girdling United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance and ending poverty, the U.N. has now picked–wait for it–the Islamic Republic of Iran.
...
But handing Iran the gavel of the UNDP executive board ranks right up there with the U.N.'s choice in 2003 of Libya to head the old Human Rights Commission, or Zimbabwe in 2007 to chair the Commission on Sustainable Development.

Another demonstration, as if we needed it, that the UN is years past its sell-by date. The U.S. should eliminate the stench and close the building in New York.

[Hat Tip: Pajamas Media]

U.S. Now Officially Europe Jr.

The U.S. abstained on a UN resolution calling for a cease fire in Gaza. A long-time leader of the "can't we all just get along" school of diplomacy, the outgoing Secretary of State wanted to vote for it, but Bush moved her enough to at least wait until Egypt had finished selling Israel down the river.

This represents another moral inversion in the minds of foreign policy leaders. Anyone who would vote other than strongly for Israel finishing the job of polishing off Hamas has not just lost their compass. They have reversed its poles.

At this stage, it's hard to believe that even the incoming communalist Hillary Clinton will be any worse. She at least sometimes acts counter to expectations, one would guess out of a desire to upset them and remain unpredictable.

John Bolton, in the linked article, has another view:

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's failure of leadership on Resolution 1860 has set the precedent. And so on this issue, as on so many others, the new president will, sadly, simply copy his predecessor.

Either way, Israel — and America — are screwed.