The brutal choice in Iraq

In a strangely uncovered story, 1 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel offered this advice for President Obama:

(W)hen your enemies are fighting one another, don’t strengthen either one of them. Weaken both.

The video is below the fold, because it’s an annoying autostart

That’s sort of the reverse of what we have said previously on this site, that we ought to provide just enough assistance to the Syrian rebels that they can keep on fighting, but not enough to win, because that will leave whichever side eventually wins in Syria having been so weakened and having to deal with so much death and destruction that they’ll have neither the time nor the money nor the ability to engage in foreign mischief. To your Editor, in fleshing out Mr Netanyahu’s statement, weakening both sides ought to mean strengthening both enough for them to weaken each other.

The problem in Iraq, spilling over from Syria, is that the Islamist rebels couldn’t win in Syria, but are doing much better in Iraq, against the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who was not-quite-directly-selected by the United States. We really don’t want them to win, and even President Obama doesn’t want them to win, but unless he strengthens and supports Mr al-Maliki’s government and army, that would seem to be the more probable outcome. Since the Prime Minister is a Shi’ite, and the Shi’a are the majority in Iraq, Iran has expressed some interest in supporting the majority Shi’a government; the rebels are predominantly radical Sunnis.2

So, let’s be realistic, coldly realistic here: Prime Minister Netanyahu was right in stating that the best thing that the West can do is to weaken both sides, but you can’t weaken both sides, by yourself, without actually fighting both sides. The only realistic way is to help the weaker side, up to the point at which it can continue to fight, and kill, some of its, and our, and all of civilization’s enemies, without giving them enough help to actually win, though I have my doubts that President Obama and his Administration could manage to accomplish this with any real success. The best thing for Western civilization is for Shi’a and Sunni Muslims to keep fighting and fighting and fighting until they drown in a sea of their own blood, and whoever survives will be so greatly weakened and war-weary to cause problems for the West. It’s ugly and it’s brutal, but anything that weakens the Islamists is a good thing.

Continue reading ‘The brutal choice in Iraq’ »

  1. I couldn’t find any references to any of the major professional news sources.
  2. The notion that rebels who are actually fighting in the field can somehow be moderates is silly; moderates do not fight. Moderates try to seek some sort of common ground, some sort of middle on which all sides can agree enough to not kill each other.

Kathleen Kane, wrong again!

From The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Sandusky investigation was reasonable, report finds
Craig R. McCoy and Angela Couloumbis, Inquirer Staff Writers | Last updated: Monday, June 23, 2014, 1:07 AM | Posted: Sunday, June 22, 2014, 10:48 PM

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane in March. (Michael Bryant / Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Photographer) Click to enlarge.

A report into the three-year investigation of serial sex abuser Jerry Sandusky found that prosecutors, facing a shaky initial witness, had reason to take their time to build a case with multiple victims, according to sources familiar with the document.Though raising questions about delays in the inquiry, the report, scheduled to be released Monday, does not fault prosecutors for using a grand jury to investigate Sandusky, the sources said. It also found no evidence that politics or a lack of resources influenced the investigation.

The report notes prosecutors from the state Attorney General’s Office felt strongly that testimony from the first boy to accuse Sandusky would likely not have been enough to convict the former assistant football coach at Pennsylvania State University.

It does question some decisions along the way. For instance, it notes that prosecutors took too long to take certain investigative steps, including gathering reports on Sandusky from other law enforcement agencies, the sources said.

The report was commissioned and will be released by Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, who was elected in 2012 largely on a campaign that questioned whether one of her predecessors in the job, Gov. Corbett, deliberately slowed the investigation for political purposes.

In her bid for office, Kane said, “Instead of using a grand jury in the Jerry Sandusky case, I would have had him arrested after the first victims came forward.”

Kane, a Democrat, suggested that Corbett, a Republican, delayed the probe to avoid angering voters and donors. Politics, she told the editorial board of one newspaper, “probably” drove his decisions.

“You don’t put a case like that before the grand jury,” she said. “That was the leadership. Somebody made that decision that they’re going to drag that out.”

However, the review by former federal prosecutor Geoffrey Moulton concludes it was reasonable for prosecutors to build a case with many victims, the sources said. The Moulton report notes that the first victim to come forward had difficulty talking about his abuse, to police or a grand jury, and would often give only one-word replies when questioned about Sandusky’s attacks.

More at the link.1 Normally, I would not have quoted quite as extensively, but I wanted to get all of the important parts documented. Simply put, the prosecutor Attorney General Kane selected wound up saying that Mrs Kane’s statement that she “would have had him arrested after the first victims came forward” might well have destroyed the case.

And that part was already known! Jerry Sandusky had faced child molestation charges in 1998, but the Centre County District Attorney didn’t proceed because he had only one complainant, and, as we reported earlier, he was not seen as credible enough on which to base a case; Mr Sandusky would probably have been acquitted had the 1998 case gone forward.

The lovely Mrs Kane has been, in effect, found guilty of the very charges she leveled at Governor Corbett.  She claimed, in her 2012 election campaign, that then-Attorney General Corbett politicized the case by delaying it, in order to win the 2010 gubernatorial race, something the report states no evidence has been found.  Now it turns out that Mrs Kane is the one who was wrong, and she was the one who politicized the case to win her election.

Your Editor, of course, is a conservative Republican, and could be charged as being biased against Mrs Kane.  But even the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper which consistently supports Democrats, editorialized that Mrs Kane’s stories keep changing, and now Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, a Democrat, is convening a grand jury to pursue the charges on a sting case Mrs Kane dramatically dropped against Democratic officials.  Even Tom Wolfe, now the Democratic nominee challenging Governor Corbett for re-election, said that Mrs Kane was wrong to drop that investigation.

Kathleen Kane is an embarrassment to the Commonwealth as our Attorney General.

  1. The official report is to be released today; the Inquirer’s story was based on an early report.

From Around the Blogroll

From Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit:

REPORT: Judge Who Sentenced Saddam Hussein to Death – Captured & Executed by ISIS
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, June 22, 2014, 10:50 AM

Judge Rauf Rashid and Saddam Hussein

Several Arab News websites are reporting the news.  Al-Mesyroon reported (translated)

There were reports of the execution of Iraqi judge, Raouf Abdel-Rahman, who sentenced Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to death, according to confirmed the pages on the social networking site, without official confirmation from the Iraqi government.

The pages on social networking sites, including Page MP Jordanian Khalil Attieh on the site “Facebook” to“revolutionaries Iraqis arrested him and sentenced him to death in retaliation for the death of the martyr Saddam Hussein,” he said, adding that Rauf tried to escape from Baghdad after wearing uniforms dancers. She page Izzat al-Douri, vice-president Saddam Hussein, the “Facebook” to the rebels Iraqis were able to arrest the Kurdish judge Rauf Rashid, who issued a death sentence against the former Iraqi leader, which is currently in the “grip of the soldiers of the Islamic State and the men of the Baath Party.”

Wikipedia says he is dead: “On 16 June 2014, Abd al-Rahman was arrested by ISIS rebels during 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. Two days later, it was reported that ISIS captured and executed him.”

Iraqi officials have not denied the news.

If the report is true, it’s not much of a surprise. I posted this primarily to note the part Mr Hoft boldfaced, where the Iraqi rebels are referring to a butcher like Saddam Hussein as a “martyr.” I hope that he’s enjoying his seventy-two boy virgins in whatever Hell he’s in.

Donna Miller of the Victory Girls wrote about Pope Francis’ action declaring a latæ sententiæ excommunication for members of ‘Ndrangheta, southern Italy’s most dangerous organized crime group.

Sister Toldjah told us about Governor Rick Perry’s (R-TX) invitaion to President Obama to visit the Texas/Mexico border.

William Teach wrote about Mark Tooley’s (rhetorical) question, “Who respects a church that only echoes the secular world?

DNW noted that Truth Before Dishonor had a liberal visitor the other day.

Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom told us about the left’s “shut-uppery” meme concerning the problems in Iraq.

L D Jackson informs us that Barack Hussein Obama really did keep a campaign promise.

Donald Douglas is just all torn up about a mother’s plea that her jihadist son return to Britain.

Patterico is just so enthusiastic about the Pyrite State getting shipped some of the illegal immigrants in Texas.

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, asks if we’ve seen some of the crap that our troops have to eat?

On the Delaware Liberal, Pandora encouraged driving under the influence.

And last, but not least, Robert Stacey Stacy McCain, the only man I know who is longer-winded than I am, used more than 750 words to write about the attempts by the feminists to make Eliot Rodger’s shooting spree an indictment of all (heterosexual) men.


Rule 5 Blogging: The Glam Life

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Selena Gomez in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

This week, the absolutely glamorous life of women in the United States Army! I’m not sure how any American woman could resist volunteering for such a high fashion life in such romantic settings. Click any photo to enlarge.


Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: The Glam Life’ »

I should be writing something absolutely brilliant now . . .

.  .  . but I have to be at work at 0430 tomorrow, so consider this an open thread and start a topic!

The answer is obvious


From The Jerusalem Post:

Prisoners may be anesthetized before force-feeding
Changes added to bill to make it safer for prisoners, but doctors still refuse to uphold it.
By LAHAV HARKOV | 06/18/2014 15:26

Prisoners who go on hunger strike may be anesthetized before being force-fed, if a bill on the issue passes its final vote Monday.

The Knesset Interior Committee prepared the legislation for its second and third (final) readings Wednesday, adding significant changes for the prisoners’ comfort and safety. For example only a doctor can administer the IV or gastronomy tube, and the procedure may only take place in a hospital.

Still, the Israel Medical Association instructed doctors not to uphold the law if it passes.

As such, many in the Knesset see the bill as impossible to implement and a form of posturing toward prisoners in an attempt to get them to stop their hunger strike.

The committee reached an article in the bill saying that a doctor should try as much as possible to get the prisoner to agree to be force-fed by explaining to him the adverse effects of his hunger strike on his health and detailing the force-feeding procedure. If the prisoner still does not acquiesce, the doctor can use reasonable force to coerce him into the treatment and must try to do so without causing pain and suffering.

More at the link.

OK, let me be blunt here:

  1. if the Palestinian prisoners starve themselves to death, the Palestinians will be outraged; and
  2. if the government force-feeds the prisoners, the Palestinians will also be outraged; but
  3. if the Palestinian prisoners do starve themselves to death, at least they won’t be problems any longer.

The answer is obvious: if the prisoners want to hunger strike themselves to incapacity or death, let them! Why interfere?

Shocking, I know

Patterico was surprised to see that even The Los Angeles Times has reported that Obamacare subsidies push cost of health law above projections.  Why, it’s almost as though the Democrats either:

  1. Didn’t have the foggiest notion of what they were foisting upon the country; or
  2. The Democrats were deliberately lying through their scummy teeth.

Good thing we passed it, so that we could find out what’s in it!

I am somewhat amused

There is a kerfuffle going around these days about Hillary Clinton, and her work as a young attorney in Arkansas. Mrs Clinton defended a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, and she wound up arranging a plea bargain which got him off with time served, which had been about two months in the county jail. And the Conservative Tribune has the audio tape of an interview in which Mrs Clinton was telling an interviewer, Roy Reed, about her legal experiences, and in which she told Mr Reed about what a great job she did. Mrs Clinton believed that her client was guilty, something she made clear in the interview, which would be a violation of attorney-client privilege.

Now, I absolutely support the right of a criminal defendant to legal representation, and as his attorney, it was Mrs Clinton’s job to get the best deal she could for her client, whether she believed him to be guilty or not. But what amused me was the tape itself:

Your Editor is a Southern boy, having grown up in Kentucky, but I don’t really have much of a Kentucky accent. Why? Because I was born in California, and my mother was from Maine, and by the time we moved to the Bluegrass State, in March of 1962, I was just shy of my ninth birthday, and much of my accent was already set. My sisters, both of whom are younger than I am, have stronger Kentucky accents because they really hadn’t been talking for all that long when we moved to Mt Sterling.

Yet, in this tape, Hillary Clinton, born in 1947, growing up in Chicago and having gone to school in the Northeast, worked in Washington, and not having moved to Arkansas until 1975, when she was 28 years old, has a pronounced Arkansas accent.1 I’d call that an affectation, speech or conduct not natural to oneself, to try to blend in with the Arkansans who had elected her husband to be their governor. Yet, despite eight long years of her being our First Lady, years in which I saw her on television many times, not that long removed from the Natural State,2 I had never noticed any sort of Southern accent in her before listening to this tape.

The woman is nothing but a phony, and a complete hypocrite.

  1. Pun most definitely intended.
  2. Yes, that really is the state nickname.

A very serious question

From Twitter:

My question is: will he have to divorce her first, or can all three of them be married? And if it’s all three, will she be married to Fido, too?