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
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
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.
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
Posted Feb. 10, 2004
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.