Doing the right thing, rather than the “popular” thing

Doing the right thing is oftentimes not the easy thing to do. With regard to Saddam Hussein, President Bush’s course of action is the right thing to do, though it certainly isn’t easy. This is counter to the Clinton model of executive leadership, always putting a finger to the wind to test popular opinion. What amazing foresight Winston Churchill had:

“Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature.”

This is why President Bush is also not listening to the “news” media and the peace protestors (whom with, again, I have no problem regarding exercising their right to protest, rather with their reasons). Despite what the “news” media would have you believe, the current peace movement does not reflect the popular will of the American people. Even if it did, that still wouldn’t make it right.

“The Founders understood that democracy was important, but if you didn’t filter it through a republican system you’d be just as likely to end up with a tyranny of the majority as you would with a healthy society. Don’t worry, I won’t quote the Federalist Papers, but trust me, it’s in there.” —Jonah Goldberg

The “news” media and peace protestors would be wise to hearken this advice, as well:

“We do need to remind everybody that tyrants don’t respond to any kind of appeasement. Tyrants don’t respond to negotiation. Tyrants respond to toughness. And that was true in the 1930s and 1940s when we failed to respond to tyranny, and it is true today.” –Condoleezza Rice, U.S. National Security Advisor, over this past weekend

Tyrants don’t respond to peace protests and sycophant “news” media in other nations as well. At least not in any way that would make them less of a tyrant.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

Riddle me this: why was it okay for President Clinton to go into the Balkans without approval of the U.N. Security Council, but it’s not okay for President Bush to go into Iraq–where there is a WMD threat–without the approval of the U.N. Security Council?

Marijuana DOES lead to harder drug use

A study by Washington University (of St. Louis, MO), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of 311 Australian twin pairs, concludes that teenage pot users are five times more likely to use or abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives, or alcohol. The study was undertaken to prove the opposite.
Sorry, NORML. Keep trying to spin the positive aspects of marijuana. I’m sure Woody Harrelson needs something to do with all of his copious spare time.

California Patriot

You have to admire and respect a conservative startup at one of the bastions of leftist thinking. They give away the 4,000 copies they print to Berkeley students, and have no advertising, relying on donations.

Freedom fries

Some times, real life is just too much fun to have to make up fiction.
(Yes, I know I’m paraphrasing; sue me. Thanks, Jim.)

This is compliance?

Riddle me this: what good is it to have U-2 flights over Iraq, in the hope of locating production and storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction, if we’re going to tell the Iraqis when the plane flies and where it goes?!?!?
(thanks, Brian)

Please get a clue

What is it with the “news” media and the hippie-throwback peaceniks out there? Oh, Saddam and the Iraqi government are making all of these concessions; we certainly can’t go to war now. We must give the inspectors more time. We must extend the time for inspections to continue. Why?
I have yet to hear one good reason why. Let’s see: Hans Blix, in his report Friday, called for more inspections. Gee, that couldn’t possibly be because he is a weapons inspector, could it? There’s great job security in being a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq; they’ve been working there off and on for more than 10 years. You find myriad violations of 1441 and earlier resolutions, passed by the very body you work for, yet your answer is not to punish the offending government, but rather to push for inspections to continue. How idiotic and foolish is this?
The U.N. itself, vis-a-vis Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is calling for yet another resolution to be passed before military force can be used against the Hussein regime. Why? Resolution 1441 already accounts for the need to use military force in the event of a material breech. I would say the illegal importation of 350 SA-2 rockets is a material breech. Saddam’s regime has declared only 8,500 liters of anthrax, while the U.N. inspection teams believe there are 25,000 liters. So we’re missing something on the order of 16,500 liters, with no proof of their destruction. Sounds like material breech. With each passing day, the United Nations shows how irrelevant is has become in international relations.
Pop quiz: name one conflict in the world the United Nations has successfully resolved without the use of some kind of military force since its inception. Good luck.
I’m still waiting for a President with the guts to not only pull the United States out of the now irrelevant United Nations, but NATO as well, and to stop the subsidization of an increasingly hostile-to-America U.N., giving them the boot from our soil. Let them go set up in France, Belgium, or Germany.
The “news” media and peaceniks are all running around congratulating Saddam on his joke of a presidential decree, as if such a promise from a known liar is worth the paper it’s printed on.
Speaking of all of the peace-love-and-happiness anti-war protestors, please allow me to congratulate you. You have managed to ingratiate yourselves with a mass murderer, with a man known for invading his neighbors and gassing his own citizens. I hope this makes you happy.
Oh, and that “smoking gun” you all keep whining about?

“[President Bush’s] critics demand a smoking gun [before attacking Iraq], but the problem with waiting till one is found is that a smoking gun has just been fired. It will be too late.” –Paul Greenberg

Please, get a clue.
This is not a war about oil. If America had oil-based imperalist aspirations in the Middle East, then we would have driven all the way to Baghdad in 1991, and stayed in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia when we had the chance. And if it weren’t for the environmental extremists, many of whom are the same people “marching for peace,” the United States would be happily drilling all of the oil it needs itself.
Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction; he has used them in the past, both in the war with Iran and against his own citizens. No evidence has been provided by Hussein that he has ceased production of said weapons, nor has any evidence been provided that he has complied with international resolutions calling for those weapons’ destruction. Let us be perfectly clear: the burden of proof regarding destruction of any WMDs rests with Saddam Hussein, not the United Nations inspections teams or any other government. He has failed to provide this proof.
It has been proven that there is a link between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda, the latter of which has sworn to do all it can to attack and harm the United States and its allies.
If you think that Hussein is not willing to supply WMDs to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations willing to attack mutually perceived enemies, you are foolish and naive.

Debating the war on terror

This is from an email sent to me, presumably posted by some radio personality, to show an illustration of the ongoing debate on how we should handle those who would terrorize and kill us:
Question: You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative Answer:
BANG!
Texan’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click… (sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)
Wife: “Sweetheart, he looks like he’s still moving, what do you kids think?”
Son: “Mom’s right Dad, I saw it too…”
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: “Nice grouping Daddy!”

The Left’s brain trust

On the February 12th “The View,” the ABC show created by Barbara Walters, former Good Morning America staffer and WABC Radio talk show host Joy Behar suggested some sort of nefarious doings by Bush operatives: “This is incredible timing. Really. I mean, here we are trying to find the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, in comes the tape that exact day. The timing is better than Hugh Hefner finding Viagra at 78. You know what I’m saying? Here’s a man all his life, did whatever he wanted, and now that he’s old he has Viagra. Same idea.”
Former NBC News reporter Star Jones chimed in: “Really wagging the dog this time.”
Then Queen Latifah, who was nominated on Tuesday for an Academy Award for “Best Supporting Actress” for her role in the movie Chicago, wondered: “Don’t you want to know what’s real and what’s not? I remember when I was a kid, you know, this whole Cold War thing. They had us scared of the Russians. ‘The Russians, the Russians, the Russians.’ So it’s almost like what’s real and what’s not?”
Like anyone rational would trust her to know.
So, because we won the “Cold War thing” there never was a threat, millions didn’t die because of communism and no one was enslaved by Soviet expansionism?
–from the Media Research Center
And my wife wonders why I have no respect for any of these Hollywonks.

Going to war without the French is like…

To wrap up Federalist coverage for today, I’d like to offer up my favorite results from their latest “Two Cents” reader feedback, wherein readers were asked to finish the sentence, “Going to war without the French is like…”

  • Going to war without the French is like…well…World War II.
  • Going to war without the French is like…. deja-vous!
  • Going to war without the French is like…going to war WITH the French
  • Going to war without the French is like…planning the Normandy Invasion without Yves San Laurent
  • Going to war without the French is like…going on your honeymoon without your mother-in-law
  • Going to war without the French is like…a 9-11 benefit concert without Hillary Clinton
  • Going to war without the French is like…Texas barbeque without a croissant
  • Going to war without the French is like…I’m sorry, war without whom?
  • Going to war without the French is like…going to Marine boot camp without a “Best of Liza Minnelli” album
  • Going to war without the French is like…going to a Mensa convention without James Carville
  • Going to war without the French is like…going to war without Fonda, Streisand and Sarandon, et al
  • And last, but certainly not least, Going to war without the French is like…well, VICTORY!!!

Though I must confess, I do like a good croissant. Just not with my barbeque.