International “Court” to Israel: You Cannot Defend Yourself

McQ, over at Q&O, makes mention of a Jeff Robbins bit in the Boston Globe today, and notes:

“Peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict requires both sides to work toward it. The Palestinians have shown very little if any desire to participate in such a process. They’ve done little to stop attacks against Israelis. This unwillingness on their part to stop the violence leaves little in the way of choices for Israel.”

If you need confirmation of McQ’s statements, might I suggest a look down a couple posts to a picture of a couple small Palestinian boys, about 8 to 10 years of age, with AK 47’s… at the Palestinian version of the Summer camp..

Dick Morris, in his column in the NY Post this morning, agrees:

“The fact is that a multilateral peace in the Middle East is clearly impossible. At the end of his tenure, President Bill Clinton negotiated a treaty with very generous terms only to watch it be rejected by Yasser Arafat and the PLO delegation. It is fanciful to believe that the cessation of a few miles of territory to an independent Palestinian state is going to prevent suicide bombings and other acts of terror by deranged fanatics.

Nor is it realistic to expect to deter suicide bombers by threatening to kill them. Unilateral Israel military action, occupying Palestinian territory and rooting around for terrorists, just antagonizes the world and does little to protect Israel or deter attacks.

A fence, which I have urged for years, is the best ? and only ? way to protect Israel. It is a unilateral way to make peace. ”

Peter Berkowitz, in a Weekly Standard column of last March, makes the point that the fence is one thing that the wildly divided Israeli voters, agree upon.

“IN ISRAELI POLITICS, contentiousness is the norm and consensus is rare. This makes all the more striking the broad and deep consensus that has formed among Israelis around the conviction that the country, without delay, must complete the construction of the security fence separating it from the West Bank and the Palestinians who live there.

The cause of the consensus is terror. In the old days, before September 2000, it was a mark of the country’s national security challenge that almost every adult Israeli had served in the military, and every Israeli had friends and loved ones in the army. These days, the distinguishing mark of the country’s national security challenge is something grimmer: Almost every Israeli knows somebody who has been wounded, maimed, or blown to bits by a suicide bomber. For Israelis, the front line is now at home, and it is this transformation of their struggle with the Palestinians that has produced an overwhelming majority–perhaps two thirds of the citizenry–in favor of the security fence.”

And the fence is performing to expectations, as Morris notes:

“No Israeli has been killed in a terrorist attack in an area where the fence has been completed in all of 2004 and terrorist attacks are down substantially from the rate of previous years.”

So, what’s the International Court’s problem? Apparently, the idea that Israel can defend herself. But think, now… Isn’t this the same end of the world political spectrum who along with their amen chorus in the Democratic Party, here in the States, can’t figure out why Americans would want, much less use, their second amendment rights?

McQ addresses this concern rather well, suggesting in part that:

“This travesty points to why it is so important that the US retain its sovereignty and reject such institution as the International Court. The concept of a “fair and benevolent world government” may be an enticing utopian vision, but current attempts fall far short of that goal. Justice demands equal treatment, fairness and impartiality. It demands that the arguments of both sides be heard and weighed and a fair decision be rendered. It requires that the political realm be banished from that of justice.

The current International Court decision against Israel’s fence points to an international institution that is not ready for prime time and does not deserve to be supported by the US. The IC chose politics over justice, and that’s simply unacceptable. The decision also underscores the fact that the US should continue to resist participation in or submission to the rulings of such institutions. ”

Amen, McQ.
But let’s also remember, that there is one Presidential candidate who wants us to become more subservient to this travesty called the ‘International Court”…. John Kerry.

Oh… Maybe it’s the Palestinian leadership who wants Kerry in and Bush out… The ones who since the 9/11 attacks have killed over 1000 people… And are now training the kids in the picture I’ve posted below….Perhaps THOSE are the leaders he spoke of and never identified, huh?

Well, here’s what the BBC thinks was key as regards the Butler report, issued this morning. I post it only because it’s the first up… I’ll find better was we go along.

My initial reation to Lord Buter’s report delivery this morning (which was on C-Cpan and on the BBC feed as well) involved several perceptions:

Here is an exacting man who clearly has a history in dealing with legal questions.

The press questioning him lost on both counts. The press seemed to me amost rabidly out for blood, and several reporters, that for CNN and Channel 4 and the Telegraph, particularly, seemed very hard pressed to accept the report, seeking rather to push the idea that the governments of both the UK and of the US, had tried to push a position not supported by the facts as then known.

The reaction of the press to the report reminded one of an errant dog, being struck on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Compliant, but obviously not happy about it, and still looking for a way to get up on the table to the food it thinks is there.

Example; one reporter repeatedly questioned Lord Butler on the idea that the report didn’t find anything wrong with the “Yellowcake from Niger” report, even though several other news agencies have reported that investigations into that situation had known of such sales for over 3 years.

I’ll toss up more links on the report as more come in; I expect the report to be some time in the digestion process; It’s rather large, (196 pages) and detailed.

I did tell the BBC by way of a feedback page, that:

“It amazes me how many people who are claiming that Blair and Bush either cherry picked or outright manufactured data to support their position on Iraq, are themselves cherry picking or manufacturing data to support their own position on Iraq….. with the added advantage of 20/20 hindsight…. and see nothing at all wrong with it.

And… what do you know… many of these are in the press…”

Sky News serves up a little dose of reality:

(This is a Sky News Photo, obviously)

Says Sky:

“Children as young as 10 are being recruited to fight for the Palestinian cause.

Sky News has gained access to a young people’s camp in Gaza, where the only lesson taught is how to kill Israelis. The recruits, some of whom are dwarfed by their AK-47 assault rifles, are taught how to carry out ambushes. 

They are also made to do an obstacle course, crawling under barbed wire and leaping through hoops of fire while their instructors fire live bullets overhead. ”

Ah, yes… the religion of peace. All the “Palastinians” want is peaceful co-existance with the Jews.

Right, Yassir?

Read the whole thing.

The Command Post is busy tracking a story we’ll all be watching with interest tonight:

“Close associate of Osama bin Laden, Khaled al-Harbi, surrenders to Saudi security officials in Tehran, Saudi official says. Details soon”

Command Post seems to have a better handle on this story tha I at the moment.

I seem to have evolved.
After noting a similar state of affairs over at Bill Hobbs’ place, I looked at my own rating for the first time in some months, and noted that I too, had been shifted upwards… I am now an “Adorable Little Rodent”, up from “Flappy Bird”. While I suppose to a non-blogger these don’t sound very impressive, perhaps some context will help.

TTLB has me ranked at number 1933 overall, with 43 unique inbounds, and a daily average hit rate of 88.

(Of the billion or so blogs out there, I’m in the top 2000? Cool!)

This puts me more or less on par with the fine efforts of Belgravia Dispatch, Aarron’s Rantblog, and The Command Post

Some pretty heady company, this.

OK, it means nothing to most of you, but personally, I’m going to have a beer to celebrate. Now back to BiitsBlog, which was already in progress.

Jon Henke over at Q&Oweighs in on the “myth” that Kerry is the most liberal Senator, saying, in part:

Kevin Drum does some myth-busting of his own.  In response to a bit of “common knowledge”–i.e., Kerry is the “most liberal Senator”–that’s been propogated by critics of Kerry, Kevin pulls a Harvey and points out the rest of the story….

Courtesy of one of Andrew Sullivan’s correspondents, here are the rankings for the past five years:

2003: Kerry – 1st (96.5) Edwards – 4th (94.5)
2002: Kerry – 9th (87.3) Edwards – 31st (63.0)
2001: Kerry – 11th (87.7) Edwards – 35th (68.2)
2000: Kerry – 20th (77) Edwards – 19th (80.8)
1999: Kerry – 16th (80.8) Edwards – 31st (72.2)
Average: Kerry – 12th (85.9) Edwards – 24th (75.7)

The rankings for 2003 are skewed by the campaign season, and a longer look shows that Kerry is liberal, but hardly a Paul Wellstone liberal, and Edwards is smack in the middle of the Democratic pack.

I’d imagine that their….er, somewhat spartan attendance record doesn’t give them much opportunity to shore up their moderate credentials, either. 

In any event, this seems to disprove the idea that Kerry is the “most liberal Senator”.  For what it’s worth, I don’t really get the impression that Kerry is significantly more or less liberal than many other Democrats. ”

That was NOT the argument. THe statement by the RNC was to simply quote the ADA, as was seen in CNS’s news feed:

(CNSNews.com) – It’s official, the Republican National Committee said on Wednesday. The Kerry-Edwards ticket has made history, because it is more liberal than the 1984 Mondale-Ferraro team, based on ratings from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action.

The ADA gave Democrat Walter Mondale a lifetime rating of 90 percent, the RNC noted, while John Kerry’s lifetime ADA rating is 92 percent.

Mondale’s running mate Geraldine Ferraro received a 79 percent lifetime ADA rating, while John Edwards’ lifetime ADA rating is 81 percent.

Americans for Democratic Action says it judges politicians’ liberal tendencies, based on 20 key votes on a wide range of social and economic issues, both domestic and international.

“Since ADA’s founding in 1947, the Annual Voting Records have served as the standard measure of political liberalism,” the group’s website says.

So, if I’m reading Kevin’s posting correctly, he’s suggesting that these stats were skewed by the ADA to make these people look better to their fellow liberals…. stats designed by liberals to make their fellow liberals look more liberal and therefore more attractive,and more electable, to their fellow liberals.

And it also appears Kevin himself is using some selective stats, just to make this point.So, is what’s going on that Kevin’s using selective stats to suggest that we can’t take liberals (the ADA) at their word because they use selective stats?

So is what Kevin’s really saying is that we can’t trust liberals OR their apologists because they use tainted data to make their points? Drum and those trying to dispell the notion that Kerry isn’t by far the most liberal thumbsucker that the DNC has ever puked up as presidental material are simply not credible, sorry.

And as an aside someone (over at Cox and Forkum I think) mentions; how can he be the most liberal senator based on his voting record when he hasn’t VOTED in about a year or so?

Some complexity gets into the picture however when we find out that the ADA site has at least two different sets of numbers for the same period…. which to MY mind increases the chances that ADA was, as Drum suggests, fudging numbers.

Jon seemingly defends Drum by suggesting a comparative look at the record of Dennis Kucinich, who Jon suggests is the most liberal in the Senate. Perhaps this is a valid point, however, the ADA didn’t seem to think so. Perhaps they weren’t taking Kucinich seriously. Or perhaps that for all of his leftist bluster, Kucinich actually voted farther to the right than did Kerry and Edwards.(If either of those are so, that raises some serious questions also, particularly in Ohio, but I’ll let those pass for the moment.)

Someone else pipes in anonymously, and by way of incredularity, swerves into the biggest truth, here:

Those of you who don’t have a problem with these rankings, do you truly believe John Kerry and John Edwards actually are the first and fourth most liberal senators or are you just spouting talking points?

To which I reply:

If we’re talking strictly about votes, yes, I do think so. If we’re talking about positions, what time is it?

As Thomas Sowell says today:

“It is an insult to our intelligence to claim conservative values when both liberal and non-partisan organizations have rated John Kerry’s voting record as the most liberal in the Senate, more liberal even than Ted Kennedy’s.

What matters is not what Senator Kerry says during an election year about life beginning at conception. What mat ters is how he has voted on bills involving abortion — and how he has declared that he will block the appointment of any judges who are not pro-abortion.”

Kerry and Edwards are both on record as playing both sides of every issue in this election… and clearly, we cannot trust their words. At that point, all you have left to make judgements on as regards their ability to run the WH, is their actions… their records. And their records are even by liberal standards, abysmally liberal.

As such I place all this argument about who is the most liberal Senator in the same pile of dung as I put Kerry making the claim that he supports Conservative values…which he did over the weekend.

Such is the question being asked by Rich Lowry , who is a regular read for me. says Rich:

“…People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq.’ …Democratic-platform draft language

What to make of a political party that doesn’t officially have a position on the biggest policy question in our politics? The Democratic-platform language on Iraq is almost meaningless. People of good will disagree about most everything, up to and including abortion and child labor … yet the Democrats manage to have positions on those issues. Iraq war, yes or no? The Democrats answer with a definite maybe.”

Ah, yes, strong decisive leadership, eh?

This is a tacit admission on the part of Kerry’s people that the action in Iraq has more popular support than he does.

Armstrong Williams says Preisdent Bush was correct in telling the NAACP “thanks anyway”.

“NAACP Chairman Julian Bond opened the organization’s 95th annual convention with harsh words for the Republicans and the President.

The Republican Party appeals to “the dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality,” snarled Bond, who later said he feared President Bush was “going to repeal the 14th amendment” guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

The harsh words have become a tradition for Bond. Since becoming chairman of the NAACP in 1998, he has consistently used the organization’s conventions to publicly proclaim his distaste for the Republicans. He’s alternately referred to them as “neo-fascists,” “the white-people’s party” and “a crazed swarm of right-wing locusts” that have sought to “subvert, ignore, defy and destroy the laws that require an America which is bias-free.” Bond opened the NAACP’s 93rd annual national convention July 11 by comparing President Bush to a “snake
oil” salesman.

Ironically, Bond also expressed disappointment that President Bush chose not to participate in this year’s convention.”

Well, I certainly can’t see any reason Mr. Bush wouldn’t want to speak to such a group, can you?

Bob Jones University leaps to mind, unbidden.

FNC is reporting:

“Reports show that fringe groups are hatching a plot on the Internet, telling people how to attack and trick police with the ultimate goal of evacuating Madison Square Garden (search). The suggestions include everything from throwing marbles in the path of police-mounted horses to going to shooting ranges before heading to the convention so that their clothes will reek of gunpowder and trick bomb-sniffing dogs on the subways and commuter trains.”

Hmm. Whaddayasay we run up to Boston and disprupt the Donkey Convention?

John Hawkins has a real gem, here.

Matt Hoy, over at Hoystory.com quotes WV senator Jay Rockefeller speaking about his vote for our action against Saddam:

“I voted for it, because I sat approximately 50 feet, you know, looking as I am at you, in front of the president of the United States, telling me that they had nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, and the means to, you know, ballistically send them … weaponize them, and send them in our direction, or through terrorism, through Al Qaeda.

Says Matt:

Read that last paragraph again. Rockefeller is claiming that President Bush told him something that no one in the Bush administration ever said publicly.

Something Secretary of State Colin Powell never claimed when he outlined the case against Saddam Hussein in the U.N. Security Council. And something Rockefeller himself has never claimed before.

Rockefeller just claimed on national TV that President Bush told him Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Not developing nuclear weapons. Not desiring nuclear weapons. But having nuclear weapons.”

Matt can’t figure out why the news people missed that flat out lie, and he’s right… taken at face value, it becomes clear Rockefeller is a liar.

But let’s take this a step further. Doesn’t the Senate Intel Committee, of which Rockefeller is a member, have oversight functions? Which is to say, didn’t Rockefeller just admit to the world he fell down on the job, if his claims about what Mr. Bush said were true?

So, if this is the case, Rockefeller is an idiot.
The only question left is which way this will fall out.

The Boston Globe reports there will be protests at the DNC convention.

“Two weeks before the Democratic National Convention begins, hope has all but disappeared that labor protests can be avoided during the huge party gathering, despite last-minute pressure to hurry the dispute into arbitration.”

But, I’ll bet you a nice keyboard you won’t see anything of the anti-Democrat protests, and the Demoats crossing the picket lines on the national reports.

Michael Isikoff over at P-MS-NBC expresses some interest in the concept of delaying the election, because of Madrid -like terrorism concerns.

(Shrug) It’s certainly a valid concern, and Ridge is quite correct to ask hte questions… that’s his job. It’s a logical question to ask, as well.

And to those who suggest this is simply Bush trying to hang onto power, the fact is that another attack on these shores will reinforce Bush’s election to a lock status. So, no, that’s not the motivation.

My only thought would be, given the long-term war we find ourselves in, is theb situation going to get better enough to allow for an election at any time soon?

Those who claim there is no good and evil, are invariably exposed as being evil, in the end

Activity may lead to evil, but inactivity cannot lead to good.

Evil uses truth to it’s own ends, but can only do so in small doses.

Debra Saunders points up, among other things the overall strategy, here:

” There was no Republican in charge when blackouts hit Northern California in June 2000, but if the Dems can tie Lay to Bush, voters may forget.”

In fact, when the blackouts began, Gray Davis was governor. Bill Clinton was president. Clinton played golf with Lay. ”

She also points up at the lead of the amen chours for the Democrats in the press on this one as in many other points, is a name you’ll know.. and what do you know, there’s an Enron connection, here…

“But I forget the columnist who, before joining The New York Times, received $50,000 to serve on an Enron advisory board. He later gushed about Enron in a Fortune magazine piece, without disclosing his Kenny Boy connection. His name is Paul Krugman.”

Amazing how the facts change things, isn’t it?