What the Heck was I Thinking!?

Over at Wizbang, a very interesting blog site, Jay Tea posts on the hypocracy and double standard that permeates the Wilson-Plame celebrity wannabe show.

My recent post on the Wilson/Plame publicity extravaganza also noted that discovery in this case will not be fun for the two publicity hounds, unless they take the Andy Warhol view that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

Bull Moose has an interesting take on the asymmetrical war concept regarding Israel and her neighbors.

The odd coincidence I have found is that Hammas and Hizbolla or one of the failing states around Israel starts a fight (no comment from world opinion at that point), and then starts getting their butts kicked. Israel, understanding how to deal with bullies, proceeds to give the instigator a real thorough thrashing. It is at this point when Israel is called to restrain herself and to not pick on the losers so much.

Now the question, who would cry of the destruction of Hammas or Hizbolla? Syria and Iran most likely - two countries who have sought the destruction of Israel publicly and violently for the past 30 years at least.

The real enemies of Israel, Iran and Syria, want her destruction. The real patsies in this fight, aside from the international press and professional hand wringers, are the leadership and rank and file of Hammas and Hizbollah. They don’t understand that their patron states don’t mind if they are anihilated by Israel.

The Worldwide Standard has a pair of excerpts from the Washington Post and AP about Bernard Schwartz, former CEO of Loral.

Seems he’s an active liberal political donor…when he’s not giving things to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

And a pretty damned good one, if I say so. At least this is the kind of diplomatic talk I understand.

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CNN) — An open microphone caught President Bush in an unguarded moment Monday as the escalating crisis in the Middle East prompted him to use an expletive in a conversation with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

I’m also pleased to note that it sounds as though he’s used to using the word in proper context.

I enjoy reading Mark Steyn’s commentary on most near anything. This review of Mark Malloch Brown is a perfect example of Mark Steyn’s skill and style.

With the hands of a surgeon and the eye of a cynic, Mark Steyn filets Mr. Brown very nicely. He points out not only the man’s shortfalls, but the kind of people he associates with (the UN).

Very incisive reading, if I may use the pun.

In a letter to Mark Steyn at Steyn Online, a commenter concludes that the US doesn’t have the will to win.

Without knowing who the enemy is and what victory looks like you can’t have a strategy. Without a strategy you can’t integrate all the elements of national power and you can’t win the battle of public ideas. The USA lacks the will to even put together a strategy to survive let alone win. Without a strategy defeat is almost certain and I am almost certain that the USA has no strategy.

I disagree with the conclusion. We don’t currently have the will to win, but that’s because the US is slow to start on these things.

Just as in World Wars I and II, we are late starters, require a severe kick in the ars to get focuse, but then build up a head of steam fairly quickly after that. That’s when the advantage of the US economic and political systems kick in and show others how to get things done.

Okay, so I’m a “glass-half-full” kind of guy.