From the Telegraph, via Aaron's cc:

The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.

A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.

His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.

Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.

Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies.

Those who have assumed French citizenship will not be protected from deportation. Mr Sarkozy said he will reactivate measures, 'already available in our penal code but simply not used', to strip undesirables of their adopted nationality. 'We have to act against radical preachers capable of influencing the youngest and most weak-minded,' Mr Sarkozy told the French daily Le Parisien.

More: Here's another foreign terrorism related story from the BBC:

Russia's defence chief has barred the ministry from contact with ABC TV after the US network's interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.

Sergei Ivanov said the ministry considered ABC 'persona non grata' following Thursday's broadcast.

The warlord has claimed the 2004 raid on a school in Beslan. In the interview he admitted he was a terrorist, but said the Russians were terrorists too.

Russia's most wanted man also said he was plotting more attacks.

'Today I have given the order to the head of the press service that not one serviceman of the defence ministry should have contact with the American television channel ABC,' Mr Ivanov said in televised comments.

'We will continue to act openly with the press, but this channel will not be invited to the defence ministry and no interviews will ever be given to it,' he said.

'This channel is now persona non grata for the defence ministry and is an outcast.'

The interview conducted by Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky was recorded at the warlord's hideout in Chechnya.

Russia is offering $10m (£6m) for the capture of the warlord, whom it accuses of several major attacks.

More than 320 people - around half of them children - were killed at the school in Beslan last September.

Posted by: annika at 09:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 4 kb.

i have a minor pet peeve. Ever since this War on Terror started, i've heard the same stupid phrase over and over:

"If we _______, the terrorists have won."

When the terrorists win, they will pack up their suicide belts and their scimitars and stop killing people. Until then, they will not have won.

My point is that if we were to "give in to fear," for instance, the terrorists wouldn't consider it a victory because, contrary to what the government and the media want us to believe, they don't give a crap if we're afraid or not. They want us all to either convert, redraw every map to 14th Century borders, or die. So unless you fill in the blank with one of those three things, the statement will invariably be incorrect.

Posted by: annika at 03:12 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Hugo Schwyzer, who was once involved in Feminists for Life, has some interesting thoughts on Judge Roberts and his wife.

While my pro-choice friends might be discomfited by Sullivan Roberts' close ties to a pro-life advocacy group, I'm heartened by it. It's not just that I am (prayerfully and awkwardly) pro-life; it's also that as a pro-feminist man, I know full well that Feminists for Life is a long way away from more traditional anti-abortion outfits like National Right to Life. Though I've criticised FFL in the past for being insufficiently concerned with issues other than abortion, there's no question that they've historically taken a more progressive stance than their conservative sisters on a variety of issues. FFL has historically been strongly anti-death penalty, for example. FFL is also listed as a member organization of the Consistent-Life Movement, which has as its mission statement:

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, the arms race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a consistent ethic of life.

If Jane Sullivan Roberts is a card-carrying member of FFL, that means there's a better-than-sporting chance that she holds the Consistent Life Ethic position (an ethic rejected by most traditional conservatives, who don't see poverty and the arms race and the death penalty as being nearly as egregious as abortion). After all, if she didn't hold the Consistent Life Ethic, there are plenty of more conservative pro-life outfits out there to which she could lend her time and name and money! And if she held or still holds the Consistent Life Ethic position, is there not some hope that her husband shares her views?

A man who marries a brilliant woman who is his intellectual equal when both are in their forties, and happily adopts children with her, is no troglodyte. And a man married to a woman who is a proud member of a group that has 'Feminist' in its title may not be the disaster for women's rights that some liberals are predicting, nor the champion for the right that some conservatives are hoping.

To paraphrase Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: Who is this guy?

Posted by: annika at 09:05 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

In the "How the Leftist Fringe Has Infiltrated Your Government" department, we have this latest outrage from the office of California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer.

From Sacramento radio host Eric Hogue's blog:

California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer has invited 'political artist', Steven Pearcy, to hang his creations in the lobby of the Attorney General's Office at the Department of Justice, 1300 I Street, in Sacramento.

Today we dispatched our crack crew to the office complex to see for ourselves the 'artwork' hanging in the lobby - sure thing, it is in full view. Friday there was a reception, and a ceremony honoring Pearcy and his piece of 'art' as it was placed on the wall.

When Michael Moore was seated next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic Convention, the party signaled its lack of concern for the half of this country that thinks Michael Moore is a liar and a charlatan.

While that was bad enough, it wasn't out of place at a party convention. But Bill Lockyer's office? Sure he's a Democrat, but he represents all Californians as Attorney General. By proudly displaying Pearcy's artwork, Lockyer is announcing his contempt for a good portion of the electorate that put him where he is.

i'm not saying he shouldn't have freedom of speech. But that type of inappropriate display in a state government office doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the Attorney General cares much about people like me.

Posted by: annika at 07:46 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

So Ann Coulter's not happy about the John Roberts nomination? i don't believe her. i hate to let the cat out of the bag, but i'm convinced her column today is all part of the game plan. It smells like something Karl Rove would have cooked up.

It's no secret that presidents throughout history have used friendly and willing columnists to their own advantage. This president has been caught doing it a couple of times, to great controversy. i read Coulter's piece and her objections seem half-hearted. Hey, i agree with her on strategy. i think Bush should have named an in-your-face conservative, and i said so a few weeks ago. But on substance, the worst she can say about Roberts is "we don't know much about" him.

This is great strategy. When people who don't follow politics that much hear Ann Coulter's name, they often think of her as a right wing extremist. She is not that. Michael Savage is a right wing extremist. Coulter is just very funny, often sarcastic, blonde and female. Therefore, the left hates her more than Savage, who's appeal is narrower and thus less dangerous from their point of view. No one has to be told that Savage is a nut. But since Ann Coulter makes sense so much of the time, demonizing her is the only weapon the left has against her.

So when the politically apathetic hear that Coulter is against Roberts, they're not going to know the specifics of her lackluster objections, they're just going to think "he must be okay." It's just my theory, and of course what do i know, but this kind of reverse psychological tactic seems like trademark Rove to me.

Link thanks to Captain Ed.

Posted by: annika at 02:10 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey the announcement is only a half hour old and Schumer and Durbin have already told me everything i need to know about the Democrats' obstruction strategy!

On CNN, Durbin told Larry King that they intend to be deliberate and they need to ask a bunch of questions, and that they're entitled to ask Roberts' opinion on past cases like Roe. At an earlier press conference Schumer said that he voted against Roberts before* because Roberts would not answer certain questions.

So the strategy is to ask questions that the Democrats know a judicial nominee cannot answer according to the rules of judicial ethics, then claim that he's hiding something. They also plan to drag out the hearings, to enable their operatives to manufacture a "scandal," their allies in the media to publicize the "scandal," and the lefty blogs to whip up outrage over the "scandal."

Just watch.
_______________

* Which is misleading, since Roberts was confirmed unanimously. Shumer voted no in committee.

Posted by: annika at 06:37 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

i'm hosting part of the Cotillion Ball this week, and i was going to save this link from The Anchoress for Tuesday. But i'm so pissed off that i had to post about it right now. i haven't been this outraged since Rathergate.

i mean, i shouldn't be surprised, i knew the media are a bunch of fucking liars who hate Republicans and will sell their country down the river, just to embarass Bush. But their unprincipled treason -- yes i am literally calling ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN and NBC traitors -- their clumsy treason is lengthening this war, encouraging the enemy, and costing American lives. The bastards.

What the fuck am i talking about? Look at this video clip.

Back in 1999 when Clinton was president, ABC News did a news report, which stated in unequivocal language that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were in contact and actively planning an alliance. ABC News actually said that Saddam's envoy told OBL "he would be welcome in Baghdad," and that Iraq was willing to help OBL get weapons of mass destruction!

This is incredible. It's positively Orwellian. It's the smoking gun for the media's hypocrisy. As far as i'm concerned there is no reason for me to trust anything they say, ever. As if i needed a reason after Jason Blairgate, Rathergate, Easongate I, Easongate II, etc. etc.

Please watch this video and pass it on whenever you hear any liberal say that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. They bought that line because their media told them so. Upon hearing the same media tell them the exact opposite, i imagine some of them will self destruct like the computer Landrew in that old Star Trek episode.

Audio and story is at Roger Simon. Video via a comment from Bill at INDC Journal to Roger's post.

Posted by: annika at 09:54 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.

Remember the following when the Senate Democrats cry "extreme circumstances."

Bush . . . stated that Americans 'expect a Senate confirmation process that rises above partisanship.' Indeed... we expect and desrve a quick confirmation. Bush did right by establishing what the precedent of fair treatment is. The 1993 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who replaced a retiring conservative, was voted on an confirmed with 96 votes a mere 42 days after her nomination was submitted by President Clinton in 1993. Some liberal pundits have suggested that Bush's victory in November doesn't give him a 'mandate' to replace O'Connor with a conservative. However, Clinton, in his first year of office after winning without a majority of the vote had a near painless confirmation process for his nominee, who, as I previously mentioned, replaced a retiring conservative.

Posted by: annika at 12:20 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday, Captains Quarters linked to the results of an independent investigation that found only three violations of Army Regulations and the Geneva Conventions* at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

The chief investigator, Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, described the interrogation techniques used on Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was captured in December 2001 along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

. . .

Schmidt said that to get him to talk, interrogators told him his mother and sisters were whores, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it. They also forced him to dance with a male interrogator, Schmidt added, and subjected him to strip searches with no security value, threatened him with dogs, forced him to stand naked in front of women and forced him onto a leash, to act like a dog.

Someone has insulted my mother.
i've worn a bra. In fact, i'm wearing one right now, against my will.
i've worn a thong, though not on my head.
i've been told that i like men and that other people knew it.
i've danced with men.
i've had my clothes removed from my body for no apparent security purpose.
i've been frightened by a dog.
i've stood naked around women.
i've barked like a dog. uhhh, but i was drunk at the time.
No comment on the leashy thing.

Where's my ACLU lawyer?
_______________

* Why we're even talking about the Geneva Conventions is a mystery to me. Until Al Qaeda becomes a signatory to that agreement, it is irrelevant.

Posted by: annika at 10:28 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

So say Michelle Malkin, Gaypatriot and Gryphmon, who is all over this story.

Today the SF Board of Supervisors engaged in an offensive display of prejudice, stupidity and a lack of respect for history, both of the military and of the gay community.

'The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today voted 3-8 against a resolution urging the San Francisco Congressional Delegation to support the permanent berthing of the USS Iowa as a museum at the Port of San Francisco.'

I'm sorry, but I will not ever visit a place where the US military is not welcome.

Posted by: annika at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

If not for Michele's A Small Victory, i might never have heard about this horrible crime, which happened yesterday.

At least 22 schoolchildren have reportedly been shot dead in a brutal raid on a remote village in northeastern Kenya.

A total of 66 were killed in what is believed to be the country's worst-ever single episode of inter-clan violence, a local politician said.

Bonaya Godana, the member of parliament for North Horr district in which the attack took place, said that 56 villagers, most of them young children and their mothers, had been killed in yesterday's raid on Turbi village.

Police said earlier that 10 of the attackers had also been killed.

Mr Godana, a former Kenyan foreign minister who was touring the scene of the brutal attack, said many of the victims had been shot dead while preparing to go to school.

'As of this morning, 56 of our people have been confirmed dead and of them are 22 schoolchildren, and most of them died in their school uniforms,' he said, adding that 10 schoolchildren were among those seriously wounded in the attack.

'The majority of the dead are mothers and their children,' Mr Godana said. 'Three other people are still missing and we suspect that they are dead.'

Posted by: annika at 09:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Count me among the list of conservative bloggers who say Karl Rove must go.

Dr. Rusty doesn't want the distraction of a scandal.

The Maximum Leader wants to see the administration maintian a higher standard.

i'm in agreement with many of the points made by the above two esteemed gentlemen. It is not clear that Rove violated any laws. As i understand it, the statute in question has an intent element, and as any former 1st year law student will tell you, proving intent is the tough part.

But to me, the main issue is this: President Bush said that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired.

The fact that Valerie Plame was not really undercover seems irrelevant now, and that is as it should be, in my opinion. We are in the middle of a Global War on Terror, and we should not be playing semantics when it comes to perhaps the most important weapon in that war: our intelligence services. There should be a bright line standard that protects all members of the C.I.A. They need to have the confidence that they can do their job without risk that the Administration might rat them out for political reasons. i'm not saying that was what was done here, but that's the perception, like it or not.

So, Bush promised to fire anyone involved and now we find out that at least one of the persons who leaked the info was "the architect" himself. Maybe it was stupid for the President to say he'd fire anyone, but he said it. It was also stupid for the President to back off on the yellow cake assertion too, when the British were sticking by the report. What the hell, this administration has never been one that places a high value on articulatication, unfortunately.

But i didn't vote for Bush twice because i thought he was articulate. i voted for him because i trust him on key issues. Not all issues mind you, but key issues like whether i'm going to get blowed up sometime in the future or not. i need to trust him on certain things. i need to know that his commitment to this Nation is greater than his commitment to his friends. Even to friends like Karl Rove, a man to whom the President, this country, and by extension myself, owe a great deal.

Yes, i am incredibly grateful to Karl Rove for everything he did to prevent the unbelievable disaster that a Gore presidency would have been for this country, in this time. And for preventing a Kerry presidency, which would have also been disastrous, though less so than Gore, who i believe is mentally unstable. But all gratitude aside, Karl Rove is expendable. Especially so, now that Bush has been elected to his final term.

On January 26, 1998, President Clinton looked me (and all Americans) in the eye and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."* It was that statement, which wasn't even under oath, that bothered me more than anything else he did. It bothered me even more than his lying to the Grand Jury. When a president speaks to the American people like that, in those kind of absolute terms, he is calling on an automatic reservoir of trust we give to our leaders. Maybe it's foolish to grant any politician that kind of trust, but i think most rational Americans do. So when it turned out that Clinton looked me in the eye and lied, well, i couldn't forgive him for that.

Now, Bush didn't look into any cameras when he promised to fire anyone who leaked the Plame info, or if he did it's not something i've seen. But that doesn't matter. Bush made a promise in absolute terms about something very simple. i want him to keep that promise.
_______________

* This is the full Clinton quote, in all its infamous glory:

"Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."

Posted by: annika at 06:19 PM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 761 words, total size 4 kb.

1 The fact that Valerie Plame was not really undercover seems irrelevant now, and that is as it should be, in my opinion. I disagree, that's of supreme relevance. If she isn't covert, then talking about her is not (and cannot be) a crime--or even unethical (it'd be like talking about a secretary at the CIA). Yes, CIA people need confidence that they won't be "outed" for political reasons--but if there was no "outing", then there's no scandal. Unless challenging the credibility of one who writes politically motivated falsehoods in the NYT (as Wilson did in his infamous op-ed), is somehow out of bounds for an administration to respond to. So yes, Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the alleged "outing" of Plame. Whether she was "outed" remains to be seen, as does the question of whether Rove was involved in it. (Cooper's Rove email just doesn't rise to the level of objectionability yet)

Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 12, 2005 07:42 PM (jYorv)

2 May I speculate that you think the Brits were not being ungrateful churls in dumping Churchill after the war?

Posted by: The Owner's Manual at July 12, 2005 08:29 PM (BzOYm)

3 In the abstract, Christopher, that all makes sense. It is, however, beside the point. The President has a job to do, and owes it to everyone not to deprive himself of the ability to carry it out by being mired in scandal. Among the innumerable reasons Bill Clinton was (to be generous) lax with our national security was that he was simply too busy with constant political damange control. Hemming and hawing, splitting hairs and parsing statutes will simply magnify that damage, so Rove has to go. If he's as great a political operator as he's made out to be, he knows this himself. Yet an excessive sense of personal loyalty may be this president's greatest weakness, so I can't say I'm optimisitic about it actually happening.

Posted by: Dave J at July 12, 2005 09:01 PM (8XpMm)

4 Dave is right. It's good to remember that presidents are just like the rest of us, they have only 24 hours a day to do everything. imagine if you had to devote half your time at work on some stupid damage control project. How much would you be able to concentrate on lurking problems that don't seem like a high priority at the time. Which is a perfect description of the al Qaeda presence back in the nineties. Turned out it was a bigger problem than it seemed, but Clinton was fighting just to stay president. It's inexcusable, but also understandable that his administration didn't pay enough attention to the threat. (i know, there's also the philosophical problem of law enforcement vs. military approach too, which was just as much to blame as the Lewinsky/Starr distraction.) Amazing how much i've become a Clinton apologist lately. i don't mean to be. i'll go spank myself now as punishment.

Posted by: annika at July 12, 2005 09:23 PM (BAOY1)

5 Wrong, wrong, wrong. C'mon Annie, what are you learning in law school? How about the presumption of innocence? Anybody remember that, or do Republicans not deserve it from the liberals because of something like original sin? Let's at least wait for all the facts and his position before we lynch the guy. According to what I am hearing right now, Time was ready to go with a story that Cheney sent Wilson to find out about the yellowcake stuff in Niger, and it backfired. Wilson was pushing a lie. Wilson has no credentials whatsoever to know about this stuff; turns out it is his wife that has the expertise on yellowcake and that is what she does, but not covertly overseas; she's an internal staffer. It is not illegal to mention the name of a CIA employee. Porter Goss, for instance. It has to be a covert operative, and you need to intend to blow his/her cover. Rove apparently didn't know her and had no idea about covert (she wasn't). Listen, all those spooks are the same. I was in the Department of Justice as a young lawyer in Washington in the 60's. Hanging out on M Street in the bars, a short conversation with a cute girl would go like this: Horny Guy: "So, what do you do here? Cute Girl: "I work in Virginia". HG: "Just where in Virgina?" CG: "Near Langley" HG: "OK, so you are CIA" CG: "I didn't say that" HG: "Yes you did; want to go somewhere and talk?" Everyone knew that they were just staffers, but they always maintained the attempt at mistique; then and now. Valerie Plame was part of the decison making process in the CIA that asked her husband to go to Niger and spy for the Company, and he was trying to pass it off as Cheney driven. Rove was correcting the story; didn't know her, didn't mention her name, just said Wilson was not sent by Cheney and was apparently send by the CIA at his wife's behest. He also said it specifically on the condition that it not be used, but only to provide background to keep a wrong story from being printed and perpetuating a lie being told by Wilson. Re-think this one, Annie, and at least go neutral until the facts all come out. If the story is as I just heard, Rove is not going anywhere except to the next State Dinner. Wilson is a liar and a cheat, having been a big donor to Kerry and an advisor as well. For him, it was all about the election. Rove is an American Hero, and Wilson can go to Gitmo.

Posted by: shelly at July 12, 2005 09:40 PM (pO1tP)

6 Sheesh, just when I was getting ready to nominate you for Chief Justice. It's that time of the month isn't it.

Posted by: Casca at July 12, 2005 10:06 PM (qBTBH)

7 annie - wilson is an lying idiot working for the chocolate makers, this is totally a manufactured "scandal" - the lefties don't care that Valerie Plame is famous and the centerfold of every porn magazine. You definitely must re-spank yourself in public.

Posted by: d-rod at July 12, 2005 10:24 PM (b+Syl)

8 Annie: By the way, the law enforcement v. military threat issue to which you refer was a product primarily of one Jamie Gorelick, you know, the 9/11 Commissioner who was on the commission with Lannie Davis to do nothing but defend Bill. During the Clinton administration, she was the Deputy Attorney General at DOJ who issued the famous 1995 "Wall of Separation" memo which forbade the sharing critical information between the criminal enforcement and anti-terrorist parts of the FBI. It could have been said (and was by many) that if there was one document that led to the FBI screwups on 9/11 more than any other, it was her "Wall of Separation" memo. So, yet another Clinton problem that was interally created. (I pointedly refrain from adding "by a woman") In Clinton's defense (if you care to do it) I doubt seriously if he ever hit on either Jamie or her boss, Janet Reno. On the other hand, they were probably Hillary's picks. Hmmmm...

Posted by: shelly at July 13, 2005 03:49 AM (pO1tP)

9 ANN you are correct. I am on record here and on other blogs as saying. Rove is a political hack and not worth anyone falling on their sword for. He outed Plame, no two ways about it. Sure he didnt say her name, but do we want to be like Clinton and defend ourselves with semantics?(depends on what the definition of is, is) Or be like Al Gore and justify our behavior on a legal technicality?(no controling legal authority) He will be a tremendous obstacle to getting any business done as long as he stays. By-by Karl.

Posted by: Kyle at July 13, 2005 04:27 AM (7Re84)

10 One correction, Annika. Bush didn't say he'd fire anyone who outed the CIA agent. He said if anyone BROKE THE LAW, he would be taken care of. Don't get sucked in by Harry the Demagogue Reid's misquotes. Carl Rove didn't break the law. Valerie Plame was a desk rider, not a covert agent.

Posted by: Larry at July 13, 2005 04:37 AM (OT/SV)

11 You must realize that the Wilsons are a well-known gad-about couple especially in Democrat and media social circles. They have been in the society pages since 1998. Everyone knew that Plame was WilsonÂ’s wife, and almost everyone knew she worked at the CIA. How do you out celebrities? Wilson outed his wife by publishing that editorial lying about the results of his secret mission to Niger. A few days later a reporter called Rove and asked him about the story. Rove said that Wilson was lying which was true. He then said a well known fact-Wilson's wife also works at the CIA without mentioning any names. There is much blame to spread around in this affair. Rove is the most blameless one involved.

Posted by: Jake at July 13, 2005 05:47 AM (r/5D/)

12 I figured I'd jump into the comment thread here since it is getting a little nasty here. First off, I'd like to address the earlier comment by "The Owners Manual" about the Brits dumping Churchill during WW2. I consider Winston Churchill one of my great personal heros, and I've researched and read a lot about him. Unfortunately he was dumped at the end of the war not by an ungrateful people, but because the Tories didn't run any sort of election. Atlee ran on a platform of socialized medicine and nationalized industry that promised jobs and care for everyone. Churchill responded to this by calling that vision of a socialist Britain one ruled by "some sort of Gestapo." Winston was a great man (I believe the greatest of the 20th Century in fact) but he had a habit throughout his life of saying inflamatory things at the wrong time. When Britons were just getting over WW2 and Nazis and death camps it is a bad idea to insinuate that your opposition is going to establish a secret police to enforce their political will on the people. It had nothing to do with gratitude. As for Rove. I thought I was clear in saying that I do not believe that any law was broken by Rove. I do not believe that Rove will, or should, go to jail. But I also think that the President has made it clear that he will hold his Administration to a higher standard than his predecessor. If the leak was not involving a "national security" issue my opinion would be that Rove should stay. But as it stands it is more important that the President be able to be a strong war leader and show that he takes security issues very seriously. Equivocation will not help him. I'm also not insinuating that Wilson and Plame are blameless in this matter. There is plenty of blame to go around. But Rove got caught up in a sticky wicket and now must do what is right for the President's sake.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at July 13, 2005 05:53 AM (jiSuM)

13 When did restating a well-known fact (allbeit within certain political circles) become acceptable grounds for a lynching. Democrats are panicking and grabbing whatever looks like a sure thing PR-wise.

Posted by: koond0g at July 13, 2005 06:05 AM (K6YUI)

14 I wouldn't be upset at Rove leaving, but I would be upset at the notion that democrats would be emboldened to pull this same stunt again. We still don't know if Rove named Plame or not, we just know that he told Newsweek's Cooper that Wilson's wife sent him, and that the story that Wilson was peddling was false (which it was.) We don't know that Rove talked to the reporter that actually leaked her name, Bob Novak (although I would bet money that he did,) but more importantly, we don't know if Rove gave Novak her name or specifically outed her. Look, Plame and Wilson were specifically telling lies in an attempt to embarass a sitting president at a time of war. If Rove did leak the names he should be fired, but Wilson and Plame should be facing charges, not acting like the left's media darling's. I understand everyone's point that Rove is a distraction right now. You're right. But if he does get fired, and given the way the left has been acting, don't you think it will give them all the justification they need to act worse?

Posted by: Trevor at July 13, 2005 06:40 AM (RwZxT)

15 Maximum Leader. "he will hold his Administration to a higher standard than his predecessor. " You are allowing the MSM and the Democrats to decide what that standard is no matter how ridiculous. MSM and the Democrats are the last people America should listen to when talking about ethics. If the administration followed the demands of the that mob for resignations, we would have no: Cabinet Administration advisors Republican leaders Military officers above a major. Sane judges

Posted by: Jake at July 13, 2005 06:44 AM (r/5D/)

16 You've hit the nail on the head, Annika. If Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about fooling around, then Karl Rove show be facing 20 years. Some people here don't understand Valerie's various roles at the agency, some of which have been reported to involve covert operations. All of her contacts in those countries she operated in are now at jeopardy, and any US personnel involved would likely have been extracted shortly after the news broke. This kind of interference in intelligence affairs is beyond excusable, even if Rove felt it was 'good strategy'.

Posted by: will at July 13, 2005 07:46 AM (GzvlQ)

17 Here's a link to the "fire" statements. i did follow the links, since i have caught media matters distorting facts in the past. The links are solid. i guess the rest is up to your individual interpretation. The closest bush got to using the word "fire" was when he adopted that reporter's leading question: "Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts." Kind of a tricky question, but Bush could have dodged the question. Makes you think maybe that he didn't know about Rove, or there was someone else involved besides Rove. i have a hard time believing that Bush knew about Rove's conversation with Cooper, and thought he could keep it a secret. In this day and age, nothing stays secret, especially when members of the press are in the loop already.

Posted by: annika at July 13, 2005 07:50 AM (VFOog)

18 Holy Crap - I love how the Right can always bend backward over its own heels and not even wince. Bush spoke about giving anyone caught the ax because it was already decided that what had happened with Plame was wrong. That was given. If it wasn't a big deal to name her then that would have come out, say, at the begining. No reporters would be in court asked to reveal sources - the president wouldn't have to answer questions about what he might do - there would have been No Issue. We've been looking into it for all this time precisely because Something Wrong Was Done. Don't be so silly as to believe it when, more than a year later, this administration tries to tell you that it was never a big deal. ...sheesh.

Posted by: ~A at July 13, 2005 09:34 AM (/Sgom)

19 And I find it obsurd at how willing the left is to forsake its own self professed ideals when it senses that it might be able to "get" someone from the otherside. I don't know who you are A, but clearly you are not paying much attention. This whole chain was started by a member of the right who believes Rove should resign. Did you somehow miss that fact? Have you failed to notice the debate underway in rightwing circles about what Rove and the Whitehouse should do? I find it very odd, because no such debate ocurred when Sandy Burger was crotching national security documents as if he was pilfering kielbasa from a convenience store. I also remember no calls for Dick Durbin's resignation when he publicly outed the existence of a secret U.S. espionage satelite system last year. None-the-less you feel compelled to come here and spout your hysterical, yet oddly uniformed outrage. Did Al Franken go to commercial? The fact is that there is a lot that is not known at this time. Given the facts that have been made public, it is entirely possible that Rove should go to jail, although I doubt it. It is also quite possible that the leaker was not Rove, but nutty Joe Wilson himself. I ask you, would it not be best to wait for the facts, or should we just start throwing all of your political opponents in jail? Do let us know, because it is important for us to figure out if you're against the principles of innocent until proven guilty, or just an idiot with a keyboard and an internet connection.

Posted by: Pursuit at July 13, 2005 10:13 AM (n/TNS)

20 Bush's "fire" statement is being mischaracterized. It should fairly be read this way: 1) I will fire anyone who intentionally compromised the CIA for political purposes. AND 2) I will fire anyone who has broken the law. To read Bush's statement any other way is to either be mistaken, or to be willfully mischaracterizing. Therefore, based on what we know to this point, Rove should stay. It would be an injustice for him to go. Also, I DO NOT THINK the Repubs should back down to the Media bully and give Rove the boot. Truth is on the Republican side. They should punch the Media bully squarely in the nose, and as hard as they can, and they should make every attempt to hang on to their lunch money. The truth will out.

Posted by: gcotharn at July 13, 2005 10:41 AM (3Bn47)

21 "The Right" was wrong (too general) and I was too quick to post my comment. I didn't call for anyone's outing here. I didn't What I did was state that the president does not generally offer his position on a subject when there is no issue. This president, in fact, doesn't seem to feel compelled to offer much even when much of the country wishes he would. However, on this topic he did speak plainly and he obviously felt the matter was serious enough to take a position. I'm not trying to rush anything along or "get" anyone; I was merely trying to point out that, although Christopher Cross suggested that there might not be any issue after all and Larry seems convinced that he's already got it all figured out, the President did speak on this issue, Scott McClellan did speak on this issue and now Rove seems to have doubled back on himself. I haven't attacked anyone but merely made an observation. It's true that I was wrong to begin with "the Right" - I don't even associate myself with "the Left" per se. Frankly, "your team vs. my team" makes me ill. It seems the very thing that set you off was, in fact, the very thing that might have set me off but, please, reread what I wrote and see that, really, I didn't go as far as you want to make out. (hysterical? outrage? I'll give you "uppity", maybe.) Now, I've only visited this page several times before and don't know how many here are regulars. I'm not trying to hijack the thread, site or whatever sense of family individuals here have for one another. I'm really not invested in "winning" anything here. I have respect for the page, the author of this page and her views. A couple of the comments here just really suprised me. ...really, I only popped in because annika referenced the comments at another site we both frequent. (and re Franken: I haven't paid attention to him since SNL days. If you're upset that I generalised, "the Right", you might want to meditate on how easy it was for you to attack me as some member of "the Left".)

Posted by: ~A at July 13, 2005 10:57 AM (/Sgom)

22 The presumption of guilt at the beginning doesn't fly Annie. The left yelled "fire" and everyone assumed from the beginning that something horrible happened. Fact is, Plame's employment was public information at the time (regardless of her past exploits) and for one to be "outed" one must be "in" to begin with. The law is very clear on that point and gives the exact number of days since the last covert action before it is efective. Plame's glory days in the agency were well behind her. Bush's biggest mistake was biting on the hook that the left dangled out there in the first place - that a crime had actually been committed. A man of integrity, as I believe he is, has the option to say "I was wrong about the whole thing in the first place - no law was broken and no one's safety was jeopardized." No harm no foul.

Posted by: koond0g at July 13, 2005 11:12 AM (K6YUI)

23 Annika, thanks so much for your thoughtful post on the whole thing. You know I generally try to stay away from politics on my own site, even though I frequent a lot of other sites with pretty active poliblogging components - both those I generally agree with, and those I do not. I was especially curious about this particular issue because of many of the things you posted. Although I disagree with Bush on many, many subjects, I believe him to be a man who is not afraid to take a strong stand (even when I disagree with all my heart and soul), and I believe him to be a man who generally keeps his word - and I'd like to see that here, too.

Posted by: Lorie at July 13, 2005 12:30 PM (PPPwU)

24 Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Bush is losing much sleep over the Rove issue. Oh, the PRESS is, to be sure. And it's making Scott McClellan into more of a milquetoast than he usually is. But does anyone think that with two SCOTUS seats opening up, suicide bombings in london, and an ongoing war in Iraq, that this "scandal" will last beyond next week absent some bombshell revelation? Please.

Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 13, 2005 12:58 PM (609fh)

25 great post annie keep the discourse moving

Posted by: eric at July 13, 2005 01:15 PM (hiCir)

26 I love it when people confuse the law and politics. No serious person is suggesting that Rove committed a crime. I don't think he even came close. But he did the one thng that every political operative knows that he or she CANNOT do, he made himself the issue. I both like and admire Karl Rove, but as long as he remains in the White House he - and not the president's agenda - will be the issue. This is NOT an issue of "innocent until proven guilty", it's an issue of cleaning up a colossal political fuck up, pure and simple. The longer Rove stays, the more he hurts. You think the White House will be able to confirm upwards of three Supreme Court nominees AND defend Rove at the same time? Therefore, the question conservatives need to ask themselves is, "What do you want more, Rove or the Court?" And I can only imagine what everyone currently pissing on Annika's parade would say if the exact same set of circumstances happen during 1993-2001. An even slightly honest conservative would tell you that there would be unholy hell to be paid.

Posted by: skippystalin at July 13, 2005 03:29 PM (ruCNe)

27 Re: "Skippy 'The Condescending' Stalin": Based on currently known facts, Rove did not make himself the issue. Rove warned the Time reporter, Matthew Cooper, against printing an incorrect story. Rove was performing a good deed for Matthew Cooper and Time Magazine. This is why I do not believe the Bush Administration should back down in the face of media speculation and hysteria. The hysteria is not based on anything Rove did wrong, but is based on the fact that Karl Rove continues to breathe air and advise President Bush. You do not fire someone for simply existing. God forbid Rove should help an old lady across the street. If he tried to save a woman in distress, as the California football player did last month, the press would call for Rove to be executed.

Posted by: gcotharn at July 13, 2005 03:53 PM (lu3H/)

28 I love when people confuse their opinions with bad advice. Turn your statement around skippy. Do you really think the Dems will be able to fire away at Rove, Iraq and "upwards of three Supreme Court" nominees? No way, scandal fatigue will kill the public's interest. Clinton proved this over and over, by letting his enemies focus on the scandals while he focused on his agenda. So, by your own admission Rove hasn't done anything wrong other than become the issue, a point I'm not ready to agree with, yet you'd through him to the wolves. This would do nothing but give the opposition momentum, and the opportunity to focus this momentum on their next victims. This needs to play out. If Rove is guilty, he is on his own. If not, sacrificing him early in the game is not wise.

Posted by: Pursuit at July 13, 2005 04:12 PM (n/TNS)

29 Sacrificing Rove now would deflate the current scandal immediately. The dems would be forced to find a new one, or go back to demanding their resignation du jour: Rice's Rumsfeld's etc. Scandal fatigue would still set in, if it hasn't already. Listen, i wouldn't be favoring Rove's ouster if Bush hadn't made that promise. We already had eight years of Clinton's weaselly presidential behavior. i just don't want to see Bush vulnerable to that kind of criticism. Rove won't go to jail, he didn't commit a crime. But he's not needed anymore, and it would be so easy to pull the rug out from under this summer's scandal if he would just leave gracefully. The supreme court fight is too important to have any distractions. And listen, the idea that if we give in on this one, it will only embolden the democrats and media to try this tactic again. That's crazy. What makes you think they need emboldening? This is what they do. Scandal mongering is their only mode of operation, since they have no actual positive ideas or agenda. Giving in on the Rove thing wont encourage them any more than they already are. And fighting on the Rove thing will do nothing to dissuade them from using the scandal tactic every chance they get.

Posted by: annika at July 13, 2005 04:56 PM (zAOEU)

30 Since when has Rove NOT been part of the issue (at least within the fever swamp) or the key to every scandal pimped by the left against Bush? Sacrificing Rove would do nothing to improve Bush's political chances re: SCOTUS. It'd only embolden Dems that they can defeat Bush at home. But if that's crazy because "this is what they do"--on what basis is canning Rove justified then? But by referencing "scandal fatigue" you prove my point, there simply isn't enough to this story to give it legs beyond a week of breathless press conferences. From

Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 13, 2005 05:07 PM (609fh)

31 Annie, I didn't say canning Rove would embolden them. I said it would allow them to sharpen their focus, and provide them with momentum in the sense that they would now have credibility with the large part of the public that doesn't pay attention. Your point is well taken, and it is the conventional wisdom in this sort of situation. I'm suggesting that we allow them to feed on Rove while we execute our agenda. If Chris Cross is correct and this dies down, we can always distract them with a Bolton recess appointment.

Posted by: Pursuit at July 13, 2005 06:13 PM (n/TNS)

32 As long as Rove is the topic du jour, it's sucking up Democrat outrage that will be needed by them to use against the SCOTUS candidates. Let him linger. I don't see it hurting, MSM fury notwithstanding. And I for one am in no mood to feed the wolves anything. Time will still tell what, if anything, Rove did, and whether he really should leave the scene.

Posted by: Desert Cat at July 13, 2005 08:34 PM (xdX36)

33 But, dammit-- where, in the midst of all this strife, is Superman? Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 14, 2005 04:04 AM (1PcL3)

34 I'll give you just three examples of how this works. Example 1: Bert Lance, President Carter's first budget director was accused of a conflict of interest regarding his holdings in a Georgia bank. No charges were filed and no one was convicted of anything. Example 2: John Sunnunu, the first President Bush's first Chief of Staff was accused of misusing government property (specifically military planes and helicopters.) No charges were filed and no one was convicted of anything. Example 3: Dick Morris, President Clinton's senior political strategist in 1996 was accused by a tabloid of consorting with a prostitute. No charges were filed and no one was convicted of anything. What do these three have in common? Their conduct, criminal or otherwise, had so distracted from the agenda of the presidents that they served that, sooner or later, all three were forced out. If said staffer went early (as Morris did), the political damage was minimal. In the cases of Lance and Sunnunu, they stuck around until the bitter end with harsh consequences for their presidents. Rove knows how this works better than anyone. At a bare minimum he should take a leave of absence so as to take himself out of the spotlight because I assure you that the Democrats won't let this go so long as he remains in the White House. There's almost no chance that he'll be there six months from now. The only question is whether he leaves on his own or if he's forced out. It is very telling just how quiet the senate Republicans are being on this matter. They're afraid of what this story can do. This is a famously loyal president. But loyalty works both ways. Before this scandal impacts the president's agenda further, Rove should make a dignified exit now.

Posted by: skippystalin at July 14, 2005 06:01 AM (ruCNe)

35 To Skippy Cocksure: Lance, Sununu, Morris: Straw Men, every one. Not to mention that they actually DID TAKE IMMORAL/UNETHICAL/UNBECOMING ACTIONS WHILE SERVING THEIR PRESIDENTS. This is where the comparisons with Rove end. Rove's action was moral, ethical, and quite becoming. The more I type, the cuter and cuddlier Rove becomes! This reminds of the guy who said "I never knew I wanted an AK-47 till my government told me I couldn't have one." For me, I never knew Rove was so cute and cuddly till I started defending him against misrepresentations and lies. At this point, he's practically a Care Bear.

Posted by: gcotharn at July 14, 2005 12:57 PM (3Bn47)

36 gcotharn (If that is your REAL name...) Firstly, thanks for the "cocksure" part, it makes me feel so much sexier than your earlier "condesending" sobriquet. I LIKE Karl Rove. I always have and I always will. But this argument seems to have expanded from whether or not he did anything illegal to whether he did anything "IMMORAL/UNETHICAL/UNBECOMING." This is a shift that I'm sure that the Democrats will welcome hearing about. Once that happens, Rove is done. The fact of the matter is that the media and Democrats aren't going to let this go. They smell blood in the water, and can you name me the LAST unelected official who survived a shitstorm like this? Just one would do. I'm not saying that this is right or even fair. It is however, the way things are. Furthermore, think if this happened in the Clinton White House, your position would be very different. I give you the Travel Office scandal as just one example. And the White House Counsel took it in the neck for that. Far from taking any pleasure in this, I wish that the President and McClellen didn't say half the things that they did. Now they're forced to twist themselves into Clinton-esque linguistic pretzels that not only make Bush look bad, but make Clinton look good because he was at least entertaining doing it. I remain lovingly cocksure, skippy

Posted by: skippystalin at July 14, 2005 03:37 PM (ruCNe)

37 Skippy, We probably ought to continue our now 2 person conversation off of Annika's bandwidth. I have reasoned and level-headed replies to your challenges ready and waiting, but cannot see how to contact you. If you will send your email address, maybe we can work this out amongst ourselves. You can reach me at: gcotharn@yahoo.com

Posted by: gcotharn at July 14, 2005 04:40 PM (3Bn47)

38 gcotharn, I'm actually adressing this at my place. However, I tend to get generally vulgar there. I discuss things other than politics (although that consumes most of my time.) But I do opine on boobies and the pleasures of lesbianism and such. Why? Because I'm versitile.

Posted by: skippystalin at July 14, 2005 06:06 PM (ruCNe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

i wonder, where is the Britain celebrated in this poem by James Thomson and set to music in 1740 by Thomas Augustine Arne?

Rule Britannia!

When Britain first at Heav'n's command, Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain;

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

The nations not so blest as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

Still more majestic shalt thou rise, More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies, Serves but to root thy native oak.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame, All their attempts to bend thee down;
Will but arouse thy generous flame, But work their woe, and thy renown.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

To thee belongs the rural reign, Thy cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main, And every shore it circles thine.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

The Muses, still with freedom found, Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned, And manly hearts to guide the fair.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!

i hate to rain on everybody's parade, but i don't see that kind of fighting spirit when i look at today's Britain. What i see is a bunch of effete multiculturalist apologists. And a "blame Bush and Blair before the terrorists" attitude that will only get more people killed.

This We're not Afraid! site, which everybody's linking to, is great but you know... so what? i think the problem with Europe in general is that they haven't developed a healthy enough fear of the enemy in their very midst. And courage without action is not courage at all. Britain, i fear, is paralyzed by their own liberalism. They don't get it.

Check this firsthand report of Londoners' opinions by Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity.

'It's Tony Blair's fault! They've killed 100,000 people [repeating the now discredited Lancet statistic] it's like a boomerang.' Later she repeated this, talking about 'killing innocent people' and 'invading other peoples' country . . .'

When we asked her the question about the calm, she shrugged too. 'We're used to it,' she replied. 'Americans get patriotic over anything silly.'

So to my original question. What happened to that Britain that will never never never be enslaved? Maybe it's still there, below the BBC-ified surface. i knew a Brit in undergrad, a huge Celtic fan, who loved to sing the chorus of Rule Britannia at the top of his lungs when he got a few Guinesses in him. i don't know whatever happened to that guy, but i'd bet he be as pro-kicking ass as Christopher Hitchens was on the Ron Reagan show today.

A poster at the We're not Afraid! site quoted a recent movie with its own anti-Bush/Blair undertones:

The irony is too obvious to pass up. As most of you remember, in The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda also said

"You will be..."

You will be afraid, Britain, if you don't stop working against this "War On Terror." If you don't stop blaming Bush and Blair for the actions of murdering criminals. If you don't demand truth from the BBC. If you decide to emulate the Spanish, who by the way, will be attacked again. (OBL himself has said that he wants Andalusia back. Don't think he's forgotten about Spain.)

And look, memo to the rest of Europe: You're all targets. If you don't like the way we're doing things, if you think we've been sidetracked by Iraq and we should be concentrating on Afghanistan, nobody is stopping you from going over there and taking care of the problem yourself. You all got armies don't you? Go get OBL. He's your problem too. Or is it all you can do to criticize Bush and Blair, who at least are trying to do something?

Posted by: annika at 06:25 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 800 words, total size 6 kb.

i think i love Christopher Hitchens.

Posted by: annika at 04:50 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Why should we care about what happened in London? Or in Madrid, for that matter? Those terrorists had nothing to do with 9/11. And remember, Great Britain was at one time very bad bad bad, back when they were an empire. A Brit invented the internal combustion engine, remember? Okay, so it was a Swiss guy, but still, they drive on the wrong side of the road. And they have -- gasp -- a national religion! And it's a Christian religion too! Bad bad bad people. Which reminds me, the English were big in the Crusades, weren't they? Okay so there. They deserved it. Plus, Halliburton sounds like an English name to me. Richard Burton was English wasn't he? Welsh? Really? Whatever.

Plus, assuming that the bomb making materials were purchased in British shops, then we should always remember that the British armed those terrorists! And of course, capturing the terrorists who are responsible and putting them in jail might be used as a recruiting tool by other terrorists. Therefore if we go after them, we could end up creating more terrorists!

Anyways, why should we care? The U.N. is on the case now and they will take care of everything. Don't worry. The all-powerful U.N. and their fearless leader Kofi Annan, is on the case! Three cheers for the U.N.!

Just hours after a series of explosions in London, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Thursday to condemn the terrorist attacks and vowed to bring those responsible to justice.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan echoed that sentiment.

'These vicious acts have cut us all to the core, for they are an attack on humanity itself,' Annan said in a statement. 'Today, the world stands shoulder to shoulder with the British people.'

A resolution approved by the council condemned 'without reservation the terrorist attacks in London . . .

. . . and regards any act of terrorism as a threat to peace and security.' It urged all states to cooperate in finding and bringing to justice the perpetrators and expressed the council's 'utmost determination to combat terrorism.'

[Oops, sorry, i guess my liberal hat fell off there for a second.]

Yay U.N.!

i am also pleased to hear that the great and powerful U.N. has also condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the assassination of the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq. Wow, those boys over at the U.N. have been keeping busy. But that's what they're there for, and i for one am so glad that we can look to the U.N. for this sort of protection whenever terrorists strike.

Posted by: annika at 03:56 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 4 kb.

England will save herself by her exertions, and Europe by her example.

―William Pitt

When i lived in London, i used the tube so much that i was unable to get around on the surface. i knew directions only by looking at the tube map. i lived in the West End (this was my flat) and took either the District Line or the Picadilly Line twice a day. Although there was still some residual danger of IRA terrorism, i never encountered any problems. i think there was only one bombing while i was there, and i doubt anyone was killed. Interestingly enough, if i'm not mistaken, i think it occurred up by Edgware Road, too.

During the first London Blitz of August 1940 to May 1941 over 43,000 civilians died and 139,000 were injured. The picture below was taken on December 29, 1940, at the height of the blitz. During the V-weapon blitzes of 1944, about 8800 civilians died. One might think that the British people will be strong now, as they were during WWII. But they were united then, and now i'm not so sure. They have a sense that this is America's war, and seem to forget that we once thought of WWII was their war. Until we fought side-by-side with them to victory.

Almost sixty-five years ago to the day, Winston Churchill said these words:

We await undismayed the impending assault. Perhaps it will never come. We must show ourselves equally capable of meeting a sudden violent shock or what is perhaps a harder task, a prolonged vigil. But be the ordeal sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley, we may show mercy--we ask none.

Much as i love Tony Blair, i wonder if he could ever show the same toughness as Churchill. The terrorists are calling this World War III. When will we? When our president said "Bring 'em on," he was pilloried. Yet he spoke the only language tyrants and would-be tyrants understand.

Britain was once a great empire. They bowed to no one. (Except when they fought us.) Now what are they? Half the country embraces moral relativism, but in the pubs, you still can hear the voice of the working class. They're anti-Europe, proud of their heritage as well as their football teams, and i'll bet they're pissed tonight. (In the American sense of the word, if not the British.) Britain's soul is in a state of flux, and i hope the side that understands the epigram i chose for this post will win out. Perhaps today's attack will wake them up.

i woke up to the news of the bombings on the radio, and immediately switched on CNN, who i believe is still the best at covering breaking news, especially international. However, after i criticized Fox News only a few days ago, i have to say that Fox's coverage was superior, at least this morning. That's probably because they relied on a feed from Sky News.

i'm so exasperated by the left that i don't even have the stomach to read about their predictably defeatist attitude toward these attacks. i don't have the energy to rant about them right now. It should suffice to say that the only acceptable reaction to the bombings is, i believe, anger. The only acceptable response is to seek vengeance on those responsible and their sympathizers. i believe the time for a measured and proportionate response is long past, if it ever existed.

Michael Savage, whom i dislike by the way, did have an interesting opening to his show today. He played audio from a jihadist "rally" that took place in London only two months ago. The crowd was led in various chants that were chillingly prescient. "Death to America." "Death to Tony Blair." "George Bush you will die." etc. etc. etc. This was another unheeded warning. Unheeded because of political correctness.

It seems to me that if our enemy is bold enough to profess their wish to kill us openly, and we do nothing about it, we should not be surprised when they do kill large numbers of us. Savage is an extremist and he gives conservatives a bad name, but when he predicts that the day is coming when all European Muslims will be rounded up and interned, i wonder if he's right. Or, if he's not right, i wonder if he should be right.

And how could such a disturbing pogrom be averted? Not by pulling troops out of the Middle East. Not by abandoning Israel to the wolves. No, not even by signing the Kyoto treaty. It can only be averted by creating Democracy in the center of the storm. A stable and democratic Iraq is the best hope for the survival of Western Civilization.

One other London observation just came to mind. When i was there, i never understood the romantic fascination a lot of people had with "arab men." Especially the British women. They talked about them like we sometimes do about latin men over here, like they were these incredible lovers. More than once in a pub, i heard stories about rich arab men who came in and offered women like a million dollars to go back to Saudi Arabia to be one of their wives. i didn't get it. Chicks talked about it like they almost wished it would happen to them. The thought disgusts me.

Posted by: annika at 03:39 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1034 words, total size 6 kb.

UporDownVote.com predicts a ten step plan for Democratic opposition to whomever is announced as President Bush's choice to replace Justice O'Connor.

1. Before a vacancy is announced – whip your membership into a frenzy with overblown rhetoric...

2. Â…while preparing for battle.

3. Once a nominee is named, immediately announce that the nominee’s record “raises more questions than it answers.” (Note: there will never be enough documents released, proof provided, or enough questions answered in order to satisfy the Left.)

4. Plead for a slower pace.

5. If the nominee is rated highly qualified by the ABA, dismiss this as a prerequisite for the job. If the nominee receives anything less than the highest qualifications, express outrage.

6. Force the nominee to pledge allegiance to a liberal ideology.

7. Ah-HAAAA!!! – The Left’s research will reveal a few “alarming” findings or “smoking guns.”

8. Previously released findings re-released as “research” and distributed by the media.

9. Liberal Hollywood Celebrities make an 11th hour appearance.

10. FINALLY, official opposition is coordinated and announced in a drip-drip fashion.

Since we all know that the liberals will vehemently oppose anybody Bush picks (Why wouldn't they? Today's liberal leadership haven't an ounce of principle.) Bush has an incredible opportunity that he should not pass up. He should appoint an in-your-face conservative to replace the moderate O'Connor.

Loyalty and friendship should not factor into Bush's decision. He should absolutely not nominate Alberto Gonzalez, for instance. Now, i don't know whether the rap on Berto is true or false. But i do know that he is perceived as squishy, and that is enough. Nominating Gonzalez would be a signal of capitulation and would squander the great opportunity i mentioned above.

Since everybody expects the liberals to dump on the nominee, if Bush appoints a true ideological conservative, people may be naturally skeptical of any attacks against the nominee. This is the same effect we saw in the recent presidential election, when the outrageous slanders against Bush from Hollywood et al. reached a critical mass. Middle America rejected the slurs, and the polls reflected their rejection.

Senators read polls too, even lilly-livered Republican Senators. What i'd like to see is Bush appoint a staunch conservative with a well documented paper trail to prove it. Then i'd like to see Dr. Frist grow a fucking spine and do his job. i know Bush will back his nominee to the bitter end, he's proven that. If the nominee is willing to absorb the baseless, hypocritical attacks (like Thomas did) and stick it out, i think we might have a good chance to restore some sanity to the Supreme Court.
_______________

* And never forget who the chief accomplice was in the effort to assassinate Schwarzenegger's character during the recall election: The Los Angeles Times. Now that the election is over, one wonders why the Times has completely abandoned pursuit of all those groping accusations that once warranted front page coverage.

** If you really think that the Democrats' opposition to Bolton is based on principle, ask yourself whether they would have given two shits about Bolton's personality if he had been appointed by a Democratic president. Then you might want to talk to a few ex DiFi staffers, and see how they liked working for her. Not to mention Hillary staffers.

Posted by: annika at 06:30 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

i did my own Consumer Confidence Survey last month, and then promptly forgot about it. i asked you to describe the American economy in one word. Sixteen people participated. Here's the results.

Stupendus
Fine
Jake
robust
healthy
Healthy
Better than Europe's
in transition
Good
growing steadily
boring
duct-taped
Fine
strong
OK
pretty fucked

That means that readers of annika's journal are mostly optimistic about the economy.

i should note that the Conference Board's most recent Consumer Confidence Survey of 5000 U.S. households showed a rise in the index last month. In fact the index is at a three year high.

i know next to nothing about economics. i took one class in it and got a B. But i do know my visitors, and the Conference Board Survey simply proves once again that i have the smartest visitors in the blogosphere.

Posted by: annika at 10:16 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Economics is pretty simple Annika. Just remember. 1)Private property creates. 2)Public property costs. 3)High marginal taxes destroy. 4)Trade is good. 5)Intellectual property is important. 6)A small amount of socialism is necessary (like an innoculation, so you dont get the full blown thing). 7) if you tax or regulate something you get less of it if you subsidise something you get more of it. Thats about it, all you really need to know. /damm, I am a great teacher.

Posted by: Kyle at July 06, 2005 05:36 AM (7Re84)

2 We owe our wisdom to you, Annika. Everything that is worth knowing we learned from reading your blog (and Kyle's comments).

Posted by: Jake at July 06, 2005 07:08 AM (r/5D/)

3 yer damn right.

Posted by: annika at July 06, 2005 07:14 AM (tybPM)

4 To get a slight elaboration on Kyle's comments, I'd always recommend Henry Haizlitt's Economics in One Lesson. I'm not an economist by any stretch of the imagination and I hate math, but that's exactly the sort of readership it's written for.

Posted by: Dave J at July 06, 2005 10:04 AM (TPPlj)

5 As Dave J suggested, Henry Hazlitt published a brief, good book on basic econ. Many of Thomas Sowell's columns (found at Townhall.com) and books deal with economics. Sowell even has a book entitled "Basic Economics" although I have not read it. Also check out: F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom

Posted by: Mark at July 06, 2005 02:52 PM (zUdJY)

6 Some people can't follow directions. It was supposed to be one-word answers.

Posted by: ginger at July 06, 2005 04:54 PM (jK/kA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

For what it's worth, here is the text of an e-mail i got from Harold Ickes today. more...

Posted by: annika at 07:16 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

You ever listen to those early morning CSPAN call-in shows? What a bunch of freaking idiots.

It's like this:

Hello? Is this CSPAN?

Well, I liked that Sander Day O'Conner 'cuz she seemed like she was fair and all. And I think Bush needs to pick someone who's not all for the corporate America with all the Halliburton things and stuff.

She was just another right wing fascist who selected Bush and wants to roll back Medicare and Social Security with all his fascist crony corporate America and Halliburton things and stuff.

The right wing callers are no better:

Bush needs to pick somebody who's a mainstream American, like someone who hates them despicable homosexual things and stuff.

In my attempt to remedy the ignorance of these people, i've prepared a pocket guide to the Supreme Court for any such CSPAN watchers who may have made it over to my blog and read this far down the page.

My handy pocket guide contains a picture of each Supreme Court justice, their name, and then a short bio. You can print it out if you'd like and refer to it whenever you want to express an opinion out loud about the Supreme Court. more...

Posted by: annika at 08:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

1 LMFAO!!! BRILLIANT!!!!

Posted by: Casca at July 02, 2005 02:08 PM (qBTBH)

2 Absolutely classic! I feel so much better now! thank you

Posted by: jeff at July 02, 2005 02:37 PM (Zq5kW)

3 Excellent!

Posted by: The Angle of Repose at July 02, 2005 04:20 PM (bIimw)

4 I just figured it out..Ann Coulter in drag...LOL

Posted by: Fletch at July 02, 2005 04:26 PM (pO1tP)

5 You're too funny.

Posted by: d-rod at July 02, 2005 06:02 PM (xmskQ)

6 why do david suitor & david breyer look so much alike? or is it, why does david suitor look like david breyer, and not david suitor? scalia....good? what the hell is wrong with a bowtie

Posted by: louielouie at July 02, 2005 06:07 PM (xKfMm)

7 Only little fagot wannabes wear bowties; e.g. Tucker Carlson.

Posted by: Casca at July 02, 2005 07:04 PM (qBTBH)

8 You rock. Hilarious post.

Posted by: JohnL at July 02, 2005 08:59 PM (gplif)

9 Ok, now THAT was funny.

Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 02, 2005 10:56 PM (DaqTr)

10 "Suitor" and "Breyer" DO look the same. From exactly what planet did Ruth Ginsburg come from? Has NASA ever identified it? Cal Tech? You can't spell "party" without "arty."

Posted by: Mark at July 02, 2005 11:41 PM (jvdsg)

11 Shouldn't Scalia's "perfect score" be 22?

Posted by: Victor at July 03, 2005 08:16 AM (IBRcA)

12 I was thinking Scalia's ABA rating should be Lawful Good. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at July 04, 2005 03:20 AM (1PcL3)

13 Annie, you are a genius. Kevin's right, though: you HAVE to be Lawful Good to be a Paladin (even under 3rd Edition rules). Uh, or so I'm told.

Posted by: Dave J at July 04, 2005 08:59 AM (CYpG7)

14 Nice legs! Let's see a lot more! Hilery after next year's astounding defeat!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at July 04, 2005 08:40 PM (7XTy8)

15 Freakin' Idiots

Posted by: tyler at September 22, 2005 12:11 PM (BtNfK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment