Step On It Or Shoot It?

"Do I step on it or shoot it?" That was my first response to seeing a gargantuan Hawaiian cockroach. I had a similar response to day when reading the latest from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started." (source)

"Do I step on him or shoot him?" The thought crossed your mind, too, didn't it? Or did you think, as Obama does, "Do I talk to him in Washington or do I talk to him in Tehran?"

What is there to say to someone like this, especially when he also used the occasion -- the 19th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's welcome in Hell -- to once again share his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world (that would be "us") will be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam. Maybe it would go something like this:

Obama: Would you promise, please, that your nuclear program will be peaceful, sir?

Mah- I'm in the -moud for Jew-icide Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "McCain got beat by this young rad?!"): The Mahdi is coming! The Mahdi is coming! Death to America! Death to Israel!

Obama: Well, that sounds just awful. Do you think you could put it off at least until I'm out of office?

Oh boy. McCain 2008, eh?

Combat On The Hill

Good generals know how to prepare for attacks, so I imagine David Petraeus enters the Capitol Hill combat zone today well armed in anticipation of some serious grandstanding by two junior senators with very senior ambitions.

Basra and Iran are sure to come up, so thank you Mah- I'm in the moud to goose-step Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Mohammed makes me loony-mad!") for giving us this little news item this morning:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, state television quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Tuesday.

Iran already has about 3,000 centrifuges operating in Natanz, and the new announcement is seen as a show of defiance of international demands to halt a nuclear program the United States and its allies say is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Nice of AP to concede that the US still has allies .... 9,000 centrifuges -- seems like an awfully big investment in electrical generation for a country that literally has oil to burn. Whatever can they be up to?

As Clinton and Obama do their best to ignore realities like this and appease the hard Left by bashing a perfectly fine general, it's interesting to muse about their direct involvement in the recent surge of violence in Iraq. Reuters almost gets it, but characteristically doesn't see the forest for the trees:

In testimony over two days, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will assess the uneven progress made in a year-long "surge" of force meant to create the calm for Iraqi politicians to advance legislation and factions to reconcile.

The upturn in violence has thrust Iraq back to the forefront of campaigns for the November presidential election.

Put another way, the upturn in violence is part of a concerted effort by al Qaeda in Iraq, Shi'ite militia, Iran and others to ensure the election of a Democrat in November, because they know that will make their dreams of chaos and conquest much more realizable if John McCain is not in the White House.

Update: Here's what he said this morning in his opening statement to Congress:

Gen. Petraeus also said the recent flare-up of violence in Basra, in Baghdad and elsewhere points up the importance of the cease-fire declared last year by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and highlighted the role Iran allegedly plays in funding and training Shiite militias through cells the U.S. military calls "special groups."

"Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," Gen. Petraeus said. (WSJ)

(end of update)

So our enemy, monitoring proceedings over CNN and al-Jaz, will grin with every insulting probe from Clinton, Obama and the other Dems today, and listen very attentively to everything said by McCain.

Like I said, Petraeus is entering an important combat zone today, and I for one am hoping he emerges victorious, leaving a couple junior senators with senior headaches.

Two Sides To The Argument

What Mah- I'm in the -moud for some Shi'itty diplomacy Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Keep our EFPs away from me, lads!") had to say during his visit to Iraq yesterday:

"Of course American officials make such remarks and such statements [regarding Iran's arming and training of Shi'a militia in Iraq], and we do not care ... because they make statements on the basis of erroneous information, We cannot count on what they say." (source)

What one of the hand-letter signs held by anti-Ahmadinejad protesters said:

"Your mortars preceded your visit."

Conflicting message filtering clue: Which country has free speech?

Sunday Scan

Birds (Vultures?) Of A Feather

Why are we not surprised by this bit of news from Fars, the Iranian news propaganda-wire?

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Sunday voiced Tehran's support for Zimbabwe's independence and progress, and called for the utilization of all the ample potentials existing for the expansion of Tehran-Harare cooperation.

According to a report released by the Presidential Press Office, the president made the remarks in a meeting with Zimbabwe's new ambassador to Tehran, where he underscored that Tehran perceives no limit to the expansion of ties with Harare. ...

Ahmadinejad praised resistance of the Iranian and Zimbabwean nations against bullying powers, and reiterated, "Iran strongly supports the rights, independence and progress of the Zimbabwean nation."

For his part, the envoy appreciated Iran's support for the Zimbabwean nation against the bullying powers' aggressions, and underlined Harare's resolve to develop all-out ties with Iran and use Tehran's valuable experiences in the various grounds.

Proof here that you can tell a person's character by the company he keeps. The two nations may wish to pause to ask the all-important question: "Why are they bullying us?"

The Betty Windsor Channel

Queen Elizabeth has gone digital, with her own page on YouTube. Until they post her new Christmas message, you can view her first televised message, from 1957, in which she looks up from her written notes and says,

Happy Christmas.

She then looks down at her notes to refresh her memory, and adds,

Twenty-five years ago, my grandfather broadcast the first of these Christmas messages. Today is another landmark because television has made it possible for many of you to see me in your homes on Christmas day.

In 2007, thanks to The Royal Channel, the Official Channel of the British Monarchy, you'll be able to catch Queen Betty on your Iphone at "approximately 3 pm. GMT on Christmas day.'' In the meantime, you can stay pumped viewing such videos as The Prince of Wales Visits the Robert Clack School, Part 1, on the frivolous side and The Queen and Her Prime Minister on the really rather interesting side. It's not every day, after all, you get to hear John Majors talking about the ambiance in these private meetings, "with Corgies scattered about."

But don't expect to find clips of Betty in her bedroom like you'd expect elsewhere on YouTube. This is the Royal Channel, after all, and the real Queen Elizabeth, whomever she may be, is nowhere to be found.

God ... By The Numbers

You can tell a person's perspective on faith by whether they use the words "expressions of faith" or "religiosity" in a sentence like this one:

Our analysis of thousands of public communications across eight decades shows that American politics today is defined by a calculated, demonstrably public _______ unlike anything in modern history.

Kevin Coe and David Domke used "religiosity," so we can suspect how they feel about the rising tide of expressions of faith in campaigning today. But that doesn't take anything away from their article on History News Network, Think Religion Plays a Bigger Role in Politics Today? Y ou're Right. Statistics Prove it.

Coe and Domke point to Reagan's acceptance speech in 1980, when he requested a moment of silent prayer, as the starting point for an era they describe statistically as follows:

If one looks at nearly 360 major speeches that presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush have given, the increase in religiosity is astounding. The average president from FDR to Carter mentioned God in a minority of his speeches, doing so about 47% of the time. Reagan, in contrast, mentioned God in 96% of his speeches. George H. W. Bush did so 91% of the time, Clinton 93%, and the current Bush (through year six) was at 94%. Further, the total number of references to God in the average presidential speech since 1981 is 120% higher than the average speech from 1933-1980. References to broader religious terms, such as faith, pray, sacred, worship, crusade, and dozens of others increased by 60%.

Presidential requests for divine favor also show a profound shift. The phrase “God Bless America,” now the signature tagline of American politics, gained ubiquity in the 1980s. Prior to 1981, the phrase had only once passed a modern president’s lips in a major address: Richard Nixon’s, as he concluded an April 30, 1973, speech about the Watergate scandal. Since Reagan, presidents have rarely concluded a major address without “God Bless America” or a close variant.

What impresses me most in this statement is that those who would have us believe that America is not a Christian nation must deal with the fact that presidents from Roosevelt to Carter, who apparently did not espouse "religiosity," mentioned God in 47 percent of their speeches.

How do you account for that, other than by agreeing that America is, in fact, a Christian nation?

Another Floating Cross

clipped from www.youtube.com

In this clip (which really isn't worth your time viewing) from California's premier conservative political news blog, Flash Report, we see a surprised Cal. Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman wishing us a Christmas greeting as Flash Report publisher Jon Fleishman drops by for an unexpected visit.

As Fleishman leaves, there is a cross by the inside of the front door, above Ackerman's right shoulder. It seems the "floating cross" introduced by Mike Huckabee is taking the nation by a storm ....

You Must Follow Proper Channels!

Over at the leftist blog Media Matters, we are supposed to be upset because Fox News sourced a story to a ... a ... a ... blog!

On December 21, the front page of FoxNews.com contained a headline under the "LATEST NEWS" tab that read "Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Warming." However, the purported "LATEST NEWS" item did not link to a news report but, rather, to a post on "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog," the blog of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking minority member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The horror! Unable to say anything to defend the Doctrine of Warmism Infallibility from this nailing of the Thesis of 400 to the digital door of the Church of Warmism, Media Matters can only attack the media, not the message.

Which is why Media Matters doesn't.

hat-tip: Greenie Watch

The Unicyclists And The Feminists

Think a unicycle can teach you nothing about radical feminism? Think again.

A study by a unicycling British professor seeks to trace the causes of humor (to male aggressiveness, it turns out), but along the way trounces the feminist dogma that differences between men and women are environmental, not genetic.

Here's a bit of Science Daily's write-up of the research paper:

Professor Sam Shuster conducted a year long study observing how people reacted to him as he unicycled through the streets of Newcastle upon Tyne. What began as a hobby turned into an observational study after he realized that the huge number of stereotypical and predictable responses he received must be indicative of an underlying biological phenomenon.

The study was an observation of people's reactions to a sudden unexpected exposure to a new phenomenon - in this case unicycling, which at the time few had seen. He documented the responses of over 400 individuals, and observed the responses of many others.

Over 90% of people responded physically, for example with an exaggerated stare or a wave. Almost half responded verbally -- more men than women. Here, says Professor Shuster, the sex difference was striking. 95% of adult women were praising, encouraging or showed concern. There were very few comic or snide remarks. In contrast, only 25% of adult men responded as did the women, for example, by praise or encouragement; instead 75% attempted comedy, often snide or combative as an intended put-down.

Shuster concluded, correctly I think, that the intense aggressiveness of young males, many of whom would try to knock him off his unicycle, was masked with age by biting humor. Caustic, sarcastic, aggressive humor remains the domain of men ... and Rosie.

But why would women react nurturingly to a unicycle, something none of us are exposed to much as we grow? Could it be that women are ... nurturing? And that men are aggressive?

If you are a radical feminist, you can try to discount this via the old toy guns vs. toy dolls arguments, but really, unicycles? Unicycles don't carry a societal perception that is either aggressive or passive; they are merely different, and therefore draw out a purer reaction, a reaction that shows very clearly how different men and women are.

Ron Paul's Biggest Applause Line

Tucker Carlson must be on the outs at MSNBC (and that's the outs of the outs, if ever there was such a thing) because he was recently tasked not just to follow Ron Paul around for a couple days, but to follow him around in Nevada.

He reports that in Pahrump "the crowd went wild, or as wild as a group of sober Republicans can on a Monday night. They hooted and yelled and stomped their feet," when Paul stated that there is no constitutional authority for a federal bank. Later, a Paul staffer confirmed to Tucker that "It's our biggest applause line."

Wow. Carlson has an explanation:

There are two ways to interpret a fact like that: Either the Ron Paul movement is more sophisticated than most journalists understand, or a lot of Paul supporters are eccentric bordering on bonkers.

I'll go with the latter.

Sunday Scan

The Jerry Lewis Porkathon

The San Bernardino Sun reports on the hometown Congressman:

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, is tops among California's 54 congressional representatives when it comes to securing federal dollars in money-spending bills.

Lewis even bested House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, by 56 percent.

Numbers compiled by a non-partisan budget watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, show that Lewis - sometimes partnering with other lawmakers - scored more than $126 million worth of earmarks in a dozen appropriations bills for fiscal 2008.

Lewis does have some classic pork in his $126 million, including $8million in Army research funding for a local military contractor, but not all pork is created equal.

Lewis represents some of the fastest-growing cities in the nation, so his region needs a lot of help to cope with growth: New roads, new water and sewer systems, new hospitals. Developers pay a big chunk as do taxpayer-approved bonds, but it makes sense that Lewis' district should get more than slow-growing districts.

Then there's the fires that have swept the mountain communities above Redlands. Lewis represented those people well by getting money to help rebuild their towns.

While I'm no fan of pork, I'm even less a fan of lazy reporting.

Preposterous Prosperity Preachers

"Give and the Lord will give back" is a message heard from many pulpits, often with biblical purity. God loves a giving heart -- but if He loves televangelist prosperity preachers, who do a lot of preaching about giving, it would be one of God's greater mysteries.

Now a Republican Senator has launched an investigation of some of the biggest of these money-sucking televangelists:

The powerful top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month sent detailed letters to six mega-ministries that are exempt from paying federal taxes, asking about their fundraising and use of donations.

For example, [Sen. Charles] Grassley wants to know for what tax-exempt purpose Joyce Meyer Ministries, based in Fenton, Mo., bought a $30,000 malachite round table, and spent $11,219 on a French clock and $19,162 on Dresden vases.

He's also interested in the total amount of "love offerings" received in lieu of salary by Bishop Eddie Long of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Ga., and how Long reports them on his W-2 forms to the Internal Revenue Service.

Kenneth Copeland Ministries, in Newark, Texas, also received a letter. Grassley is curious about reports that a gathering of ministers presented Kenneth Copeland with a "personal gift" in excess of $2 million, in celebration of the organization's 40th anniversary.

The other three targets are Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Fla.; Benny Hinn of World Healing Center Church Inc. in Grapevine, Texas; and Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International in College Park, Ga. Des Moines Register via Right Views)

My only question is why it took so long. These thieves have been taking money from the widowed, feeble and naive for so long their place in Hell is well secured; their time in prison should have started long ago.

A pulpit is the worst place to hide behind ... with the possible exception of the television camera. If Sen. Grassley's investigation bears fruit, then the next step should be going after some television broadcast licenses.

The $30,000 malachite table caught my eye; here's Malachi 1:6:

“A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father, where is the honor due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?” says the Lord Almighty. “It is you, O priests, who show contempt for my name.

Amen.

Happy 60th Betty and Phil

Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are celebrating their 60th, and BBC has provided us with 60 wedding tidbits including ones of wealth:

The Queen's bridal veil was made of tulle and held by a tiara of diamonds. This tiara was made for Queen Mary in 1919. It was made from re-used diamonds taken from a necklace/tiara purchased by Queen Victoria from Collingwood and Co and a wedding present for Queen Mary in 1893. In August 1936, Queen Mary gave the tiara to Queen Elizabeth from whom it was borrowed by Princess Elizabeth for her wedding in 1947.

... and ones of war-time austerity:

The two Royal kneelers, used during the service, were covered in rose pink silk. They were made from orange boxes, due to war time austerity, and date stamped 1946.

It's an interesting journey into another time, another place, and makes a nice Sunday read.

Paranoid Libertarians

Steve Greenhut, editorial writer at the OCRegister, is a years-long friend. We talk frequently about property rights, crazed greenies, global warming hysteria and other common interests.

We almost never talk about the war, because as a libertarian, Greenhut has been against it since day one, and his normally clear vision gets clouded, as in his column today:

One of the most disturbing lessons I've learned following the 9/11 attacks is that many people will go along with just about any government-imposed outrage if it's couched in the right terms and plays on their fears.

In the past few years, we've seen the federal government become increasingly aggressive in its efforts to spy on, detain, wiretap, monitor, imprison, search and harass not only suspected "enemy combatants" but pretty much anyone, at its discretion.

Pretty much anyone, Steve? Where are the cases in point? Who's been harassed? Who's been imprisoned? If you think the targets are "anyone," then our legal targets will shrink to pretty much no one, and the Islamists will have successfully exploited our freedoms in their efforts to take our freedoms away from us.

Greenhut's focus is Manzanar, the internment camp for Japanese-Americans in WWII:

One columnist, quoted in the book, "Reflections," about the Manzanar relocation center in California, made this argument: "I'm for the immediate removal of every Japanese on the West Coast to a point deep in the interior … let 'em be pinched, hurt, hungry … let us have no patience with the enemy or with anyone who carry his blood. Personally, I hate the Japanese."

Last year when I first researched this topic, I found such bile to be common in newspapers. At the time, The Orange County Register's longtime co-publisher R.C. Hoiles was one of the only West Coast newspaper publishers to come out against the internment.

Hindsight can be 20/20, but Greenhut should understand that among all those unjustly interned were some whose interment was good for us and for the war effort -- something Greenhut dismisses with:

The justification was to protect against espionage and sabotage, although there was scant evidence that Japanese-Americans and Japanese nationals living on the West Coast had engaged in any such activities.

But how could there be evidence unless there was the sort of spying on, wiretapping and monitoring that Greenhut abhors?

I have friends who lived in Manzanar, and I am well aware that the internment was ugly for all and unnecessary for nearly all. But the fact is this: There hasn't been any government call for internment of Muslims or any government effort that we know of that involves wholesale electronic spying on Muslims.

To fear such civil liberty breaches from within so much that you ignore the very real effort of some to undermine and destroy our freedoms, then that is the greater risk to freedom.

The Islamo-Socialist Front

Two terrible regimes are getting together today as the Venezuelan vampire drops by to visit the Tehraniacs. No good will come of this.

McGovern: The Dems' Vietnam

Look at the Dem Prez hopefuls and you see candidates who are running on a platform that speaks to activist core of the part, with planks on peace, economic justice and social equality.

If that sounds mistily familiar, think back to McGovern, says poli-sci prof and author Bruce Miroff. He looks at today's situation through a lens of an ongoing McGovern shock to the Dems:

Republican political ascendancy since the Reagan presidency has centered on a few core—and clear—principles: limited government, the free market, a strong military, traditional values. The Democrats’ alternative public philosophy is far less distinct. For decades, their party had had trouble articulating what it cares about and what it believes. Republicans have been proud to call themselves conservatives. Democrats have not really wanted to call themselves anything in particular.

I argue in my recently published book, The Liberals’ Moment: The McGovern Insurgency and the Identity Crisis of the Democratic Party, that the McGovern campaign was the last time that a presidential nominee of the Democratic Party voiced a full-fledged public philosophy: liberalism. ...

But McGovern lost by a huge margin, crushed by a landslide in which forty-nine states voted for the incumbent, none other than Richard Nixon. ...

A legacy of the McGovern campaign was that it made Democrats lose confidence in their longstanding public philosophy even as Republicans were gaining confidence in their new one. The McGovern defeat can thus be seen as a profound trauma for contemporary Democrats, a political and psychic wound that has been covered over with layers of denial and defensiveness. (History News Network)

Miroff is, of course, right. Today's candidates all remember the McGovern debacle well, just as they remember the Reagan juggernaut. What they're forgetting is that there is a place in Dem-dom somewhere between the unrealistic positions of McGovern or Markos Moulitsas and the hard right positions of the Conservative revolution.

It may take another generation for the Dems to leave McGovern behind and find a new voice for the party -- a bit of New Deal, a bit of populism, a bit of progressivism (as in embracing change, not running from it as the Dems are today). Hillary is the embodiment of McGovernitis, with her unwillingness to take a position on anything, her searching for something safe and electable to believe in.

Not that this augers well for the GOP in 2008. The people are free to elect people who can't say what they believe in -- especially if the people don't know what they believe in either.

It's A Wonder She Could Find Her Fork

Trudy Rubin, foreign affairs columnist with the Philadelphia Enquirer, accepted the invitation offered on cream colored stock with flowing calligraphy. Yes, she would sit down at the same table as Mah - I'm in the - moud - for dinner patter Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "They're so easy to dupe, which makes me glad"). Not only that, she apparently commited to not upchucking all over the table ('lit by chandeliers, and set with plates of oriental salads and vases of roses') while trying to consume food in his presence.

Rubin is no Bollinger, her column clearly shows. Her insults are tepid and barely heart-felt:

This is a man of overweening self-confidence who believes his own rhetoric. He badly misunderstands the American system, but is certain that he gets it. He prefaces every meeting with a long religious prologue calling for justice, peace and friendship, yet his words increase tensions.

"Increase tensions?" Like something you can take a Bayer for?

Rubin did not leave the dinner overwhelmed by the fact that she had just spent three hours with a very dangerous and irrational man in mad pursuit of nuclear weapons so he can carry out his recurring threats against Israel. No, instead:

The overwhelming sense I had from the dinner was of opportunities being squandered to improve U.S.-Iranian relations.

Rubin hasn't grasped the fact that U.S.-Iranian relations can't improve as long as the East Coast liberal media elite can sit down and extend civility to a man who is doing all he can to kill our troops in Iraq. But her entire column, which purportedly covered the entire dinner conversation, came and went with but one scant reference to Iraq -- and that was more of her "overwhelming sense," not her "overwhelming disgust:"

One was left with the impression that there is slim chance on Iran's side for actions to reduce tensions, including cooperation on Afghanistan or Iraq.

Again, the tepidness. She is merely left with an impression; how Leftist. Never wanting to appear to not be inclusive, never wanting to judge the morality of others, she is merely left with an impression, as if a flaming hot brand of anti-Semitic, anti-American hatred was pushed up against her skin, and left only a faint impression. What would it take to actually make her feel something strongly?

Oh, I know the answer. Looking at a photo of Bush. The cover of her anti-Bush tome makes that clear.

Finally, she concludes:

Frustrating he is, because his rhetoric inflames tensions and gives ammo to politicians who want military action. But Hitler he is not.

I wish you could have heard the tired, repulsed sigh that just came out of me as I pasted that into my post. He's frustrating because his rhetoric inflames tensions? Not because he kills our soldiers, strips freedoms from his people, quashes opposition, executes homosexuals and wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

He's frustrating because his rhetoric makes military action more likely? Not his actions? This woman lives on a parallel planet where reality is what is talked about so insightfully among the intellectuals, not our planet where blood gets spilled, dissidents get tortured, and fanatics try to push entire nations either off the planet if they're Jewish or back a few centuries if they're Islamic.

The only reason she excuses Ahmadinejad from being Hitler is because, she says, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the real power, not the imp in the bad suit. So, then, would Heinrich Himmler be perfectly acceptable as "not a Hitler" to Rubin?

After all this, we are left with the most interest element of all regarding My Dinner With Mahmoud: Someone put together and carefully vetted this invitation list. Someone worked diligently to make sure that no one would be invited who would leap across the table and wring the little @#$%!'s neck.

That someone, I'll bet you a dollar to a donut, is an American working for a lobbying firm in Washington DC who is perfectly content to aid and abet the enemy -- not just the enemy of America, but the enemy of freedom, free speech, political discussions and religious rights.

I think I'd actually be more inclined to wring that @#$%!'s neck than Ahmadinejad's.

Hat-tip: RCP

"Lost In The Mail"

President Bush is warming up his pipes for his U.N. speech as I write this and I'll be in my weekly meeting with a bunch of church guys when he gives it, but I like the leak on the speech's topic: No new spotlight for the crackpot despot handpuppet from Tehran, but instead a bright, glaring light on the UN's failure to live up to its charter's ideals of human rights and freedom.

Bush reportedly will focus on Myanmar, where 100,000 protested this week in a cry for freedom, and where the UN has done absolutely nothing to put a ray of hope behind that cry. Instead, the UN turns the other way as the power-hungry cabal that oppresses an entire nation, murders its Christian minority, supports the nation's opium-growing drug lords ... and gets a helping hand in keeping the whole, sick mess from collapsing from China.

Amidst this horror, the UN straight-facedly tells us that the poverty rate in Myanmar is just two percent, and presents data on the nation's health in deaths per thousand while admitting it doesn't even know what the nation's population is.

There is not even a place in the UN's "Country at a Glance" window that addresses human rights.

Why bother? What difference would it make to the thieves, liars, rapists and torturers who sit with Myanmar in the General Assembly?

Meanwhile, at the White House, planning goes on for the President's reception for world leaders this evening. Not invited: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

When asked what happened to Ahmadinejad's invitation, Dana Perrino told AP:

"Lost in the mail."

Now if we could just entrust Ahmadinejad to the US Postal Service ....

Why Bollinger Did It: Ego, Ego, Ego

As much doubt as I had about Columbia's rationale for inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, and as little faith I had in Columbia prez Lee Bollinger really asking him tough questions, I have to say upon reading the transcript that I'm impressed.

Let's start at the obvious place; the end:

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Ahmadinejad, of course, kept the revulsion meter running.

In my post this afternoon before the transcript of the college prez and the upchuck-elevating Iranian prez was released, I worried that Bollinger hadn't adequately covered Iran's active involvement in the killing of our soldiers and its desire to vaporize Israel in his questions. But non. On Iran's actions against our soldiers:

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

I would have gone quite a lot farther, but all in all not bad for a Bush-hating, war-hating liberal college prof. And as for his desire to put Israel permanently on hold:

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

A little egocentric, but it'll do. And the egocentric nature of this question shines light on why Bollinger refused to cancel the invitation. It was just too big a spotlight for him to dim.

Still, and even taking into account how much better Lee Bollinger must feel about himself tonight, I still say it was a mistake to give Ahmadinejad a forum beyond the one forum we had no choice over, the UN General Assembly.

Did Bollinger Completely Miss The Point?

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above ... which I'll post as soon as I'm done.

I'm still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger's reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I'm holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here's why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I've read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I've read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn't have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That's not to say the extermination of Jews isn't a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran's supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing "imperialist" U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don't give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That's getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer's response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I'll hazard a guess that he wouldn't think that to be unworthy of Columbia or -- and this is really odd -- dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Columbia Has A Lot To Learn

Columbia University. A front-row seat of higher learning, where only the smartest go to get even smarter. As a mere honor roll student of meager means, I couldn't have hoped to get into a school like Columbia, a school so elite and prestigious.

So I have to wonder what has happened to this great university over the four decades since I graduated from high school that would cause its president, Lee Bollinger, to defend Columbia's speaking invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by saying:

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly." (WSJ)

Bollinger is a First Amendment scholar and author of high repute and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, so he knows he is on solid legal ground in extending and defending the invitation. But why does he think so little of the smart kids who got accepted to his school?

Does he think they will really gain anything from seeing a polished politician on his best behavior, far from the protection of his elite Revolutionary Guards and his Mullahs? Does he think for a moment that he is tricking Ahmadinejad into revealing his true, brutal, hateful, repressive, totalitarian, theocratic, fanatic, GI-killing self, so the students of Columbia will see the world as it is?

Or is he merely being an academic pawn, supporting the purpose of Ahmadinejad's trip, which is to project a positive image of Ahmadinejad as a thoughtful man who is dedicated to the downtrodden?

In other words, Ahmadinejad is on a mission to present a lie, and Bollinger -- whose university is home to aggressively antisemitic and anti-Israel scholars -- is giving him that forum.

The students of Columbia will see a polite, learned man not dissimilar to the man who presented to the Council on Foreign Relations during his last visit. In other words, one who thinks well (if faultily), who reasons well (if intolerantly) and who appears to be anything but a fanatic. A man who will try his hardest to make President Bush appear to be the one who doesn't think well, who doesn't reason well, and who uses his fanatical Islamophobia and Christian crusading against Islam.

In that, he will be sly. Will the Columbia students see the slyness? If they do, will they learn from it? Will they learn as much as they would have learned if Bollinger instead had rebuffed his faculty and others and said, no, Columbia is a place of higher learning, and that precludes invitations to men like Ahmadinejad?

I think not, but I also think Duncan Hunter is woefully wrong in his approach to the situation:

"For an institution of Columbia University's caliber, it is inconceivable that you would provide President Ahmadinejad with this opportunity," said Mr. Hunter, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. "I trust the University will do the right thing and immediately withdraw its invitation to President Ahmadinejad. However, should you choose to go forward, I intend to introduce legislation in Congress to disqualify Columbia University from any future federal support." (WashTimes)

Bollinger knows the First Amendment will shred any such effort by Hunter, and Hunter should know better than to issue the threat, which just makes him look like a book-burner and worse, a believer in a big, heavy-handed government.

It is not government's place to slap Bollinger around. That role falls to the funders of Columbia University -- from its big benefactors to the corporations and individuals that underwrite scholarships, to the parents who pay the tuition, to the students who enroll there. These are the people and institutions that should rise up against Bollinger's entirely legal but entirely irresponsible decision and give the man some hurt.

As he sees the millions drain away, will he react rationally, as a man who thinks well, and apologize -- or will he react fanatically, like a die-hard liberal academic, and continue to bite the hands that feed his institution?

Whichever, it's clear that Columbia, like all our foremost universities, has a lot to learn.

Ahmadinejad's Silly Saber-Rattling

On the eve of his trip to New York, Mah- I'm in the -moud for aviation fuel Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Let's have a little jet-powered jihad") bragged about Iran's new Saeqeh fighter jets, which were flitting about in the sky above.

"Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the [1980-88 Iran-Iraq] war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces," Mr Ahmadinejad said BBC.

Hmm. I read the BBC article from top to bottom and I found plenty of threats, like Ahmadinejad saying anybody who attacked Iran "would experience nothing but regret," but I didn't find out any more about these famous jets that came from the mighty hands and brains of Iran's' military experts ... especially anything about why they look so much like our old F-5s. You know, the F-5s we sold about 100 years ago to the Shah.

So I went on over to Defense Talk to see what they were talking about and lo and behold:

The Saeqeh shown previously was in effect an F-5E with a V tail. The Azarakhsh [the other "new" Iranian jet, the] in turn is an F-5E with the wings moved from the bottom of the fuselage to a mid point on the fuselage. While either design change may give some improvement in performance the plane is still a modified F-5.

Funny that BBC wouldn't take the effort to tell us that, especially since it took me about five seconds to find that confirming quote.

The last F-5E rolled off our assembly lines 20 years ago, in 1987, so I kind of wondered just how the Saeqeh and Azarakhsh would fare in warfare against one of our better jets, like an F-18. Back to Defense Talk:

Neither could be described as similar to an F-18 in capabilities.

I don't know to what extent, if at all, the Iranians were able to improve on the performance, avionic or firepower capabilities of the F-5A -- especially since they're under an arms embargo -- but here's what the jet could do when Northrup (as opposed to a bunch of Iranians) manufactured it:

Max Speed:	802 kt / 924 mph
Max Range:	2594 km / 1,612 miles
Powerplant:	two 1850-kg (4,080-lb) afterburning thrust General Electric J85-GE 13 turbojets
Armament:	two 20-mm M39 cannon with 280 rounds per gun; provision for 1996 kg (4,400 lb) of disposable stores, including AAMs, bombs, cluster bombs, rocket-launcher

Now let's mosey over to the carrier-launched F-18 Hornet, the aircraft the Iranians would most likely be up against if tit were to lead to tat:

Max Speed:	1,032 kt / 1,183 mph
Max Range:	740 km / 460 miles
Powerplant:	two 7257-kg (16,000-lb) afterburning thrust General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans
Armament:	one 20-mm M61A1 Vulcan six-barrel rotary cannon with 570 rounds; up to 7711 kg (17,000 Ib) of disposable stores, including AAMs, ASMs, anti-ship missiles, free-fall or guided bombs, cluster bombs, dispenser weapons, napalm tanks, rocket launchers, drop tanks and ECM pods, carried on nine external hardpoints

Ouch. Hugely faster, double the thrust and Holy cow, those munitions! Yes, the Iranians would have a range advantage on us, but what good will that do them if they're shot down within a few miles of taking off?

I bring this all up not to saber-rattle, but merely to point out that Ahmadinejad has no choice, given the sorry state of the nation he quasi-rules, but to use propaganda to shore up Iran. The facts do nothing for him. We'll be hearing that propaganda full bore this coming week when be soils New York with his presence.

Some, like students at Columbia and delegates at the UN Gen. Assembly, will fall for what he says. But I know that you, dear reader, won't.

Let's Keep Ahmadinejad Away From The WTC!

Try as you will, you won't be able to draw a direct line from Tehran to 9/11. The crazy, rights-tromping, Jew-hating Shi'ia extremists of Iran's revolution may have applauded the results, but they can take no credit for it.

That doesn't mean Mah- I'm in the -moud for insulting the memories of 3,000 dead Americans Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "I hope my security detail's iron-clad") should visit Ground Zero at the World Trade Center when he sets his defiling feet on our shores next week. He is one of the leaders of the other side in the War on Terror, a war that started, really, when he and his cohorts seized the American Embassy in Tehran, and broke out into the open on the hallowed ground he wishes to dishonor with his visit.

Here's an idea for patriots, human rights advocates, separation of church and state radicals, Christians, Jews and the long-sought moderate Muslims alike: Turn out in force and clog every single street leading up to the WTC next Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. Load up with signs full of clever, powerful, even nasty, slogans telling Ahmadinejad what we think of him and his hateful kind.

Give him a taste of free speech.

Let him see a free nation at work protecting its honor.

Let him feel the power of the people.

Then let him slink back to Tehran, more afraid than ever that someday soon the people he leads oppresses will rise up against him and his crazed Islamist ilk.

As an interesting aside to this story, take a moment to compare the statements from the two prez candidates from New York:

Mayor Rudy Giuliani:

"Under no circumstances should the NYPD or any other American authority assist President Ahmadinejad in visiting Ground Zero. This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring bin Laden's son and other al-Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. Assisting Ahmadinejad in touring Ground Zero - hallowed ground for all Americans - is outrageous."

Senator Hillary Clinton:

"It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country's support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history."

Who would you rather have in the White House?

Image: Jihadwatch

Mitt Who? Devil's Spawn Who?

In today's U.N. press briefing, there was a classic exchange exemplifying the snobby, eurocentric attitude so prevalent at the U.N. This one probably had the folks in the Romney camp shaking their heads.

Question: Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for President, has written a press release that he has written a letter to Ban Ki-moon having to do with President of Iran’s attendance at the General Assembly session. So I guess I just wanted to know: has such a letter been received and if the Secretary-General has any response to it?

Spokesperson: The letter would be from whom?

(Gateway Pundit has more on Romney's request here, including this little gem from the letter: "If President Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention." The Convention defines genocide, among other things, as the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," so Mitt's got a point. My only question is why we need to wait till the Devil's Spawn drops by our way.)

The spokesperson finally got around to saying he was aware of no such letter, nor did he have anything to say about Elie Weisel's similar request: That nations calling for the extermination of other nations should not be permitted to maintain their U.N. membership.

Question: The Mitt Romney letter comes on the heels of other people such as Elie Wiesel and so on asking to ban Iran from membership at the UN because of its violation of the UN Charter by threatening a Member State. The question is: does the Secretary-General have anything to add to that angle?

Spokesperson: Well, any questions about the membership of a Member State – it has to go through the General Assembly. It cannot go through any other body.

Question: But does the Secretary-General have anything to say about that?

Spokesperson: No.

How can the Sec-Gen of the U.N. not have anything to add to the question of Iran's membership in an organization that (in theory at least) is opposed to genocide, especially when Mah- I'm in the - moud - for lox and bagles Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "I want to debate that Bush cad) is coming to New York soon? The drawn-out question is rhetorical, of course.

U.N. rule #1: Never expect an answer from the Sec-Gen on a controversial subject.

U.N. rule #2: Unless, of course, it's an opportunity to criticize the United States.

Totally cool art: Culture War

UN Balks At Censuring Ahmadinejad

Not that Mah "I'm- in- the- moud for countdowns" Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Peace and love, Jew moms and dads ... not") has been pacing his offices, hoping to avoid a U.N. statement condemning his genocidal words toward Israel, but if he were, he would have to pace some more.

The UN Security Council has been unable to date to pass the statement.

France's UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere initiated the drive for a statement after Ahmadinejad said last Sunday that jihadists in Lebanon and Palestine had pressed a "countdown button" to bring an end to the "Zionist regime." He also said in the speech,

"By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

Now the UN, limp-wristed as it is, doesn't like it when the head of a member state talks about the complete, genocidal destruction of another member state; hence the effort to get a statement. But a statement, unlike a resolution, requires a unanymous vote of the Security Council, and therein lies the rub.

Two Muslim countries, Qatar and Indonesia, are balking at signing onto the statement. Their ambassadors appear to be unclear about how they should vote and are seeking advice from their governments, delaying the vote.

They're unclear about how to vote? They think maybe the elimination of an entire nation just out of monumental religious bigotry might just be all right with their countries?

As I recall, proponents of the dominant religion in Qatar and Indonesia refer to their faith as "the religion of peace." How odd.

hat-tip: Haaretz

My Fair Ahmadinejad

I almost never lift a post in its entirety, but this is just too good, so what's a rule if you never break one?

Without further adieu, Judeopundit's Why can't a Zionist be more like Iran? (Poor souls who have never seen My Fair Lady, be rebuked!)

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Why can't the Zionists be like Iran?
Iran is so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you're Mugabe, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't the fake regime be like that?

Why does every one do what the other does?
Can't a Kuffar learn to use his head?
Why do they do everything the Big Satan does?
Why don't they grow up, well, like the Imam instead?

Why can't the Zionists take after Iran?
Iran is so pleasant, so easy to please.
When they take you hostage, you're always at ease.

Would you be slighted if I put your name in quotes?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Of course not.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Would you be livid if I had a centrifuge?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Nonsense.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Would you be wounded if I spoke of wiping you out?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Never.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Well, why can't the fake regime be like you?

Some Basij commander may shout a bit.
Now and then, there's one who's less than sublime.
One perhaps whose vigilance you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a world paradigm!

Why can't the Zionists take after Iran?
'Cause Iran is so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better ally you never will find.

If I hosted the First International Congress on the Culture of Resistance would you bellow?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Of course not.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
If I denied your silly Shoah, would you fuss?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Nonsense.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Would you complain if Nasrallah was my fellow?

GHOLAM-ALI HADDAD-ADEL:
Never.

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Why can't a Zionist be like us?

[dialog]

DOCTOR AHMADINEJAD:
Why can't the Zionists be more like Iran?
Persians are decent, such regular chaps;
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you're glum.
Why can't a Zionist be a chum?

Why is thinking something Zionist never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Martyring Palestinians is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

Why can't a Zionist behave like Iran?
If I had usurped the Al-Buraq Wall,
Been made a Pariah by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing,
Or carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I launch jets and never tell me where they're going?
Why can't a Zionist be like me?

Brilliant!

Mahmoud Again Calls For Israel's Destruction

Mah- I'm- in- the- moud- for- euphemisms Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Antisemitism -- now that's iron-clad) has once again called for the destruction of Israel, but not with his old "wiped off the map" rhetoric. Here's the latest from his mouthpiece news agency, Fars:

TEHRAN - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Saturday warned the Zionist regime of Israel to avoid invading Lebanon, adding that in case it intends to make up for its last year defeat in Lebanon, regional nations would uproot the regime from the region.

Liberal media may see the change from "wiped off the map" to "uprooted from the region" as indicative of a less strident, more approachable Ahmadinejad. They do try mightily to find evidence of more liberalness in Tehran, not because it's there, but because they think it might forestall a Bush-directed attack, which they feel is imminent.

They might note that the kinder Ahmadinejad is so diplomatic that he even warns Israel of the specifics of its forthcoming doom:

"According to our information, they intend to invade Lebanon this summer to make up for their last year defeat, and I warn other nations and this [Israeli] regime to be vigilant and to understand that this year is not going to be similar to last year," the Iranian president underlined.

I wonder how he underlined it. A gesture, perhaps? A swish of the hand across the air? An upthrust arm, palm open?

And what if we should try to stop this new, more approachable Ahmadinejad?

"But we have the honor to proclaim here today that satanic powers are not capable of harming the Iranian nation even for a bit, and if they think that they can make the Iranian nation surrender to them by avoiding dispatch of nuclear fuel or equipment to Iran, they are wrong, because we have already gained access to the production of nuclear fuel at an industrial scale," the Iranian president underscored.

Underscoring, underlining, underhanded SOB. I would humbly point out that satanic powers are not interested in harming the Iranian nation even one bit, because it's doing a fine, fine job of carrying out their agenda.

A Man And A Meeting Equals 15 Brits?

News of the release of the 15 kidnapped British soldiers comes with plenty of speculation over the behind-the-scenes work that led up to an exhausted and nervous looking Mah- "I'm in the moud for dodging disaster" Ahmadinejad's (rhymes with "one gal and 14 lads") decision to let them go.

One possibility: The concurrent release of one detained Iranian diplomat and granting of permission for Iran to visit 5 other detainees was ransom enough. No diplomats are citing this as a reason.

Another: Syria found and yanked some magic string. Yes, it's almost impossible to believe that Syria could suddenly be an international player beyond it's noted skill at squashing Lebanon, but for the record Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a Kuwaiti newspaper his country was serving as a diplomatic go-between in the crisis. Gee, maybe that's why NanFran visit Syria, to help seal this deal of "I've got a bridge for sale" proportions.

Or it could just be that goofy mix of Islam and Stalinism that fuels Ahmadinejad's cells; after all, he said in announcing the release:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15."

One catch: Mohammed's birthday was a week ago.

So those are the stated reasons, as far as I can see. A swap, a Syrian, a sacrifice. All hogwash.

More likely: Iran, seeing it was getting absolutely no traction from its action -- no backing off the anti-nuke resolutions, no rallying cries from other Islamic states, no nothing -- and probably receiving details about just how swift and harsh their punishment would be if they screwed this thing up further, looked for the first door they could walk through.

Mohammed and Christ showed them their out, and they took it.

Yes, this debacle showed the weak, chaotic, irresponsible nature of the Iranian regime, but more significantly, it showed the Brits that their military is now officially a joke. As has been pointed out recently, if Argentina attacked the Falklands today, Britain would not be able to assemble a credible military response.

What will the Brits do about this? Blame America, of course. As one commenter (among many) posted on BBC:

... the reason why this has happened because the US allowed access to the Iranian diplomat kidnapped in Iraq since January. As a result we were caught in the crossfire... TYpical our people suffer for Bush's stupidity..

We should be grateful BUSH kept his mouth shut and did not inflame this situation any more than required.

You think that's bad? Try this one from Paul in Manchester, that was actually recommended by three other readers:

I think it proves the Iranians are actually very nice and kind people and no threat to any country at all. Now the US should release the Iranian officials it captured in Iraq 2 weeks ago and has probably been torturing since. Its the US who are the evil war mongerere in the world

Aha! A news flash! Bush Hatred Found To Cause Blindness, IQ Loss!

Iran Rev. Guard Planning "Blue-Eyed" Kidnappings?

Buried at the bottom of a U.S. News & World Report piece reporting on a previously unreported September assault on U.S. forces in Iraq by an Iranian platoon, is this:

American forces may soon be getting further insight into recent Iranian attacks. Earlier this month, a former Iranian deputy defense minister who once commanded the Revolutionary Guards–and is thought to have considerable knowledge of Iran's national security network–left the country and is said to be cooperating with western intelligence agencies, sharing information on links between Iran and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, for example. Iranian officials said the official, Ali Rez Asgari, was kidnapped by western agents.

Shortly afterward, Iran threatened to retaliate in Europe for the supposed kidnapping, what it claims to be the most recent in a series of abductions in the past three months. According to the British Sunday Times, in the Revolutionary Guards' weekly newspaper this week, a columnist believed to have close ties to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote: "We've got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis."

Braggadocio, for sure, but when it comes from a sick, renegade regime like Iran, it's worth noting. They could be learning tricks from the North Koreans, who prefer to kidnap brown-eyed, black-haired victims.

You've Got 'Em, Mahmoud. Now What?

Read the reports of Iran's siezure of 15 British sailors and you see that this is almost certainly not a renegade action. It's good Mullahs and Mahmoud written all over it:

• The Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the ship was operating, has long been in dispute, but is recognized by everyone but Iran as being Iraqi territory.
  
  
• The Brits had been working these waters for several years and knew the boundaries well.
  
  
• An Iranian fisherman confirmed British Navy reports that the Iranian boat siezed the Brit patrol boats in Iraqi water and took them back to Iranian water.
  
  
• The Iranian forces were not regular navy, but the radical Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, that operates separately from the country's regular navy and reports directly to Iran's theocratic leadership. (source)
  

BBC points out that the incident occurred just as criticism of Iran's role in the Iraq war has increased in Britain:

The incident comes as British Army Colonel Justin Masherevski, who is based in Iraq, says most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements.

Col Masherevski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops.

It also comes as Iran threw some heated rhetoric in a generally westward direction (although that's hardly unique):

Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said if Western countries "want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."

So Mahmoud went out and got himself some British sailors. Maybe he thought the world doesn't think he's renegade enough. Maybe he hopes to use the crisis to smuggle arms and operatives into Iraq elsewhere along the border.

Maybe he's just a short, little man with a Napoleon complex. Whatever, he must have been tickled with the forcefulness of this response from a liberal member of Parliament:

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of military action, British forces in Iraq are now there with the authority of a UN security council resolution... and the Iranian government should be left in no doubt of the serious implications of their action."

Oooh. Let's Hear! Hear! it for forceful resolve! The statement is from Sir Menzies Campbell, Brit's counterpart to Harry Reid. Campbell's probably on the phone right now with the UK's UN ambassador, working furiously on a carefully worded UN resolution.

Art: BBC

There's Defiance, Then There's Ahmadinejad

Yes, he's blasted America when, in his view, Uncle Sam doesn't tow the U.N. line, but when it comes to U.N. resolutions against Iran, they're just "torn pieces of paper" in the eyes of Mah- "I'm in the moud for fission" Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "My bunker's concrete-clad").

Say what you will about the holocaust-denying, Jew-hating, America-loathing megalomanic despot, he can turn a phrase:

"If all of you (Westerners) get together and call your ancestors from hell as well, you will not be able to stop the Iranian nation." (source)

Within Iran, moderate factions fear the isolation that is resulting from Ahmadinejad's defiance and oppose his strident rhetoric in fear that the country's already pathetic economy will slip further into pathos.

But Iran is led by ascetic imams who would see that as a good thing since there would be less money to spend on things that get in the way of subserviance to Allah, stuff like food, music, books, clothes. They like what their stooge Ahmadinejad is saying because if Iran gets blasted back to the Stone Age, that's just where they want it to be -- most of the population "martyred to Allah," the remainder stripped of all Western comfort and hurled back into the dusty, dirty, primitive life the Mullahs like best.

Art: Gregory Pence, Dartmouth Review