Watcher’s Council Results

The results are in at the Watcher’s Council, and they are good.  As always, the submissions were superb, which made voting very difficult.  Nevertheless, vote we did, and I can now give you the results.

I recommend every article, but have no quarrels at all with Joshuapundit’s blow-out victory for a post in which he examines the way in which pure Islam (unaffected by modern Western mores) is inextricably intertwined with violence.  Wolf Howling made something of the same point with regard to Pakistan’s demand that the West stop picking on it (“only when you stop picking on us, Dude”), so it’s a real double whammy.

On the non-Council side, I submitted the winner:  Thomas Lifson’s warning that, when Obama becomes president, for the first time in American history, the purges will begin.  Scary stuff that.

So check it all out.  It’s all good.

Votes Council link
3 The Chicken or the Egg?
2 Dear Pakistan
Wolf Howling
2 For Once, It Really Is About the Children
Bookworm Room
1  2/3 Caring Is Not Enough
The Glittering Eye
1  1/3 The Global Warming Cult
The Razor
1 I’m a Fuel, Fuel, Fuel for You
Soccer Dad
2/3 Omaha Beach
Done With Mirrors
1/3 Quote of the Day: Gas Wars Edition
Cheat Seeking Missiles
Votes Non-council link
2  2/3 What Kind of War Crimes Trials Does Obama Plan? (Updated)
American Thinker
2  1/3 Wake Up and Smell the Soup!
Melanie Phillips
1  2/3 Obama and Khalidi — What We Know So Far
Daled Amos
1  1/3 Have You No Shame, Sir?
Winds of Change
1 When Worlds Collide
The Weekly Standard
2/3 Jimmy Obama, Meet Barack Carter
Big Lizards
1/3 Shooting Down the Enemies of Progress
1/3 Noted Imbecile Mark Morford: Obama Is a “Lightworker,” an “Enlightened Being”
Hot Air
1/3 Air Is Free
Eternity Road
1/3 Arson Supected at Texas Governor’s Mansion
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    Scary stuff that.

    The logical extension of Leftist fake liberal revolutionary zeal, BOok.

  • Ymarsakar
  • Ymarsakar

    #143 from RAH at 2:31 am on Jun 08, 2008

    Cleans Hands

    I have had similar thoughts. But I am grounded in reality. I have animals and have owned horses for decades. I had a cat that was great hunter. She would leave 3-5 dead animals at my door a day. She brought live ones to teach the other cat how to hunt. She would eat the brains out of rabbits and leave the carcass. Wasteful but that was her nature. My young son got quite used to the sight of death. He learned that lesson early that animals live and die. He learned that humans are more important.

    One year we had a bad problem with rats in the barn. They got so bad they would eat from the horse’s buckets and drown in the water buckets. The stalls had 4-5 rat holes each. We took rifles and shot some. There were two teenage girls that thought that was cruel. In discussion they thought that animal experimentation was horrible and it was better to use human prisoners for experimentation. They identified with the rats and not humans. Is that a good education? Why identify with the vermin that was causing horses to refuse to eat?

    These disconnects and problems with identifying friends and enemies are echoed across the Democratic left. Multiculturism is good they say. Are cultures are equivalent?
    Are they? The Muslim theocrats in Iran want to return to the barbarianism of the 7th century. Women are not allowed out without a male relative and covered from head to toe. Gays are hung. Female mutilation is OK. Are these practices as good as western values? I think not. Christian / Judaic values are superior and. Western civilization is superior to barbaric regimes and barbarians that live there.

    African regimes devolve to dictatorships the most current example is Zimbabwe.
    Rhodesia was the economic breadbasket of Africa. The civil servant system was the best. They was a high literacy rate, civilization flourished. Yet Jimmy Cater and Great Britain forced white minority rule to be subsumed in the “ enlightened” black thug Marxist regime of Robert Mugabe. Now inflation is over a million and starvation is rampant because the government stole the farms and burned the homes of the farm workers. Break up the white run farms and let the land die. That is better than prosperity right?
    When will Jimmy Carter apologize for that and hang his head in shame? Surely that is a crime, right?

    Jimmy Carter ran out the Shah of Iran and allowed the revolutionary Khomenei and mullahs to take power. Turned a strong ally to an enemy. We will hear an apology or admission of fault? Iran started Hezbolla and they bombed and killed over 200 members of our military in Beirut. The mullahs in Iran and their current president are our enemies. But does the left agree? No I do not think so. Terrorism really started because of the failure of strong action by the U.S. under Jimmy Carter and Brezinski his foreign advisor (now Obama’s advisor). Do we get an apology?

    We will get an apology for the calumny and slander by John Kerry about our troops in Vietnam. That John Martha said the same about the Haitian incident. Will the Democrats every admit fault for the refusal to support S Vietnam for funding when the North Vietnam broke the peace treaty? Thousands were killed and more tens of thousands died on the seas in leaky boats trying to escape. How about an apology when we ran out on our Cambodians allies? Pol Pot slaughtered millions

    History repeats itself. The liberal loony left of the Democratic Party again attempts to run out of war prematurely. Harry Reid said we had lost in Iraq. Funny thing happened, not true. The new strategy worked, we are winning. Al Qaeda websites show the losses in Iraq. Yet the left said we could never win, that we were just causing a bigger problem. Al Qaeda was the major problem in Iraq after we defeated Saddam’s regime. They took the opportunity to fight the U.S. Army in Iraq. But they could not defeat us so the preyed on the Iraqi people and tried to foment civil war. They almost succeeded with the bombing of Samarra mosque. Al Qaeda is almost eliminated from Iraq. That is a success.

    Democrats and Obama have depended on America losing in Iraq. They tried their best to create that situation. Why? They cannot stand that Bush may have been right. The vitriol is so great by the Democrats, especially the loony left that they rather we lost and the enemy win. Is this responsible governing? This is why they focus on “ Bush lied, people died” a simplistic slogan for simple minds. It is the only thing they think they can get Bush on the supposed failure to find nuclear weapons that the Bush administration never said were there

    Now reasonable people can disagree with the decision to invade Iraq but they should not lie about that the Congress did not authorize it. People can change their minds about the rightness or wrongness of that decision but our Constitutional government does not allow to criminalize policy or to impeach a President on a policy that he had a Congressional authorization. Regardless of the reason for war the simple fact is that we did invade and have a responsibility to fix what we broke. That means we do not run out on Iraq. Once Iraq can stabilize and succor their own then we have a new ally in the strategic center of the Middle East.

  • Ymarsakar

    #210 from David Blue at 4:54 pm on Jun 08, 2008

    Another problem, which the Americans already are experiencing: there is no way, in this atmosphere, for businesses and perhaps even individuals to get guaranteed, permanent security against either ‘national committees of truth and reconciliation’ or lawsuits in politicized courts. The corrosive effect of this is sure to be terrible.

    If businesses, such as telecoms, come to the aid of the government once, because it’s a national emergency, and if they believe they will be covered because they came to their nation’s aid in a crisis and you can’t punish people for that, and if they are put at risk, if they are not covered … then you only get to do that once.

    If the people are forced to treat the government as a treacherous alien force that in time of trouble does not unite the people and harness their self-sacrificing efforts for the general good but that calls for trust and then betrays it, as one lot of politicians replaces another and hounds those who helped them, that’s BAD.

    What happens then is, people – and institutions, and networks of institutions – are likely to “shut up shop”, disengage from the nation and the state, and act the way paranoid Leftists think they do, as private empires with no expectation of any loyalty down, no loyalty up, and no willingness to be the next lot of suckers.

    That doesn’t have only a latent effect that will be felt the next time there’s a great crisis. If in effect you chop the top off the pyramid of loyalties that ultimately serve the state, you make client-patron relations the highest practical good, immediately and all the time.

    There is no “America”. “America” won’t save you from partisan vengeance being exacted on you by its on formal institutions, and, it will leave you staked out for the tort law dogs to eat. What matters is your real protectors, who will be the Republicans, or the Democrats, or some other faction or family such as the Kennedys. Keep their sheltering wings over you, do whatever it takes to make them win, and you’re OK. Fail to do so, and nothing you’ve done for the state or the nation will help you at all.

    So what then is the nation, or the state? It is a myth and an implement of power to be fought over, and that is all.

    I know some of this goes on anyway. But opening up companies and individuals who got a wild dose of self-sacrificing, risk-tolerant spirit in a national crisis to looting by lawsuit and to political “truth and justice” and “accountability” is bound to take things to a whole different level.

  • Ymarsakar

    Since the comments are closed there, I’ll have to post what I have already written here. It’d be a waste to delete it, after all.

    Arguably, yes, but we still got hit first, and as a result, those presidents had a far greater range of options to pursue the war than Bush did.– #165 from Chris at 5:36 am on Jun 08, 2008

    I never thought that there existed an American believer in the US Constitution that would sacrifice their neighbors simply in order to generate a greater political unity and support for aggressive bombing of enemy civilians and military forces.

    I suppose the world needs all kinds of people to function.

    Sure, but the core argument for war – they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence – was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war – as opposed to the war in Afghanistan – that’s not the case. And when Bush’s core cause for war is basically a purposeful fraud – which was never the case with the Civil War or WW2 – then we’ve got a real problem.

    It is extremely unethical and murderous to create a problem and then going in to take advantage of the people with such problems by giving them the solution to a problem you yourself created.

    Bush’s case was that Iraq would prevent WMDs from falling into enemy hands and being used on Americans. That has come true in the 8 years he has been office. This is not a fraud. A fraud would be giving Saddam wmds, letting him use it, while being internationally against Saddam and calling for his head, and then going in and invading Iraq after Saddam had used a WMD on Americans.

    Sacrificing a few hundred or thousand Americans in return for political support and a “non-fraud” like case, may seem optimal to some people but not to me.

    As it is, however, Bush misled us into war and we have a loss on our hands because of it.

    Given your logic, the ends justify the means. If we win, then we will be forgiven as Lincoln and FDR were. If we have the political support, then things change. Since we don’t have the support and aren’t winning in your view, our actions are not justified

    Given your amorality about things, I don’t think you should be talking about anyone “misleading” people.

    Yes, Andrew, they did – because they believed what Bush said about WMDs.

    In that case, you guys are the ones that fooled yourselves and thus shouldn’t lynch somebody else because you can’t look yourself in the mirror and face your own mistakes.

    Beating on others just because you can and because you feel uncomfortable with your own mistakes is very Middle Eastern. It is certainly not Constitutional American, although it is Western given the state of the West now.

    Nortius, “everybody” didn’t talk obsessively about Saddam having nukes when there was virtually no evidence of such

    Then obviously people who got fooled by Bush into thinking there were nukes, maybe should have done their homework instead of calling for Bush’s head after the fact.

    But the Bush admin – and only the Bush admin – is to blame for getting us into this war in the exact manner and circumstances that we did.

    Displacing your own responsibility unto some elected leader is not really going to solve anything.

    Governments and nations get the leader they deserve, and Bush was a far better leader than those with your views deserved. You deserved a leader that would be a master at deception, like Obama. Somebody that can keep you folks strung along forever and ever with numerous excuses and manipulations.

    That way, you will never have to break out of the illusion, Chris, and then having to deal with being “misled”. People who have shattered fantasies or world views tend to take things harshly. It is better for them to stay in the land of utopia and honey.

    This is followed by five paragraphs talking about WMDs before we get to even one paragraph that talks about humanitarian concerns.

    Saddam’s use of gas on the Kurds wasn’t a humanitarian concern? You might want to tell a Kurd that his family wasn’t part of humanity then, cause I think they are still being “misled” on that score.

    this is merely the plain and simple facts of the matter that really aren’t open to interpretation.

    Every fact is open to an interpretation, that’s how facts are processed by human beings. Humans aren’t computers that deal in only ones and zeroes.

  • Ymarsakar

    The comment section is long and involved. In summary we essentially have several people, Democrats and Leftists, that want to prosecute Bush for war crimes or stealing money to fund a private war in Iraq.

    The defenses against such is what makes up the rest of the comment thread, with outliers being comments about the original post, personal anecdotes, or summary analysis comments like this one.

    A sub thread takes the prosecution of your political opponents and takes it to the logical conclusion, which is civil war. If the current party knows that they will be jailed and executed if they give up power, will they ever give up power? And how would this affect America’s political stability, peaceful transfer of powre, and economic security?

    The one lone Democrat trait is ruthlessness. They actually prefer America to be hit first, sacrificing untold number of families, simply so they could get a better “justification” for war and keep their hands clean by telling themselves “we didn’t attack first”. Obviously the logical conclusion of “we didn’t attack first” is “they attacked us first and killed us because they weren’t worrying about us attacking them”.

    Apart from this, the Democrats are more or less mercurial, except in cases of slavery and exploitation of blacks and other minorities that can’t fight back. In one decade, Democrats might be in favor of overthrowing Saddam and against Iraq’s blockade. Then in the next decade, they do everything to continue the blockade and support Saddam.

  • Ymarsakar

    Btw, Book and others, there is a disturbing correlation with Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. Caesar had conquered much of Gaul (Spain was conquered in the 2nd/3rd Punic Wars) and was essentially proconsul of the province. Some inaccuracy on the exact bureaucratic name.

    Caesar did not want to go back to Rome without an army at his back because he was afraid of what would happen to him personally. Given that Roman Senators had long ago foisted the cost of raising and maintaining legions on the generals, the legion owed their loyalty entirely to the generals because it was the generals that paid their retirement and looked out for their families.

    This is exactly the same thing the Left proposes to create. A climate where successful military or political leaders must hire “muscle” in order to safeguard themselves from being persecuted by their political enemies. In the end though, Caesar made one huge mistake which was to trust the Senators of Rome and his friend Brutus not to stab him in the back; and the front as the case may have been.

    It is a sad day in the history of the human race when the greatest nation in human history may be brought down by petty dictators and tyrants, not from without, but from within.