Our Enemies Use Our Own Adherence to Law Against Us — But We Knew That

Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.
 
They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses.
 
Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules.
 
It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.

Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, Hamas, the Gaza War and Accountability Under International Law, Address to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 18 June 2009.

Excellent article: RTWT.

The Quayle-O-Meter goes DingDingDingDingDingDing!!!

Obama in Moscow:

Along the way, you gave us a pretty good deal on Alaska. Thank you.

D’OH!!!

The man is a Laff Riot!!!

That’s the way to “hit the Reset button”, Mr. President. Remind the Russians of perhaps the stupidest thing they ever did.

(Can you imagine the teeth-grinding rage of a person like Putin, a guy who has clawed his way to the top on sheer wit, cunning and brutality, having to deal with this lightweight and take him seriously? I almost feel sorry for Putin.)

Can you imagine if any Republican said this? How about if Sarah Palin said it? Geez.

Bottom line: The guy is a smooth-talking ignoramus: not all that smart, not well-read, with a wafer-thin resume.

Some people who are paying attention don’t call our President His Holiness Messiah Barack I or even just The One: We call him J. Danforth Obama!

Hold on to your hats, folks. We are in for at least 3.5 more years of comedic hijinks.

Via Instapundit.

UPDATE: David Brooks — traitor! — says that Obama has restored, get this, dignity to the presidency, sorta like George Washington! “Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity.” So, whatever his defects as, you know, president, we an at least admire his deportment! Duh, no, can’t agree with that one. George Washington would not have set off the Quayle-O-Meter nearly so often. This guy Obama is “dispassionate” until someone disagrees with him even a little, then he gets downright grumpy. I will agree that he is wise to be reticient when he does not have his teleprompter handy. I must say, Mr. Brooks is putting a pretty thin veil over what is turning out to be a big, steaming chunk of buyer’s remorse.

Brooks goes on: “The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact.” Gadzooks! That better not be right! If Obama’s cultural effects are as destructive as his policy impact, at the rate we are going, we are going to return to paleolithic conditions, and maybe even be reduced to communicating in a system of grunts and squeals like our primate cousins.

A significant cultural effect of Mr. Obama’s presidency has already been determined. We are now a culture where the rules applied to Governor Palin by the Democrats and their running dog lackeys in the media and the entertainment industry — destroy the enemy at any cost, by any means — will be and must be applied to everyone who wants to play the game of politics. That is cultural degradation, and it is irreversible. But if that is how the combat is now conducted, only a fool would play by chivalric rules. So be it. On to 2010 and 2012.

UPDATE II: Yow! Check out this picture. Medvedev shows a cringing, needful, almost-supine Obama, which one of them is the biggest and baddest guy in the room . Hint: It ain’t the skinny guy with the bicycle helmet.

UPDATE III: Obama being dignified.

UPDATE IV: To clarify: In my original post on this theme, I asked this question, “This is my proposed Quayle Test. Ask yourself: How each time Obama says something stoopid, would the press would have crucified Dan Quayle for it?” Obama fails this test pretty darn frequently. I am not trying to be mean to Dan Quayle. Gerald Ford got similarly unfair treatment. Barack gets the kid gloves treatment. He shouldn’t. The rules should be the same for all politicians. Ha. As if. We’ll never live to see the day.

UPDATE V: A commenter accused me and this blog racism. I spit on that accusation. But I mention it for an important point. Mr. Obama chose to run for president, and as he has told us: “I won”. Yes, he did. And as president, he is going to be subject to the exact same degree of criticism, fair and foul, reasoned or crazed, which every president gets. More, he is going to get the same mean-spirited treatment that his supporters dish out.

Mr. Obama’s race is not going to be a way to intimidate his critics into silence. No one is going to play that. This is a democracy, and the people will not behave with courtly decorum, even if David Brooks thinks they should. Mr. Obama is made of stern enough stuff to take the criticism. There. I said something almost fair and even nice about him.

And for what it’s worth, one of my great political regrets is that Colin Powell — who is every bit as Black as Mr. Obama — did not run for president in 1996. I would not only have voted for General Powell, I would have worked for his campaign. For one thing, President Powell would not have failed to kill Osama bin Laden in 1998, when Clinton could not pull the trigger. The world would be a different and better place.

I assume that Obama’s supporters will routinely accuse his opponents of racism without any basis, for the entirety of his term in office. That is how they play the game.

Fair warning: It won’t make anyone shut up.

A Question That Needs to be Asked

Most of you are no doubt familiar with the Washington Post salon scandal, where people with very deep pockets were invited to pony up $25,000 USD in order to have a dinner at the house of publisher Katharine Weymouth.

What would you get for that kind of scratch? The movers and shakers at the newspaper would personally introduce you to the movers and shakers at the White House, as well as the reporters who covered them. Pay them cash, and the good folks at the WaPo would create an instant handshake relationship with the very people who are shaping the future of the country, and those who shape public perception of same. If you are a representative from a special interest group, a corporation or lobbyist, this was like sounding the dinner bell at fat camp.

As the article I linked to above points out, this sort of thing is done all the time by newspapers with their foot in the White House press room door. But this time around it was just a bit too blatant to pass the smell test. The wage slaves in the WaPo’s very own bullpen, the ink stained wretches that are never invited to any of the best shindigs because they are “gray people”, screamed bloody murder. No one had asked them, they claimed. HA! Like anyone who spends their days in a newspaper’s board room on the top floor would ask what a reporter thought when bucks were on the line!

Read more

Iran and Prognosticators

One of my favorite quotes (I don’t even know if it’s true) is supposedly from Jack Welch and it is about how he got rid of his forecasting department:

We might be surprised, but we won’t be surprised we’re surprised

Businesses are often surprised by changes to the environment, even while they tout their ability to master the situation. One company I used to work with had a joint venture with CISCO in the dot.com era – at the time CISCO was touting their advanced financial capabilities, their ability to close the books a few days after quarter end, and most importantly their supply chain mastery that allowed them to accurately forecast demand. Almost immediately after that period of boasting, CISCO had a big inventory write down since they built too far ahead of demand and had to scrap the unsold goods and materials.

Read more

ChicagoBoyz Makes the Village Voice

Or perhaps I should say we got dragged into the Village Voice. They linked to Jonathan’s post:  Michael Jackson’s Death: A Media-Driven National Disaster.  Apparently, the Village Voice is amused that non-leftists are upset that Jackson’s death is distracting the media away from more real concerns.