Channeling Smokey

Dr. Sanity is channeling Smokey Robinson.  (I sense a new project for Crustacean Toy Works, Ltd……)

New Action Figure!

We are proud to be the first to present the newest collectible action figure from Crustacean Toy Works, Ltd. This one, ripped from today's fishwrapper, will be an instant classic! Bigger than the talking Algore (withdrawn from the market when people complained that they could not tell the action figure from the real thing) or the Dancing Michael Moore (withdrawn from the market because houses kept collapsing). It's the Talking Chucky Hagel Posturing action figure! Pull the two cords (they're tied together so you have to pull both at once) and it speaks!

Emboldening The Enemy

I really had my doubts about the choice of Robert Gates for Secretary of Defense. He's earning my respect however. AllahPundit has video of him pointing out that any resolution coming out of the Senate that essentially deprives the general in charge of the troops he needs to do the job emboldens the enemy. Truth to posturing politicians, baby.

Sign the pledge if you haven't already. As of this post the signature count stands at 21,161. Pretty darn good, but we need more to really send a message.

John Howard Stands Fast

A toast to John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia. He refuses to "rat" on an ally and pull Australian troops out of Iraq.

Prime Minister John Howard says he will not "rat on" his ally by pulling Australian troops out of Iraq.

Mr Howard says Labor's position on Iraq would undoubtedly change Australia's relationship with the United States.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has pledged a Labor government would withdraw Australian troops when their first rotation ends after the federal election.

Mr Howard says that would alter the Australian-American alliance.

"I mean you either stay or you go, you either rat on the ally or you don't," he said.

"I'm not saying that's the only consideration but it's a big consideration for me and it's a big consideration for my Government."

Mr Howard says this is no time to appear to be letting down the United States.

"We're not living a very certain world, people are worried about North Korea, people are worried about a whole lot of things in this region and I think it would be a very bad time, difficult though it is, a very bad time to be seen to be letting the Americans down," he said.

Bless you, Mr. Howard.

More Murderous Moose

The Animal Uprising™ has a long history of raising zombie animals to attack humans. It's like a hobby for them. So longtime readers know all about the various unclean, undead beasts they have unleashed (including moose, we hasten to add). Some even captured on film. But apparently, they were already experimenting with their foul creatures even earlier than we had known. It appears that one of the first reanimations may have occurred in 2005.

That's when the dead moose attacked the co-ed.

A Penn State student is suing the school, claiming she has suffered from headaches ever since a stuffed moose head fell on her in a classroom.

Amy Walters said she got hurt while taking a biology test at the university's Fayette campus in 2005. The lawsuit, filed Thursday, seeks unspecified damages.

Congratulations for surviving the first recorded instance of an attack by the Zombie Animal Program® (ZAP®), Ms. Walters.

Nasrallah’s Tigers

Michael Totten, a truly invaluable source of information on Lebanon, has a post up detailing how close Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is to igniting a civil war. Totten puts the odds at North of 50% and growing. The problem is that Nasrallah is riding, as Totten puts it, three tigers at once.

But Hezbollah went further, after all. Blockading the country for one day triggered three days (so far) of violence. Hezbollah can’t keep this up without provoking a serious murderous backlash. But Hassan Nasrallah still says he will escalate even now. If he does, my prediction for another round of war in Lebanon is well above 50 percent. It could be a short one (we're not talking fifteen more years of hell here) but it would be war all the same.

These things change, though, like volatile weather. A compromise is still possible. And Nasrallah may yet back down. Hezbollah can likely win a defensive war if Lebanese try to disarm them. But they can’t conquer the country. No one is strong enough to do that. If Nasrallah starts that kind of war he’ll lose everything.

The Sunni Arab “street” outside Lebanon rallied behind him as a hero in July and August for his “resistance” against the Israelis. If Nasrallah becomes, instead, the butcher of Sunnis, he will become one of the most detested Arab figures alive.

The Syrian regime wants civil war in Lebanon. Bashar Assad’s late father Hafez helped foment the last one and kept it boiling for fifteen years until Lebanon all but surrendered to Syrian domination. The younger Assad has been trying to re-ignite it ever since March 14 two years ago. He hoped to demonstrate that only Syria can keep order in Lebanon, that Syrian withdrawal means mayhem and blood in the streets.

As always, read the whole thing. Totten is miles above most of the wire service reporting and is always worth reading. The biggest problem for Nasrallah is that he has lost control of his followers, as demonstrated by the riots yesterday. The fact that a Syrian sniper has been arrested in connection with the deaths yesterday indicates that Nasrallah's Syrian sponsors are working secretly against him. He appears to be in trouble and in serious danger of losing any control of the situation.

Unfortunately, Lebanon is in the middle of the power plays going on right now. It is looking pretty grim.

Joe Biden Kicks Off Campaign

Senator Joe Biden is officially kicking off his campaign for the 2008 presidential nomination. We were fortunate enough to get a picture of his kickoff event, announcing his candidacy to an adoring throng.

Iran To Launch Satellite?

AFP is reporting that Iran is about to attempt to launch a satellite. This would, of course, be seen as a huge increase in the threat Iran poses to the entire world. It may also reflect just how close ties are between Iran and North Korea since analysts are pretty sure the technology they plan on using hinges on North Korean information and assistance.

A recently assembled, 30-ton ballistic missile-turned space launcher could also be used for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, according to the report which the weekly magazine said would appear in its January 29 issue.

The US Defense Department did not immediately respond to an AFP request for comment on the report.

The Iranian space launcher "will liftoff soon" with an Iranian satellite, said Alaoddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, according to the weekly.

Boroujerdi made his announcement during a speech to religious students and clerics in Qom, where Iran has conducted some of its ballistic missile tests, said the magazine without indicating when he spoke.

Iran's new launch capabilities come at a time of heightened Western concern over Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, and follows only by weeks a reported missile test by China that destroyed a satellite in space.

Iran's new launcher also highlights close technological ties between Iran and North Korean missile programs, the magazine said, citing US intelligence agencies.

Iran's space launcher raises concerns in the West that it could eventually lead to an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of nearly 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles), putting central Europe, Russia, China and India within its range, Aviation said.

US intelligence agencies, said the weekly, believe the Iranian launcher is a derivation of Iran's Shahab 3 missile, which has a range of 1,300-1,600 kilometers (800-1,000 miles).

Congratulations, Europe. You're about to hit the trifecta. A nuclear armed Iran, a missile system capable of hitting anywhere on your continent and a deranged messianic government in charge of both of those. Nice job on the diplomatic front.

Grassroots Support

[My son sent me an email to be posted here. I will not link to the site he describes for rather obvious reasons.]

Hello fellow readers of the Boulevard.

Many apologies for the lack of posts in the past several months. I call Gaius all the time and say, "I'm thinking about writing about [insert news item]." He says to send him something, and invariably a mission comes up or a sporting event comes on television, etc. The point is, I've been awful at communication of my thoughts and opinions. While that may be a relief to some, many of you have been very supportive of my situation and for that you deserve my thanks. No promises of future content, but I'll try to work on it a bit more. If you have any questions you want answered please leave it in a comment. I'll tell you anything I can (some questions I can't answer because of security concerns).

My post today involves the myspace phenomenon. Whatever your feelings on the website that purports to be "a place for friends," I'll admit that it's a handy way to keep in touch with and rediscover old friends. Today a friend pointed out a group on myspace that is anything but friendly, a veritable slap in the face to the men and women of the U.S. armed forces. In a search, the name of this group shows up as "Hug the Troops," but upon clicking the link one finds a giant yellow ribbon with the words "F*** the Troops" on it. There follows several anti-U.S. videos borrowed from YouTube and a line of text accusing U.S. troops of being "responsible for the slaughterings [sic] around the world." I am sad to report that at the time of this writing, this group had 109 members.

By and large, the people of the United States have shown overwhelming support for the military, something those of us in uniform speak of often and with a touch of awe. After my first tour I visited the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C. wearing my military garb. I felt like a celebrity, with so many requests for photos that my planned one-hour stay ended up closer to three. When I arrived at the airport with five fellow soldiers for R&R leave last summer, we were treated to a completely spontaneous standing ovation from a very crowded terminal. Soldiers need this kind of grassroots support in a conflict such as this one, where politics and negative media coverage have overshadowed the accomplishments and sacrifices made by those in the military. To those who support us, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To those who wish failure and tragedy upon us, we have no use for you. As long as you are a U.S. citizen we will staunchly defend your right to say as you will as it is enumerated in the First Amendment. We will defend your right to burn the flag and trash the United States publicly. We ask only that you remember there are very few places in the world where such things are allowed.

Oh, there's one final part to this story. The item that brought this group to my attention was a bulletin posted calling for a petition to have this group removed from the site. First Amendment or not, such a message board should not exist in "a place for friends." I'm pleased to report to you that I added my own virtual signature to the list, which has nearly 800 names on it. Count it. An eight to one advantage.

Thank you for your support, America.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the link. Visitors, please do take a look around while you're here. If you have not already signed the pledge, please consider doing so. More posts from my son are under the "Foreign Correspondence" category on the sidebar.

UPDATE: Thanks also to KT at the Scratching Post and the good doctor at the Jawa Report for the links. Thanks also to The Influence Peddler.

The Answering Machine

Here's an excerpt from a German book published last year by Henryk M. Broder that has been translated by Der Spiegel. The book is entitled, "Hurray! We're Capitulating" and it does not paint a pretty picture of the West's response to islamist aggression.

The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement — a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II — Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.

The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless……

…..As different as the West's reactions to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses suddenly insisted that religious sensibilities must be taken into account, especially when accompanied by violence. The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane. Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, nailed doors and windows shut and hoped that the storm would soon pass. Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages fundamentalists. It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent and completely unwilling to defend itself…..

…..The discussion over which provocations WE should put an end to so that THEY do not feel upset inexorably leads to the realm of the absurd.

Should devout Jews be entitled to demand that non-Jews give up pork? And should they have the power to impose sanctions if their demands are not met? Can a Hindu in India run amok because the Dutch do not view cows as sacred beings? Those who believe Muslims have the right to be outraged by the Danes failing to abide by an Islamic prohibition — especially when it's not even clear that such a prohibition even exists — must answer such questions clearly in the affirmative. Even illiterates must then be allowed to ransack bookstores; in a world in which anyone is entitled to feel offended and humiliated, anyone can also choose which provocations he is unwilling to accept.

Broder is merciless here. I personally do not believe that the continuous outrage being pumped up by the islamists has anything to do with the Muslim religion itself. Instead the islamists are using the trappings of religion to gain temporal power. But at some point the difference becomes moot. When the West seeks appeasement rather than confronting outrage, we've reached that point.

People in the West who argue vehemently against Christian influence are largely silent about outrages carried out by islamists. They give the thugs a complete pass and focus on a group that they know will not behead them. That sends a signal to the thugs and encourages them. Too many in the West these days cannot or will not see that.

In 1972, more than three decades ago, Danish lawyer and part-time politician Mogens Glistrup had an idea that brought him instant fame. To save taxes, he proposed that the Danish army be disbanded and an answering machine be set up in the defense ministry that would play the following message: "We capitulate!" Not only would it save money, Glistrup argued, but it would also save lives in an emergency. On the strength of this "program," Glistrup's Progress Party managed to become the second-most powerful political party in the Danish parliament in the 1973 elections.

The answering machine appears to be fully functional right now. (Ed Morrisey's take on this is here.)

The Incredible Disappearing Dog Trick

A Malaysian fruit grower had decided to use guard dogs to protect his orchard. Which would have been fine if the dogs hadn't kept disappearing. One after another the dogs would simply vanish. After the eleventh one disappeared, the man became a bit suspicious. That's when he found the culprit.

An enormous python.

Ali Yusof, 35, who had lost 11 dogs in the past three months, found the python coiled at the edge of a swampy area near his orchard at Kampung Pogoh here.

He ran to inform other villagers.

"I was shocked to see such a huge python," he said. (Picture)

It took six men and three hours to capture the 70kg snake which measured 7.1 metres in length and 60cm in diameter. They tied it to a tree.

Ali said he had four dogs to guard his orchard, but for the past three months the canines had disappeared one after another, and he had to replace them. He suspected his guard dogs were being eaten by a beast after he found footprints of the dogs disappearing into a swampy area.

The men tied it to a tree. One has to ask if they used a boa knot……..

So Much For Principle

The Washington Post today carries an article that does more to explain Chucky Hagel's actions in the past weeks than any of the coverage up until now. They point out that he's contemplating a run for the White House. They also show that his posturing has a good deal more to do with "positioning" than with principle.

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and — despite his outcast position within his party — seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

Hagel joked during the interview about teaming up with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, and also floated the possibility of joining a bipartisan unity ticket with a Democrat — with his name first, of course.

The WaPo article is quite glowing about Hagel because he's their kind of politician. In other words he opposes Bush. But that isn't enough to get him elected. I'd put his chances of winning the presidency in negative numbers. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but my contempt for the man just increased. One hopes the people of Nebraska throw this guy out of the office he now holds. 

UPDATE: Tom Bevan over at the RCP Blog has a bit more about Hagel's "honesty" and "courage". It ain't pretty.

This is, quite frankly, almost indistinguishable from the antiwar left's "Bush Lied, Troops Died" cry we've heard for so long. Maybe this is really what Hagel believes. Fair enough.

But a bit later on in the interview Hagel says "I have never doubted the motives of those who wanted to go to war so badly." Come again? He just said the Bush administration "doctored" intelligence and lied to take us to war in Iraq knowing (or having a good idea, at least) that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like "doubting the motives" of the President and his administration to me - not to mention impugning their character. Hagel appears to be trying to have it both ways, which isn't very honest, let alone "courageous."

Read the whole thing. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Hagel comes across not as honest or courageous. He comes across as an opportunistic hack. I imagine there will be a lot of Nebraskans looking at this spectacle and thinking seriously about a new Senator.

Action - Reaction

The Washington Post is reporting that US forces have been authorized to capture or kill Iranian agents found operating inside Iraq. There is the usual cacophony of "unnamed" intelligence, defense and State Department who are "concerned" or "Skeptical" about the policy. But I have one question:

Why didn't we start sooner?

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

The presence of any Iranian agents offering any technical or military aid to the insurgents is an act of war. Period. I realize there are risks to a strategy like this. What are the risk of letting foreign military agents operate against us with impunity? I submit that they are unacceptably high. (The policy does not apply to diplomats or civilians.)

I noticed a couple of days ago that there were a number of media reports saying there was "scant" evidence of Iranian involvement in Iraq. The stories I saw then listed the actual physical evidence that had been found. Scant does not mean none. Even a little evidence where there should not be any is a bad thing. My son tells me that the troops know - with certainty - when an arms shipment has arrived from Iran.

Iran is pushing very, very hard right now because the United States is showing enormous internal political disarray. We cannot allow them to operate freely against our troops in Iraq.