And now for today's totally gratuitous and uncalled-for exercise in the politics of personal destruction:

SEPARATED AT BIRTH?

Wa-a-a-a-y looney newly politicized
Hamas/ter of Terror, Ismail Haniyeh

And Wa-a-a-y lefty
political actor/ivist,
George Clooney











Co-inky-dink? I think not!

NEWFOUNDLAND --
IT'S COOL

Afternoon, Cape Spear
















Views from our house, as weather changes

Ain't this a RIOT??? ---- Aw-w, shoot....


The Gospel according to
Kanye West












(some sample lyrics to his unique brand of psalm):

Crack my head on the steering wheel and I ain't even dead
If I could go through all that and still be breathing
Bitch bend over, I'm here for a reason

E-mailin me at 11:26, tellin me that she 36-26, plus double-d
You know how girls on black planet be when they get bubblee/
Birth Controls stuck to they arm like Nicorette
You really f***in that much, you tryin to get off cigarettes?

Does it make you want to get together with 3000 of your closest friends and burn down the local HMV? No? Whasswrongwichyew, you heart-numbed pig-dog, you?
Watch this space for my "Da Vinci Code Pledge for Thin-skinned Christians"-- I'm hard at work on it.

NEWSFLASH!!! Lock and Load!
Mainstream Media gets scoop on Tempest in a Teapot!

Tony Blankley of the Washington Times puts the whole Great Quail Massacre into perspective:

In the absence of any pressing news these days — other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia — the White House press corp has exploded in righteous fury over the question of the vice president's little shooting party last weekend.

... the hallmark of the Washington Press corps these days is mediocrity, groupthink, a lack of curiosity and rampant careerism. These attributes were all on show in the shooting party incident. But this is just a trivial incident — except for the poor, shot gentleman who suffered a heart attack, may he recover fully and quickly.

We live at a moment of revolutionary change in the international order. The rise and violence of radical, possibly caliphate-forming Islam and the huge, culture-changing, unexamined consequences of rampant globalization make the present one of the least predictable moments to be alive.... Should they ever have a truly daring, creative, productive, hard-researched idea about what is going on in this dangerous world, they should alert the media.

I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who tagged the image at right with the sentiment, "At least Cheney takes his victims to the hospital."

Speaking of Tony Blankley, I must sieze the too-long neglected opportunity to congratulate him on coining an insult so meaty and delicious as to have been unmatched in the annals of prose composition since the days of the Bard of Avon. It was Blankley who famously described the Congressional Democrats as "these fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy: unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline," in a piece from last November appropriately entitled An Incontinent Congress. Kudos-- you are the master.


SIR, THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT, SIR

It's not very feminist of me, but I tend to side with journalist and military brat Kate O'Beirne on the subject of women's role in the military, an opinion which found a moment of justification when it was revealed that the highest ranking officer at Abu Ghraib prison at the time (that is to say the day, for it was but one) when the abuses recorded in the infamous photographs occurred, was a female Brigadier General, Janis Karpinski. My knee-jerk smirk was set more firmly when she wasted no time in living up to sexist weenie-woman stereotype by immediately whining and finger-pointing, like a cross between Adam in the Garden and Hogan's Sergeant Schultz, to the effect that it was all someone else's fault and she "see nothing, nothing."

I admit that I was fairly quick to judge her character (or lack of it) at the time, and I'm sure I was not alone. Frankly, it was shocking that someone could rise so high in the military and lack the fundamental principle that the buck stops with the ranking officer. (But then, let's remember who was president when the fast-track promotion of women was in play...) Sadly, it seems that first bad impression of Karpinski was justified-- not only did she persist in taking no responsibility for the outrages of her underlings, she is now, Cindy Sheehan-like, making the circuit of anti-war gripe-ins (like "Not in Our Name" mock war-crime trials) flogging a preposterous story of women soldiers dying of dehydration because they were so fearful of rape by their comrades-in-arms during night-time potty trips, that they didn't drink enough water to stay alive. (hat-tip Mudville Gazette)

This would seem to be proof not only of this woman's weakness of character but of her fundamental stupidity (she has that in common with the unfortunate Mrs. Sheehan too) about small matters such as the medical impossibility of what she is swearing took place, not to mention the fact that she has referred specifically to a female Master Sergeant who suffered this fate, when in fact not a single female Master Sergeant has died of any cause over the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Karpinski (now Colonel, having escaped with mere demotion-- she could, and probably should, have fared much worse) has also unwittingly fallen into a trap of making the case for keeping women out of combat-- not just because of the danger of rape (rare but possible from their fellow soldiers, but a virtual certainty from the enemy should the women be captured), but because, if one is to believe the Colonel, women who have received the same training as men are too weak to protect themselves and to insist on equal treatment under military regulations, and are too fearful and foolish to look after their own welfare by following the inviolable rule of self-preservation in desert war: drink water.

Mudville Gazzeteer puts a cap on the Karpinski saga, by saying that as assinine as it is, it's important to cover it because it has traction among the Bush-haters/anti-militarists. Nevertheless, he concludes, "I propose the following theory: Regardless of the number of individuals in the group, the combined IQ of people who believe this story will never exceed 10."

As far as I know, Kate O'Beirne does not include Janis Karpinski in her new controversial book Women Who Make the World Worse but as far as I'm concerned she's worth a footnote. She is a disgrace to all women in the military, and she makes me ashamed.

WHEN I QUOTE SHAKESPEARE, I DON'T MESS AROUND

A small follow-up to the possibly over-the-top quote from Henry V at the end of my New Year's Post regarding the current conflict in Iraq.

(You'll recall:
And gentlemen in England, now a-bed,
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here.)

I was checking in on my bookmarked mil-blogs and came upon the homecoming post of Rusten Currie at Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum obviously a thinking man's soldier. His reflections on the December 15 Iraqi election are especially moving (and they back me up!); and he ends the post with a tribute to the wife he will soon see again, closing it with these words:

When this is over and I hang this faded uniform I hope to spend the rest of my life with you and when we grow old together, and reflect on this war and our time apart as with soldiers in all wars I’ll be able to smile and say; “I was there."

What will I miss about Iraq? Nothing…everything.

On the election itself, he writes:

December 15th 2005, was one of the greatest days of my life, I was witness to the birth of democracy in Iraq. It is a rarity to be a part of such an historic event. Despite any and all arguments about the why we are here; by some accounts 75% of Iraqis registered to vote did so (Imagine who or groups of who, would not be in office if 75% of American voters turned out!). Despite threats (very real threats) of violence Iraqi men and women lined up and waited; some for hours, to vote. They waited patiently in lines that would have driven me mad! They have never before had such an opportunity to vote and have a say in their own nation....

The day passed without incident, save for the aforementioned self-determination of the nation by its citizens. All was quiet on virtually all fronts of the war in Iraq. In fact, I can honestly say I was bored. Being bored in war is a good thing, and as of late, I have been blissfully bored to no end.

On the war he writes:

Looking back at the last year, I remember so much and so many people I have met, and had the honor of serving with. I have seen some wonderful things here and I have seen some of the worst violence, and the darkness of the human soul. I have seen vicious acts of hatred, and I have seen selflessness I never thought possible.

This war is different from other wars… This war is exactly the same as every other war. War devours everything in its path; there is no mercy to it. There is no reason in it, it exists to destroy, and as long as there are governments run by mortals there will always be war. Yet, even in war the brighter side of humanity can shine through, I have seen it. Average Iraqis handing me a bottle of cold water in the blistering heat, a little girl holding the hand of a grieving soldier whose friend had been mortally wounded in an IED attack. Defiant Iraqi civilians standing in line to vote, so that their voice is heard.

This is Rusten Currie. Why isn't he on the cover of Rolling Stone? Perhaps it's because he's too thoughtful, too dignified, and too true for those who are more comfortable with the Lie.

I KNOW, I KNOW -- "BYETOWN" AIN'T TORONTO

Before my vast reading public is all over me for it, allow me to trumpet that I had a mental lapse and called Toronto by the antique name "Byetown" [in the post below], which is, of course, the antique name for Ottawa, Toronto's being "Muddy York." I was seduced by the lure of alliteration-- what can I say?

Speaking of Ottawa, my periodic chum, daily correspondent, and fellow foot-dragger on respective books waiting to be written, David Warren, has unearthed the following salient details (with an assist to the Wall Street Journal) on the pedigree of the current anti-Danish Islamist rage, to be published in tomorrow's Ottawa Citizen. It 'splains a lot (emphases added):

The cartoons were nearly ignored when they first appeared: there was one death threat from a Muslim immigrant, but police determined the man was mentally ill. Trouble began stirring when imams called attention to the cartoons, with incendiary sermons in Danish mosques. An imam in Aarhus publicly reminded the editor of Jyllands-Posten of what had happened to the Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh. But even that could have blown over.

From several sources, we now know that word of the cartoons was then carried systematically through the Muslim world -- to principal mosques, madrasahs, and government offices starting in Egypt. This was done by delegations sent by Ahmed Abu-Laban, the Saudi-supported Imam of Copenhagen. And in addition to the dozen cartoons that had actually appeared in that obscure provincial newspaper -- most fairly innocent, and one actually satirizing opposition to Islam -- the delegation's "media kit" included 30 graphics that had never appeared, and by their nature would never appear, in a Western mainstream newspaper. For instance, a photo of a man dressed as a pig, over the caption, "This is the real Mohammad."

The fake pictures not only outnumbered the real ones, they were much nastier. Many were in the style of anti-Semitic cartoons that appear frequently in Arab papers, but turned around to target Muslims instead of Jews. And the covering letter, which I have read in translation, was full of outrageous lies about events in Denmark, and misrepresentations of what had been said by Danish journalists and politicians.

It is this document, and not any copy of Jyllands-Posten from Sept. 30th, 2005, that is at the root of the Muslim riots, the Saudi-sponsored pan-Arab boycott of Danish goods, and various fatwas and other acts that put Danes and other Europeans, who had never previously heard of Jyllands-Posten, in peril for their lives.

Score one for the Orcs-- that rampaging, stampeding, swarming hoard of lies.


Off to Newfoundland tomorrow, where the only true blasphemy is taking cod's name in vain.

WHAT'S IN THE FUNNY PAPERS?

[Brief blogging while blowing back into Byetown, before boogie-ing off to the Bight] --

[translation: I’ve been gone, I’m back, but only a for few days, then away again, leaving Toronto for Newfoundland, till Valentine’s Day.]

Cartoons are much in the news these days (and I’m not talking about the two Senators from Massachusetts, though they certainly qualify).

Scroll on for latest scoops on Military movies, Tolkein musicals, and notes on Cheese.

I'll have a CHEESED DANISH, please -- TO GO

The Danes had been among the first of Old Europe’s societies to publicly wake up to the idea that they have something to lose by being indifferent to Muslim immigrants transporting and implanting in the Danes’ social soil the religious and cultural customs of whatever country they couldn’t be bothered to remain in.

Too much of Europe (notably Scandinavia) has looked the other way while the denizens of Muslim enclaves have routinely violated European norms, most especially in their treatment of girls and women (through polygamy, honor killings, and gang rapes, among other things). Denmark stood up and expressed its recognition of the threat posed by this situation, in various ways, not least through its support for the American-led War on Terrorism—a stand which has not gone unnoticed or unpunished by the Islamist-jihadist movement.

Fed up with increased bullying and threats from that quarter, one Danish journal (not very high-profile) published some sketches and cartoons (hat-tip Michelle Malkin) portraying the prophet Mohammed’s face— a well-known taboo among Muslims— some of which were artful portraits, but several of which were intended as criticism and ridicule. (Here's one of them, just so I don't get accused of cowering in CYA-mode, like CNN and various other major news media did, claiming a desire not offend, when they probably more motivated by a desire not to be vaporized.)

Personally, I don’t approve of that-- having been, as a Catholic, on the receiving end of countless mean-spirited cartoon insults to both the doctrines and the membership of my Church. Had I been the editor of the Danish paper, I‘d have scotched the publication of the insulting cartoons on general principles of good taste and manners and the social responsibilities they imply. (Apparently Hugh Hewitt agrees.) It both infuriates and wounds me when Christianity is wantonly derided by bigots who think they are both clever and superior, while the wider world adds insult to injury by dismissing Christian victims of bigotry as (a) thin-skinned, and (b) in no position to complain, since Christianity is a force for evil in the world, responsible for an infinite list of historical crimes, blah, blah, blah……

I was thus quite sympathetic to the Muslim resentment of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses and fully understood the sense in which it was blasphemous. Nevertheless I thought the fatwa against Rushdie was stupid, primitive, and completely self-destructive of the Muslim position in the argument—though I vocally supported the right of any bookstore to decline to carry the book. That’s just the free market at work, as far as I’m concerned. Few bookstores took that route, and there was much posturing about “censorship,” and condemnation of the “cowardice” of any that did. But as far as I’m concerned, the independent bookseller should be able to carry or not carry according to his own inclinations, just as a toy-store owner should be free refuse to carry toy guns or soldiers, bloat-breasted female dolls and action figures, or whatever the owner feels the world is better without. If selecting inventory based on the owner’s principles means lost business, so be it— it’s everybody’s free choice all ‘round. (I'm a big fan of boycotts, too, no matter what side of the spectrum you're on-- it is an exercise of consumer free-market power, and it speaks volumes without institutionalized coercion or manipulation of public systems-- left or right, go for it!)

But back in Denmark: the paper proceeded with publication and, predictably, all hell broke loose.

“All hell” has been known to break loose when Catholics and other Christians are publicly mocked, especially through publicly-funded institutions like art galleries.

"All hell" regularly breaks loose against anti-Semitism from a busy Anti-Defamation League (which once upon a time could count on the support of the cultural and political elites of the West, but more recently has become a voice crying in the wilderness, abandoned by everyone but certain segments of conservative Christians, even as the elites now come to the aid of the Jew-bashers).

And “all hell,” Muslim-style, certainly broke loose in the wake of the Danish cartoon affair, escalating when other European journals (in France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, and the Netherlands) reprinted the offending Danish cartoons in a deliberate, in-your-face defiance of the threats, intimidation, and acts of violence perpetrated against Danes in their own country and at their diplomatic missions across the world.

While I don’t favour any publication of cartoons which have nothing to say that rises above mere ridicule of religious tradition, this whole incident has underscored the inescapable truth that what constitutes "all hell” is just one point of doctrine on which Islam differs radically from the Judeo-Christian tradition. (And we are talking about “doctrine” here—make no mistake about it.) Christian and Jewish “all hell” breaks loose in the form of public condemnations, letter writing campaigns, boycotts, filing of formal complaints, and, occasionally in extreme circumstances, legal action for compensatory remedy or prosecution of a hate crime (always unsuccessful for Christians, btw).

By contrast, Islamist “all hell” involves calls for political and bodily harm. When the old-fashioned avenues of protest are employed— such as boycotts and denunciations— it is in the service of communicating threats of mass murder, chaos, and destruction—threats which are not idle. This is not opinion. It is fact; it is merely quoting the parties themselves.

This whole affair of the cartoons has been an odd thing. As I mentioned, the Danes seem to have been a little ahead of their continental comrades in waking up to the potential for erosion of their national and cultural institutions represented by a thriving unassimilated Muslim immigrant minority, one that is determined not only to persist in living according to the customs of the native country they left behind (not in itself a dreadful thing), but to demand increased official tolerance and then institutionalizing of these customs in their adopted foreign home, with the openly-stated aim of eventually re-configuring the foreign nation into their native one, to be first culturally and then politically annexed into a new Islamic regime. The Danes have taken this once-far-fetched scenario seriously, and the cartoon rebellion is a symptom of their growing indignation at the planned overthrow of their national identity.

I was about to write “ancient identity,” but I was reminded of an idea (floated by Mort Kondracke on FOX, I believe) that what’s really going on with this pan-European publishing tantrum is that the Islamists have finally threatened something very highly valued in Europe, that is, a not-so-very-old freedom to dump on religion.

Europeans are not actually all that wedded to "freedom of expression" as a philosophical principle—how else does one explain the suppression of all religious symbols and attire in French public schools, for instance? A spokesman for the German paper Die Welt referred to a dearly-held tradition of being able to “mock what is holiest.” How noble! It’s what freedom’s all about!— kinda gets ya, right here (thump).

Having turned a blind eye and not lost any too much sleep over Shar’ia-sanctioned oppression, rape and murder of women in Muslim ghettoes, public incitement to violent political insurrection from the mosques and madrassahs, and even assassination of outspoken non-Muslims like Theo van Gogh, suddenly the Europeans experience an attack on something truly sacred to their society— the license to engage in mockery of religion— and they lash out with a widespread act of rather puerile journalistic spitefulness, a sort of swaggering double-dare-ya' and damn-the-consequences – only to find that the consequences could truly start a world war.

It's my suspicion that behind all this righteous posturing about free speech, most of the European pundit class really knew that they were engaging in a fairly childish provocation, and couldn’t permit themselves conceive of it escalating into that Clash of Civilizations they had regarded as a bellicose academic conceit. Well, wake up and smell the burning flesh and rubber, oh Continental neighbors. These people are not kidding around—and you don’t have to be the empire of Bush-Chimpy W. McHitlerburton to bring down their pop-eyed lunatic wrath upon yourselves. Perhaps you noticed that about 800 Americans died at the hands of jihadist terrorism before Bush had gotten any further than the governor’s mansion in Austin.

Many thought that the suburban rioting in France was the harbinger of "the big one"-- the great populist Muslim wave which would bring Europe to its knees through nasty but non-nuclear mayhem. But that never quite reached maximum boil. Time will tell whether a bunch of lame-o editorial cartoons will yet prove to be the fateful fire-bomb (hardly likely to be non-nuclear at this point). In a way it almost doesn't matter why we start fighting-- there's a refreshing sense of honesty in what we're seeing, the sheer frothing lunatic animal hatred of it all. Now at least there are fewer people pretending that one side of the argument has any right to call itself a "Religion of Peace."

TAKE NOTE: Muslims are free to boycott -- frankly, it should be recommended to them over car-bombings and riots. So they're making the Danes suffer at the grocery store cash register-- and we're free to bite back, literally -- here's an opportunity for immediate action to address the world's ills! Take a big bite out of terrorism! Have a hearty hunk o' HAVARTI! Buy Danish! Fight the international Islamist boycott of Danish products! Bring on the Butter cookies!

Half-Danish Hollywood leftist moonbat Viggo Mortensen must have found this cartoon affair a little squirmish, what with the third-worldy opprobrium being heaped upon the heartland of his second passport, when he's much more comfortable with opprobrium being heaped upon the arrogant American empire.

However, he managed to excavate words of comfort from the far reaches of global journalism to post on the web-page of Perceval Press, his art-house publishing company. A hat-tip to Perceval for the link to an extraordinarily craven (even for the Guardian) editorial rationalizing the suppression of the cartoons based on "context"-- i.e. you have to make editorial decisions with an eye to whether your white supremacist political parties might be able to exploit what you print to their advantage. PUKE.

Also for linking to the International Herald Tribune (that's the New York Times on vacation) interview with a few Danes who have picked their poses along the same lines. "I will fight in the name of free speech," says Danish Muslim writer Rushy Rashid, "but not without respect for the consequences." [I believe I just spotted a Laura Ingraham "But Monkey!"] And then there's

Tim Jensen [professor of religions, University of Southern Denmark] who thinks that the dispute over the cartoons may help Muslims. 'They have managed to prove that they want to be respected. They don't want to be second-class citizens.'

...Indeed, after the publication of the cartoons, there is talk - some of it divisive - of spending public money on a grand new mosque to show Danes' respect for Muslims... At the Betty Nansen theater here, a show running since last month entitled "The Headscarf Monologues" seeks to explore the experience of 80 Muslim women living in Denmark.

The Headscarf Monologues. Can you make this stuff up, people? No, you cannot. Rodney Dangerfield always complained that he couldn't get no respect-- apparently the formula for this is to burn down buildings and threaten mass murder of people you've never met.

Mortensen was recently quoted characterizing "Cindy Sheehan, and how badly Katrina was bungled" as "two shots to the heart.” I assumed he was talking about his own, which, owing to his solid-gold liberal credentials, can reasonably be expected to be bleeding at any given moment. But the expanded version of the quote concludes with “I hope the beast does fall down soon." Less generous folks than I have speculated that this is a veiled desire for a convenient assassination, but I'm prepared to read it as metaphorical, with impeachment being the desideratum of maximum disruption. Since both the Cirque de Sheehan and most of the complaints about the federal role in the Katrina debacle have been definitively stamped and filed in the "BOGUS" drawer, Mortensen had better hang his hopes on something else. [Oh it was so tempting to pair "half-Danish" with "half-wit" but I think he's actually somewhat smarter than that, which is the sad part.]

[Wonder how those Viggo-designed t-shirts that say "Support the Troops -- bring them home" are selling now that L.A. Times writer/whippersnapper Joel Stein has thrown cold water on that particular leftist posture. Stein has taken immense heat for his article about not supporting the troops if you don't support the war. I'm in the camp that found it a more honest position than the one he criticizes as hypocritical. Hugh Hewitt pretty much had Stein for lunch on his radio show, not so much for his dismissive attitude towards the military but for the utter poverty of thought and paucity of world-experience behind his position. Basically he's kind of a dumb kid writing about people and places and situations of which he knows absolutely nothing. But he has some of the right instincts about the Hollywood left.]

SUPPORT THE TROOPS? Nah, not so much.
Another cartoon made waves this past week, emanating not from the Religion of Peace from the religion of American Journalism, an interesting faith in which every adherent is also a god. Hence the defense of Tom Toles' right to publish the following in one of the country's three most-read newspapers, the Washington Post:


The cartoonist claimed that he did not intend to offend anyone in the military (only intended to offend Rumsfeld, he said, blinkeredly). Well, he may be quite sincere in that claim, but so what? All it means is that he is sincerely obtuse, and so partisan that he has managed to cauterize the most normal nerve-ends of human decency and compassion. His human feelings now benumbed, he exhibits in full flower the same syndrome as Christiane Amanpour and the other media types who went all postal when news anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman got wounded: "The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it," wailed Christiane in an unguarded moment of consummate journo-narcissism.

There's only one way stuff like this flows spontaneously from your mouth, and that's if our soldiers and Marines are simply not real to you. Many prominent journalists, as we have long suspected, have dehumanized and objectified the military into a nameless, faceless mass about whom stereotypes and generalizations will do nicely to fill up the news copy. Specific identities, units, campaigns, and (most especially) victories are of no interest.

Bottom line on the Toles cartoon: Had the multiple amputee been wearing a standard-issue army fatigue shirt with a pocket name-tape bearing the word "CLELAND" on it, there would have been no ripple of laughter, and not one word uttered in defense of this vile caricature, anywhere in the country-- a place where Toles is free to be a heartless, brain-numbed jerk, and we are free to call him one.

It's a conservative canard that a right to speak does not automatically imply a right to be heard. But there is a degree to which freedom of speech becomes meaningless when there is a stranglehold on the flow of information, such as has been enjoyed by the leftist-oriented mainstream media in recent times past. Their monopoly cost the United States what should have been (and nearly was) a clear ride to victory in Vietnam, and the effort to re-enact this media-generated surrender in Iraq has been powerful. But it will not prevail, because information is now flowing in countless healthy capillaries within the body politic. Freedom of information is really more important than an established right to vote-- only because it will inevitably lead to the demand for that right.

Jonathan Steele in Britain's Guardian writes an amusingly illusion-based piece (hat-tip to Perceval Press again), hilariously titled "Bush just has to face it: he is wrong and Chirac is right," in which he describes President Bush's demeanour during the State of the Union address (quoting the L.A. Times) as "chastened, deferential, modest." It's amazing what you see when you want to see it. Au contraire, Mr. Steele, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that at times Bush was downright scolding, giving obstructionist Democrats the big spank-- I was quite stunned, in fact-- figured it would be interpreted as injudiciously unconciliatory. Steele goes on:

Bush's speech was remarkable for the number of times he called on his fellow Americans not to retreat, not to give up, not to succumb to pessimism, not to be defeatist. If his policies were not floundering, these pleas would not have been necessary.

Well, no, not the case. In fact, he was just issuing a needed corrective to the relentless media lying about how we're getting smashed over there-- which we aren't. It is truer to say that if Bush had taken the bullsh*t by the horn months and months ago, as he should have, these exhortations would not have been necessary. "They were markedly different from the confident tone of last year's address," continues Steele. Well, yeah-- because the media and the Democrats have spent the past year engaged in an unconscionable campaign of anti-Bush, anti-military, and fundamentally anti-American propoganda which history will gasp at one day.

[And no, I'm not saying that "anti-Bush" is synonymous with "anti-American." But "anti-military" -- when we have troops in combat and avowed enemies going after us and killing our citizens in a series of attacks (all but one prior to the Bush administration) -- yes, I think that's synonymous with "anti-American."]

Speaking of Vietnam, anyone out there still feeling romantic about Communism? Here's a timely report from middle son, just visiting Cambodia during his long Chinese New Year holiday:

Our first stop yesterday was the S-21 detention and torture facility, the most lethal one of the Rouge's and in a typical twist of genocidal irony, a former high school...the facility has since been turned into a museum, with all of the structures still intact and many of the beds and instruments of torture on display...thousands and thousands of pictures of the victims adorn the walls and there are dozens of leftover blood stains all over the floors, walls and even the ceilings of some of the rooms...

following our visit to the museum, we made the 15 km trek or so to the Killing Fields of Phnom Penh, so named for their use as mass gravesites during the genocide...there were two dozen or so dug-out pits of every shape and size at the site with sign posts indicating the number of victims and sometimes their manner of death...a huge stupa memorial containing 8000 skulls or so was located right in the centre of it all...

perhaps the most gut and heart-wrenching sight at the fields, though, were the impoverished local children, whose playgrounds and begging grounds are the grave site itself...their outstretched hands greeted us as soon as we arrived and it was enough to make you burst into tears seeing their condition...fortunately, we managed to spend about 30-45 minutes just recreating with them and goofing around, teaching each other different games and the like - definitely the most rewarding experience of the vacation thus far, but also the most saddening...

Nothing like a visit to one of the world's great Worker's Paradise states to give you some perspective! Too bad he wasn't accompanied by those venerable fans of the Marxist experiment like, say, George Galloway, Ward Churchill, George Soros, Noam Chomsky, and most of the political science department faculty at most major universities of the Western World. Too bad Joan Baez wasn't along for the trip-- I'm sure she could have found someplace to play the Glad Game.

AT THE MOVIES: I'm in the happy position of being mother to a jarhead (that's the standard Marine Corps haircut) who could tell me exactly what he and his comrades thought of the movie "Jarhead"-- and I'm the aunt of a graduate of the U.S.Naval Academy at Annapolis (class of 2005) who can also tell me what he and his fellow tars think of "Annapolis." Real jarheads, on the whole, thought "Jarhead" was boring, incoherent, and, where it really counted, totally at odds with reality. Of "Annapolis" I only know that the administration of the Academy took one look at the script and said, "You won't be filiming this HERE." I guess I'll see it myself, but the only up-or-down thumbs that will count will be those of the former mid-shipmen. (My nephew in fact broke both his thumbs while at the Academy-- not in the line of duty-- but I think they will be found in working order regarding the movie.) Verdict pending-- watch this space!

ON STAGE: Another verdict pending: someone in my hometown got the bright idea to create a musical version of Lord of the Rings, to premiere in our fair city this very month. The thought of someone cramming this three-volume literary masterpiece into a two-hour stage slow, interrupted by singing and dancing hobbits, ents, and orcs, was too too sick-making, and I had vowed to steer clear of it at all costs.

Not to be. I am compelled as a matter of wifely duty to accompany my husband and some of his clients to this dubious theatrical undertaking, in a matter of mere weeks. As a public service, therefore, I shall transmit on these pages my considered opinion of the proceedings (urp, gag, shuffle-off-to-Rivendell). Naturally, my critique shall be completely #$£&@!-ing objective.

SEEN ON THE OUTDOOR SIGNBOARD at Kingsway-Lambton United Church:

VIOLENCE AND HATRED IS TO ANSWER DISRESPECT WITH BLASPHEMY

My first reaction was to wonder how this would read had it been written in English. Did we mean: "To answer disrespect with blasphemy is the real essence (or a genuine act) of violence and hatred"? If that's what was meant, it's a pity that's not what it said.

However, rendered into standard English I still don't get what it's trying to say-- or maybe I do, and it's just too stupid to process. In any case, it's been put out there for all to see, in safe suburban side-street Etobicoke, where white people with large cars will feel... something... And, no doubt, congratulate themselves for it. And wonder how those scary Conservatives won that election.

AWAY TILL VALENTINE'S DAY!
[Being celebrated with particular vigor this year because the new President (Fr. Brian Shanley) of Providence College, where two of the three sons have gone, just put the total hob-nailed mendicant boot to the increasingly mainstreamed "underground" performance of the execrable Vagina Monologues on the campus. Congratulations, Fr. Shanley! You're a mensch!]

OH CANADA!

Canadian voters had three parties to choose from: Way Way Whacked-Out Pinko Left, Imperious Incoherent Venally-Rotted-Out Euro-Left, and Too-Timid-To-Be-Neo-Con Check-Your-Religion-at-the-Door Moderate Left.

Moderation won. Sort of.

It’s a minority government – Conservatives 40.3%, Liberals 33.4%, Bloc Québècois 16.6%, New Democratic Party 9.4%, the other thirteen* ( ! ) parties, 0%.

* such colourful bodies as the Marijuana Party, Communist Party (the official one—the NDP is their “mainstream” stand-in), Green Party, Christian Heritage Party (not the white supremacist skin-heads such a moniker might indicate in Britain, but run for your lives anyway), Libertarians, Marxist-Leninists, and other entities represented by initials standing for God-only-knows-what.

The small-c conservatives of Canada have gone through years of party-affiliation contortions trying to find one banner under which to gather the preponderance of the country which is fed up with the large-L Liberal ruling class. There have been stubborn honorary godfathers, like Joe Clark of the Progressive Conservatives (a “red Tory” mid-leftist boob whose refusal to make a graceful exit ground his party into ignominious dust) and Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party (who hung on longer than he should have, but deserves most of the credit for striking out from the beaten path and giving western Canada the beginnings of a political voice).

After some false starts (Stockwell Day—a decent man, but not the right one), and some minor blood-letting (getting Peter MacKay to step aside—an experience he found painful, but not nearly so bad as watching his then-squeeze Belinda Strumpet Stronach desert not only him but his party for a plum job in the Liberal cabinet, in the final attempt by now-defunctis Prime Minister Paul Martin to bribe stave off the fall of his government), the Conservative Party of Canada found a name, a leader, and some feet to stand on, and now, with considerable help from the greed, corruption, Anti-Americanism, and complete mental meltdown of Martin’s Liberals, Stephen Harper is poised to move into 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, and try and sort out the mess which is Canada.

I myself am not Canadian, despite having lived here for nearly 65% of my life-- though I now consider myself to have achieved honorary citizenship recently, when I had to wait 2 ½ months for an MRI, and another 3 weeks for the results, through which I discovered that I have ripped cartilage and a totally torn off ligament in my right knee, and that treatment is not recommended. And for this kind of service my husband pays over 40% of his income in taxes. Harper has his work cut out for him.

So CONGRATULATIONS, Canada, on a stimulating exercise in that finest of democratic traditions, VOTING THE SCOUNDRELS OUT! And for that 60% of the country who didn’t vote for it, stand by and get ready to discover that you have nothing to FEAR (despite the Liberal propaganda) from a Conservative government. You might even have a touching reunion with some of your own money and get to spend it on your kids.

[Nota Bene: Could there be any more hopeful sign for the new Prime Minister than that Al Gore already feels threatened by him? Ooh-rah! You remember Al Gore-- that pudgy, flame-spewing failed Presidential candidate who has been living on the planet Spite-nik for the past five years plotting his revenge-- while collecting revenues from his stock in Occidental Petroleum....]

Raymond [J.] de Souza (that’s Canada’s broad-smiling journalist/economist/priest of Goan extraction, not Australia’s sandy-haired lay Catholic apologist/radio host with the Brazilian brogue) got two columns in the January 26 National Post, on two not totally unrelated subjects.

His take on the Canadian election was the view from his native Alberta and the position western Canada has now achieved in being the home-base of the new Prime Minister. In the process he offered some brilliantly-phrased reassurances for those of both the left and right who are viewing the Conservative victory with varying degrees of trepidation, but especially those “social conservatives” who are alarmed that Harper and his colleagues have, on the whole, been unwilling to come out with guns blazing to take on the most contentious moral issues in Canadian society: abortion, the definition of marriage, medical ethics.

Fr. De Souza sums up what we can all expect in the short term: “the range of what is discussable will change…” and “preventing things from getting worse is itself no small accomplishment…” These may appear to be pretty tame as political ambitions go, but the fact is (as Paul Martin would say, endlessly), even these simple changes represent a kind of revolution some of us had begun to doubt we would see in our lifetime. ¿¡Viva la revolución!, eh?

Fr. De Souza’s second entry in Thursday’s paper has to do with the first Encyclical Letter by Pope Benedict XVI, called by its opening phrase Deus Caritas Est, or “God is Love”. The article is a good summary of the text, and de Souza alludes only briefly to the fact that there are a great many people for whom it might come as a surprise that this Pope actually understands about God being love— because they have so long cultivated the utterly false impression of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger as, not to put too fine a point on it, a cold-hearted hard-ass.

I’ve never seen him in the flesh myself, though apparently that was never too difficult for those who frequented Rome, for it was his habit to walk alone between his apartment and the Vatican offices, and to give friendly greeting to anyone who recognized him. But I am at least toe-deep enough in the Church establishment to know, or have met, many people with first-hand experience of both this Pope and his predecessor—enough to know that, for those who’ve had a “close encounter,” Papa Ratzi will eventually be known as much for his sweet nature as his orthodoxy. No surprises here.

Next to Fr. de Souza’s column was the usual bucket of journalistic cold water, the latest outpourings from His Lutheran-ness, Leader of the Disloyal Opposition, Fr. Hans Küng, the Tootling Tutor from Tübingen, crabby heretic and thorn in the flesh of Holy Mother Church. In a spasm of magnanimity Küng praised the theme of his former faculty colleague’s first Encyclical, but added his customary caveat, to the effect that the Pope would do well to follow this promising sign by violating everything he stands for and being completely untrue to both his Church and himself.

Specifically, Fr. Küng recommends that Pope Benedict show his “love” for Catholics who have rejected the Church’s consistent teaching on contraception, the indissolubility of marriage, and priestly celibacy by changing the teachings to accommodate the rejectors. Yeah, like that’ll happen, in this eon or any other.

You don’t show your love for people by lying to them. You don’t fulfill your responsibility towards God’s children by letting them run wild and never insisting that they mustn’t play with moral matches lest they get fourth-degree burns on their precious souls.

What kind of Holy Father would a Pope be, and what kind of Divine Father would God be, if neither one of them gave us boundaries, or the belief that we are capable living up to what is asked of us? Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, never failed in either of these responsibilities, especially toward the young—he asked everything of them, never condescending, always believing in their capacity for self-mastery. Fr. Küng continues to project his own moral flaccidity on the rest of us, and presses the Church to fall into line. I think not.

OF NOTE:

For the sheer pleasure of reading a beautifully-written piece about character, brotherly love, and the sweetness of memory, have a look at columnist Charles Krauthammer's eulogy for his late brother, Marcel, whose untimely death from cancer occurred on January 17. One is rarely so moved by the story of a stranger. Requiescat in pace.

CANADA VOTES:
Entire country gets a three-on-one break-away

In June of 2004 American wonder-blob Michael Moore decided to show his customary respect for anyone other than Americans by paying Canada the compliment of crossing the northern border and illegally interfering with its federal election. To nobody's great surprise he was stumping for the ruling Liberals, which put him squarely on the side of, among other things, confiscatory taxes he himself would never be willing to pay (as we learn from Peter Schweizer's exposé of left-wing hypocrisy, Do As I Say (Not As I Do), not to mention giving his approval to laughable lies, systemic corruption, and massive theft from the taxpayer.

Well, like a bad penny Moore's back, spouting off to Canada with his unsolicited advice on how to vote today, despite his aw-shucks disclaimer, "Far be it from me, as an American, to suggest what you should do"-- which is exactly what he's doing. But again, to nobody's great surprise, it doesn't look like anyone is listening. He is yesterday's blob, and we're not into day-old.

On Friday the Toronto Sun performed a tremendous public service by publishing "218 reasons NOT to vote for the Liberals" This is a solid effort-- no Letterman Top Ten List of embarrssing little funnies, but a 218-count indictment of a cabal of crooks. Okay, Canada, cue the dancing beavers, the strutting lumberjacks, the gap-toothed shinny-kings, the Dudley Do-Right patrol, and the Majestic Moose and Goose procession, and tell these Lying Liberals to go Sugar-Off!

2006 – THE NEW YEAR is upon us…

… and then some. But we’ll just pretend it’s not too late to proffer “turn-of-the-year” reflections and bits o’ news. (Had lots of pictures too but after about five hours of struggling with this miserable entry, I have given them up.)

For starters, some advice from Sgt. Grit: Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR.

2005 = THE YEAR OF THE LIE

That’s the extended essay part—scroll down. But first:

ITEM: CANADA VOTES – January 23

The final English-language debate last Monday among the four candidates was a typical piece of Canadian political theatre, Farce Division, since only three of the candidates are actually running for the big office (Prime Minister) and one of them is running to be the federal representative who ushers Québèc into independence and Canada into slow disintegration.

The debate featured the spectacle of Paul Martin, leader of a Liberal Party which has ruled Canada almost non-stop for about 70 years, babbling like he’d consumed 26 cups of coffee, engaging in an intra-provincial hissing match and near-fisticuffs with fellow-Québècois and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, while dough-faced Conservative Stephen Harper and apple-cheeked socialist Kumbayah-master Jack Layton of the New Democratic Party looked on.

Canada may actually be looking at Regime Change on January 23.The Liberals are already blaming Bush.

ITEM: CANADA PUKES
as Hollywood prepares to release film on Bernardo/Homolka sex-crimes

Every so often another cheeseball director decides to make a film or TV movie which purports to “explore the psyche” of some grisly serial killer. By far the majority of these excursions leave the viewer with more than they needed to know about the details of the act of murder, but not the least bit more enlightened about what makes these deviates “tick” – so the audience feels doubly cheated, having learned nothing and having come away with no real excuse for watching the tripe. Moreover, the viewer is complicit in the transaction by which the film production has rubbed a barrel of salt into the wounds of the victims’ families and friends in exchange for sweeps-week or box office dollars.

It’s all set to happen again, as the feature film Karla opens on January 20, a revisiting of the twisted lives and nauseatingly sick crimes of Ontario’s own Paul Bernardo who (with a never-determined degree of assistance from his steely little bride Karla Homolka) kidnapped, raped, degraded, murdered, and dismembered two innocent teen-aged girls (and captured much of it in home movies) more than ten years ago.

In the name of justice, decency, charity and mercy, BOYCOTT THIS TRASH.

ITEM: Word came out that over the Christmas holidays President Bush was reading Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan. I, for one, was delighted to hear it—it’s about time the President got a good briefing about what the American military is doing on his watch: how they are the ones winning hearts and minds; shaping the future; carrying out the one-on-one diplomacy which will be the most determinative factor in the new alliances with Afghanistan, the Middle East, and other places (like the Philippines) where Islamist fascists have gotten a foothold and need to be pried loose. Up till now there hasn’t been a great deal of evidence that Bush actually knows what they’ve been up to day to day. If he’s finished the book, he’s ahead of me—I’ve only read the excerpt in The Atlantic. Worth a look.

ITEM: IRAQ VOTES—AGAIN—December 15 -- reported over 70% turnout—makes North Americans look like lazy, complacent JERKS. Over here the professional feminists have paid ZERO attention to the greatest advance, in the shortest span of time, for any group of women in HUMAN HISTORY.

ITEM: TED KENNEDY (puffy Massachusetts Senator and renowned long-distance swimmer) is said to be writing a children’s book.

It will be written from his dog’s point of view. The dog is a water spaniel. It’s name is “Splash.”

It is unknown at this moment whether Splash will be encouraged demonstrate how, if he’d been around in 1969, he might have been of assistance in hauling a certain young woman from eight feet of water off Chappaquiddick Island.

You absolutely cannot make this stuff up.

The whole exercise could not be more tasteless if Kennedy had named his dog “Kopechne”.

ITEM: RUMORS OF THEIR DEATHS HAVE BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Apparently what happens in New Orleans doesn’t really happen. That truth was the first thing washed away by Hurricane Katrina started to become obvious in late September, when the myths of rape and murder among the storm’s refugees were pretty soundly debunked, along with tales of uncontrollable mayhem in the Superdome and wild west gunfights in the streets.

With December came a more specific statistical analysis of the known dead: about 1,000 for all of Louisianna, with no sign that either the storm, nor its instigating sorcerer (President Bush) discriminated on the basis of race, gender, or socio-economic status. Victims were fairly evenly black and white, male and female, and residents of poor and well-off parishes.

We await (hopelessly) the abject apologies of race-baiting big-mouths like Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, with their willing accomplices in the hand-wringing press, for everything from unhinged wailing (Wolf Blitzer was the best: “They’re so poor, so black…”) to deranged bald-faced lying (Farrakhan: the levees “may have been blown up so that the water would destroy the black part of town”). The citizens of New Orleans and greater Louisianna await (hopelessly) the abject apologies of airhead mayor Ray “Schoolbus” Nagin and clueless, testy governor Kathleen “Call-my-decorator” Blanco and heavy-lifting Congressman William “Where’s-my-stuff?” Jefferson for enjoying the limelight of elected office without bothering to read the fine print on the social contract that says “your constituents are to be served and protected, not soaked for perqs and ignored.”

Tick, tock, tick, tock……

ITEM: HILLARY GOES ALL BOADICEA -- becomes instant expert on armor

Senator Hillary Rodham Broadbottom has her knickers in a twist about the alleged inadequacies of military body armor being used in Iraq. Apparently more people died from being shot where the armor wasn’t than those who were shot where the armor was.

Duh.

Mrs. Clinton would have our infantry covered from buzz-cut to toenails with ceramic plates and Kevlar, and has blasted the “incompetent… unforgivable… Bush/Cheney policy” which allows soldiers and Marines to go into battle lacking sufficient coating to make them look like the lumbering Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. Is she on to something? As the saying goes, “Ask the man who owns one.” -- that is, ask the guys who have to wear the stuff. “Baghdad Guy” for instance:

To start off with, no, our body armor is not perfect. It has
its vulnerabilities which I won't get into for obvious reasons, but overall it does a remarkable job of protecting soldiers, marines, airmen
and everyone else who wears it. Body Armor has saved numerous lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will continue to do so, especially as it is modified to better meet the threat we face. However, there are limitations as to how much armor you can add onto an individual and maintain his effectiveness as a soldier: when I step out the gate I am wearing on my person body armor, a kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio,night vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends. Butt naked to full combat load probably adds about 40+ pounds to my frame, give or take a grenade.

When someone designs an affordable lightweight polymer that allows for freedom of movement but can stop a 7.62 mm round (kind of like the batsuit in Batman Begins), sign me up, but until then let me move freely so I can avoid getting shot in the first place.

And this interesting take on the problem from

Neptunus Lex :

… reminds me of a story coming out of the days of Vietnam-era attack aviation. A couple of engineers were reviewing the history of aircraft that had landed badly damaged by anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. The junior engineer turns to the senior guy and says, "You know, there’s a real pattern developing here of aircraft taking hits to the horizontal tail and on the trailing edge of the wings. Maybe we should put more armor there?”

The senior engineer, concerned as always with the impact of adding weight to an aircraft design disagreed, chiding the junior guy gently, “No, you’re seeing the pattern exactly wrong. All of the battle damage you see is from aircraft that returned. It’s the places where you’re seeing no damage that we need more armor. Those aircraft didn’t make it back.”

And the last word from the ‘Nam Chopper maxims of Col. Glen “Smoke” Burgess, USMC (Ret.), via Sgt. Grit: If you are wearing body armor, the incoming will probably miss that part.

Put it all together and I think we’ve earned the right to say to the junior Senator from New York: Shut up, you silly, stupid woman.

ITEM: MR. AND MRS. BILL GATES share Time’s “Person of the Year” award with BONO.

Their least-known humanitarian project: STIFLING DISSENT IN CHINA

Bill Gates’ computer empire has already made headlines by (a) helping the Chinese government control the flow of information by agreeing to install programmed suppression of Microsoft-served weblog entries containing certain words like “democracy” and “human rights”; and (b) helping the Chinese government to locate (and thereby prosecute) dissidents using Microsoft computers to disseminate unacceptable messages. Now they have co-operated with the government by shutting down a Microsoft-served weblog on which a Chinese blogger was discussing controversial news.

Microsoft: Making our world a better place, one gag and conviction at a time.

ITEM: 2005 – YEAR OF THE LIE

That’s at least something we can all agree on. Where we part company is on what exactly were the lies, and who was telling them.

Back when the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy came out, and there was some controversy over the various actors’ reflections on whether or not it was appropriate to draw parallels between the fictitious battles for Middle Earth and the all-too-real battles against Al Qaeda and its sponsors, my sense was that the left-leaning types who rejected the parallels probably assumed that we pro-war crazies saw in those waves of Orcs, sweeping down upon the cornered Good Guys, the faces of Islamist “militants.” Not, in my view, a wholly unjustified interpretation of those scenes.

However, at the time I expressed a somewhat different take on those brilliantly executed scenes of descending hoards, especially the terrifying attack at Helm’s Deep in film II (The Two Towers). What I saw in the deformed bodies and ghoulish monster faces of the Orcs was the physical embodiment of The Lie, and the overwhelming power of an accumulation of Lie upon Lie upon Lie. This was evil incarnate. This was the vision of why Satan is called The Father of Lies.

Lies have been the overriding theme of this year’s global political discourse. The loudest, most heavily-covered and most oft-repeated refrain declared that “Bush Lied”—that George W. Bush took the United States into war in Iraq by means of a conscious lie: that Iraq possessed WMD (weapons of mass destruction), which subsequent searches have discovered did not exist.

The latter part of this statement is itself an easily demonstrable lie, since anyone who has actually read the relevant parts of (1) the 9/11 Commission Report, (2) the interim report of weapons inspector David Kay, and (3) the final report of weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, knows that there was no such finding as “WMD did not exist.”

The former part of the statement— that Bush consciously lied when he stated, in full agreement with every major intelligence agency on the planet, that there was clear evidence that Hussein’s Iraq possessed significant quantities of material and production capacity for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons —is a judgment call about the interior motives of one man, which must be based on a preponderance of evidence. Analyzed with any decent measure of objectivity, the case for presidential lying cannot be made—not even close.

That was the biggest of the Big Lies this year, but not really the most heinous. Nor would it have been the most damaging had the Bush administration been possessed of the minimal political sense which their jobs would seem to require. As Big Lies go, the “Bush Lied” lie is HUGE, but it was also lame, transparent, desperate, and crushable.

Equally persistent were the Katrina lies, the Plame/Wilson lies, and the torture lies (on both sides!).

The less frequent but far more heinous, outrageous, hateful, and consummately evil BIG LIE of the year was that (to quote that mouthy, light-weight, totally-out-of-his-league, token extreme leftist of FoxNews’s Newswatch, Neil Gabler) “Iraq is a DISASTER, and everybody knows it.” Or, put in more honest and specific terms: the American military is losing the war, has accomplished nothing, and has wasted the time, money, and lives this battle has cost—that their efforts are unwelcome, that they are the enemy, that they want to come home and should be withdrawn ASAP.

Lie, after lie, after lie, after lie, after lie, after lie.

These are lies that the Bush administration has never told, but they are lies which would have had no life in the public eye and ear had the administration done its job and trumpeted the truth by all the means that are easily available to them. When, last fall, the administration FINALLY went on the offensive against the flood-tide of lies which had swirled over the land for months and months, knowledgeable supporters of the war effort were delighted and relieved, but some of us were still scratching our heads at the content of the “pushback” speeches—HE STILL DIDN’T GET IT!

What needed to be put forward was the fact-laden, graphic (as in MAPS), hero-rich history of what has been accomplished in Iraq—not necessarily proclaimed aggressively or as a challenge to nay-sayers, but told PROUDLY, documenting and glorying in the historic significance of the elections, the civility of the constitutional compromises, the (YES) enhanced quality of life for many, many Iraqis in most parts of the country.

Here's a piece of info some of us have known about for nearly three years, but the Bushies have not found occasion to revel in publicly: the Saddamite genocide against the Marsh Arabs, and their subsequent restoration and return, with the help of the American military. Jay Nordlinger previews his own longer dead-tree article, at NRO.

Mr. Bush and his staff have maintained a kind of “need-to-know” dribble of information in our direction, without seeming to have a clue about what it is we really NEED to know. The poll-numbers tell us that Bush may well have pulled his tail-feathers out of the fire, but not because he fought back with the best political arms and ammunition, tactics and strategy he had at hand—that he succeeded (so far) tells us just how profoundly the American public WANTS to hear evidence that their country is fighting the good fight; how tenaciously they have held to their conviction that we are in a war for the preservation of liberty and the best of our culture, that we have what it takes to prevail, and that our fighters in the field are doing precisely that.

Americans have also wanted to know what they could do to serve while "standing and waiting." Well, for starters there's Spirit of America -- probably the most effective means for ordinary citizens to directly assist the military in improving the lives of Iraqi civilians, police, and military. That the profile of this organization is still operating under the radar, and its supporters still number only in the thousands, is shameful -- sort of equivalent to having only a handful of Americans aware that Kate Smith wanted them to buy War Bonds in 1945.

At the end of the infamous Christopher Hitchens/George Galloway "debate" (verbal slug-fest), Hitchens closed with about the most profound and unarguable thing anybody said all night:

...you would have more to be proud of... if you could after tonight, point to something that you have done to help build up the new Iraq. Point to something that you were doing to help the Iraqi women's organizations who indeed do have to combat fundamentalism. Point to something you had done to help unearth the mass graves, and console the relatives of those who are found in them. Point to something you had yourselves contributed to the emancipation of Kurdistan. You could do something perhaps something to help the new Iraqi press and media acquire some more modern equipment on which to conduct this debate. Why don't you think of the possible nobility of that alternative?

Here's what one person (me) has been able to contribute to for the future of Iraq through Spirit of America, since reading about the organization in April of 2004 on OpinionJournal.com

--Television equipment for Al-Anbar province
--Sewing machine for women's center in Ramadi
--Tool kit for Iraqi tradesman
--Democracy project (training and prep for first election)
--University textbooks
--Operation snapshot -- instant cameras for kid-fun at checkpoints
--Gifts for children
--Development of virus-free Arabic blogging program
--Second election news coverage
--Recreational equipment for Iraqi army base at Tal Afar
--Cell-phone for Lebanese activists at Freedom Camp, Beirut
--Irrigation for Al-Anbar agricultural co-op
--Children's classroom supplies
--Rubber 25-gallon water barrels
--Iraqi Orphans project
--Repair of women's radio station in Baghdad
--Equipment for Najaf teaching hospital cardiac unit

Why do this? Because every Iraqi to whom an American soldier or Marine shows support and confidence is one less Iraqi ready to blow American heads off-- maybe my kid's, if that's where he's sent this year.

All of these projects are administered through the military, primarily the Marines. Apparently Congressman Murtha and his fellow-pinheads want to withdraw from this. Not likely. Anyone can join in the effort, for any amount of money. Don't pull out-- pull together. CRUSH THE ORCS!

So what is the real story of the military effort in Iraq and Afghanistan under the Bush regime? I cannot help but think of Shakespeare (actually that happens a lot, under many circumstances), who put into the mouth of his sometimes controversial character, King Henry V, these words to his troops:

And gentlemen in England, now a-bed,
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here.

A little over the top? Maybe. But most of the troops who've been there, by an overwhelming margin, express views that are pretty much in line with this quotation. And that's no word of a lie.

A final word from Col. Burgess, via Sgt. Grit: The madness of war can extract a heavy toll. Please have exact change.