The Furies
Posted April 28, 2004
War in Iraq Is Not a Popularity Contest

Following the recent burst of violence throughout the Iraqi towns of Najaf, Fallujah and Basra - in which hundreds have been killed and wounded - one reality has become self-evident: The terrorists want their homicidal behavior interpreted as our failure.

These enemies have discovered that the most effective way to diminish our military action is to hit soft targets and kill civilians so as to give the impression of disaster and thus manipulate the lowering of U.S. resolve. They equally wish to further reinforce the ongoing appeasement trend of the war opponents.

Perhaps now we have finally learned the uselessness of negotiating with their quasi representatives. Their purpose to negotiate is not ours. They negotiate to delay, not to compromise; they negotiate to destroy, not to resolve. When do we start fighting to win, not to be popular?

Posted April 14, 2004

According to Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez [the top general in Iraq], anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has lower ties with the Sunni insurgents who have been steadfastly attempting to destabilize America's efforts for peace in that region. The irony of this is unfathomable in that before the arrival of the U.S. forces, it was the Shiites who were subjected to wholesale slaughter and torture courtesy of the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein. Clearly, our propaganda machine is in need of a repair-shop visit. At some point soon, the following must be said to these people: Look idiots, here's the deal. You get to do whatever you want with your lives providing you reciprocate that same courtesy to others. The former is contingent upon the latter, schmucks.

Posted March 31, 2004
You May Act Providing You Don't

Shortly after the Israeli forces eliminated Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the European Union foreign ministers announced their reaction. They stated that while Hamas is a terrorist group responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, and that Israel has the right to defend itself against such attacks, it was still wrong to have killed Yassin.

Wouldn't you love one of these guys in your corner at a boxing match: "Now listen, champ, I want you to DUCK this bum without mercy." Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and others characterized it as the assassination of a spiritual leader that was "regrettable and cowardly." Apparently, these officials believe that if someone attains a leadership title before targeting innocent boys and girls for murder with bombs, his life has become more valuable than those of the children he has murdered. It doesn't.

Posted March 17, 2004
Be More Intelligent About Intelligence

Iraq war opponents like actor Sean Penn continue screaming that the not yet discovered weapons of mass destruction [WMD] prove [George W.] Bush's deception to the American people. Apparently Penn's grasp of the facts has the vicelike grip of a moose trying to open a jar of mayonnaise. Flawed intelligence does not a presidential lie make. If our intelligence community and president lied about WMD in Iraq, then so did their counterparts in France, Germany and Russia - all of whom agreed with our "intel" while disagreeing with our strategy on the war.

Intelligence is nothing more than a collection of disparate pieces of information usually derived from a myriad of sources. Analysis of this collection involves assessing what's most plausible and then acting on it in a way that errs on the side of caution. What is that side of caution? That would be the action that best protects our country - you know, whatever is opposite of John Kerry's vote.

Posted March 3, 2004

I now pronounce you "null" and "void." If somebody wants to support gay marriage, be my guest. As a heterosexual, I'd like nothing better than to discover that millions of guys are gay - more gals left for the rest of us! (Yes, I know that gay women might counterbalance some of that math, but work with me here.)

In our democratic republic, folks have the right to fight for same-sex marriage in the courts and legislatures. But they may not break existing law simply because they strongly wish for its demise. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has decreed that California law against same-sex marriage runs contrary to that state's constitution and has accordingly permitted over 3,500 of these ceremonies with licenses. He wouldn't like it if laws protecting racial equality or abortion rights were suspended simply because an official thought they lacked constitutionality.

Even gay-rights supporters like Rep. Barney Frank [D-Mass.] and Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-Calif.] chastised San Francisco for subverting the law. Why? Because if their side won, they would want the opposition to do what most of us do every day - obey all laws, including those we'd eventually like to change. (Boy, you know you're in trouble when you cite these two as backup.)

Posted Feb. 18, 2004
With U.N. in Charge Anything Is Possible

The United Nations is currently assessing the onsite viability of elections in Iraq. To some that's a bit like asking Heidi Fleiss to oversee chaperone duties at the high-school prom. The fact is, the U.N. has for too long not only been counterproductive, but also duplicitous.

Days before a suicide truck bomb killed 17 and injured another 100 at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad on Aug. 19, 2003, the U.S. had energetically offered protection but was summarily turned down by U.N. officials. After the attack, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that even if his people had rejected American security, that was still no excuse not to provide it. In other words, "You might hear me better if you would just stop listening."

Soon after the bombing, the U.N. was outta there. Now it has returned, and what confidence that must instill. After all, how can one go wrong with an institution whose Human Rights Commission is chaired by Libya and comprised ... of human-rights violators such as Algeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia?

Posted Feb. 10, 2004

When it comes to the political baggage of hypocrisy, Sen. Kerry, Gov. Dean, Sen. Edwards and Gen. [Wesley] Clark all have one thing in common - each has never met a conviction he liked very long. Kerry opposed Gulf [War] I but supported Gulf II, with lingering reservations afterward; Dean supported Gulf I but opposed Gulf II, even though II existed only because Saddam violated I's terms of surrender; Edwards supported Gulf II but, like Kerry, opposed the $87 billion necessary to fund their "yes" vote, effectively making it "no"; and Clark supported II but only on the condition that said support be understood as opposition.

I'm afraid all these men fail to realize that words have meaning and, if they're going to use these words, what they say must have something to do with what they mean.

Alan Nathan, combative centrist, columnist, speaker and the nationally syndicated host of "Battle Line With Alan Nathan" on the Radio America Network.


Alan Nathan, combative centrist, columnist, speaker and the nationally syndicated host of "Battle Line With Alan Nathan" on the Radio America Network.