This is precisely why we have a second ammendment. (Courtesy of Hot Right-wing Chick)

It looks to me like The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and James Lileks get it, while the New York Times editorial board remains serially clueless. President Bush's U.N. speech wasn't in any way a concession to the multilateralists. If you think about it the crux of his speech amounted to this: "Saddam Hussein has been mocking you multilateralist pansies for the last ten years. Because you haven't been been able to strap on a set of testies for the last ten years and do something about it, he's gotten to the point where he might eventually pose an actual threat. You can whine and bitch all you want about us actually making any move to resolve the situation but we're really going to give you two choices: strap on said testies and resolve the matter, or shut the f**k up while we do." This, of course, is viewed as a breakthrough for their position in Europe and the New York Times newsroom.

Well, today's Times has a really silly piece by Nicholas Kristof harping about how President Bush didn't offer any new evidence to indict Saddam to the U.N., yesterday. Specifically, he says

President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.

Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion.

For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true — as it was a decade ago.

So, eh..., Nick, we know that, in addition to being a bad man, Saddam Hussein is trying to get nukes, and just doesn't have 'em yet. Let me guess, you're saying that we should hold off on doing anything against Iraq until after we find that he can drop a couple of megatons on New York, Riyahd, or Tel Aviv. I'm not an expert on military science, but it kinda seems to me we might be risking a little more blood and treasure in that case. I mean saying lets not war against Iraq is one thing, but saying wait until he has a chance to catch up is another.

As many of you may know, I'm a Churchill fan. I found a great site that provides a few WSC quotes that seem especially apt in light of the War on Terror:


"... the United States, united as never before, have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard."
-Speech, 26th December, 1941


"Not so easily shall the lights of freedom die".
-Broadcast to the US, 16th June, 1941


"Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate". Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
-"The Second World War", Volume 3, "The Grand Alliance"


"We shall have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst--and we will do our best. Perhaps it will be our turn soon. Perhaps it will be our turn now." Possibly my personal favorite
- Speech, 14th July 1941. See "The Unrelenting Struggle"

Stephen DenBeste has an interesting article up on his website. Its a reply to a question in asking why Israel isn't included on a list of the U.S.'s allies. His response boils down to arguing that they are a client state (no less a friend, but not enough of an equal) to be truly considered an ally. As DenBeste sees is the U.S.'s true allies are Canada, Australia, and the U.K. In general, I think he's right. After years of whinging leftism, I'd consider New Zealand as coming around, though. As has been noted thoughout the Blogosphere, these have been about the only "allies" that have really given us any consistent level of assistance in the wake of 9/11.

Sorry to disagree with you Kim (Okay not really...), but this post from Cold Fury comes a little closer to capturing my particular emotional reaction to the 9/11 anniversary.