It’s obvious that many on the left believe that we “idiots” on the right vote Republican for a very short list of reasons (a.k.a. character flaws), fear being a key one. I read a post yesterday on RightWingNews about a lefty blogger and his opinion on terrorism and fear (copied from RightWingNews):

"Here's a message for both our homegrown Neoconservative, bloggy, gutless wonders and the Jihadi nutcases overseas: I grew up in the cold-war, my parents went through WW2 for crying out loud. We are not paralyzed with fear over Osama. Despite your best efforts, I'm not obsessed with terrorism. Sheesh, I barely even think about it. I face bigger statistical risks, in every way, every day, and on every scale, just driving across a set of railroad tracks and down the interstate smoking a cigarette in the rain, and I don't worry much about that either.

And if you want me to be afraid for my very nation's survival, Jebus H Christ, you damn well better be able to wave around a threat considerably more convincing than a rag-tag group of zealots who sh*t in caves and beg other people to put on suicide belts sporting a rip cord detonator."

I presume our lefty friend means to send a similar message as say Al Gore - that the terrorism threat is overblown and the Bush administration is "playing on our fears!" (yeah, unlike global warming alarmist nuts like Gore himself).

Well, here's my righty response that goes for me, and many others like me on the right:

• The “statistical risk” analogy makes no sense. Fear is not based on statistical risk alone. It makes absolute sense to be more afraid of an active threat like terrorism than a passive threat like driving or lightening.
• The chance of us getting killed by a nuclear bomb during the cold war was probably statistically less likely than getting killed by a terrorist today (at least as statistically insignificant)
• So even though there is some level of “rational” fear, we’re not obsessively worried about terrorism. Certainly not any more than I was worried about “the bomb” during the Cold War – which was hardly ever.
• I’m not sure WHO is trying to make us afraid – mostly because I’m not. I want the Federal Government, whose primary mandate is to provide protection from external threats, doing the things that protect us from these wackos. You can argue about some of the policies and such, but this is not a run-of-the-mill law enforcement problem.
• I’m not sure what a real threat would look like to this poster given that more people were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor.  Does he consider it a fluke? Does he think they will stop trying – maybe if we play nice and stop supporting Israel?
• If you think there are other things more important than terrorism for the federal government to focus on, then you misread the constitution: Minimum Wage, Welfare Programs, Social Security, Department of Education, Gay Marriage and Abortion are NOT in there.
• And finally, the problem is not that they have to “beg” people to put on suicide belts, the problem is that they don’t have to beg. They teach their children that infidels are bad and must be killed and that martyrdom is right. And THAT is why we can’t just sit back and try and stop terrorist attacks as they come. They’ll never stop coming so long as they continue to think the way they do.

There were 4 interesting news stories that were big this week. I haven't been motivated to blog about them as I've been reading. So here they are with a link or two that I found interesting - along with me free opinions of course:

Terrorist Plot Foiled. It's hard to say how I feel about this. One the one had, I am of course relieved nothing bad happened. On the other hand, it reminds us that we are vulnerable. Does the event help Republicans or Democrats? Well, I think it actually helps Republicans, but that's not to say I'm glad it happened. The internet, while an amazing tool is also quite the cesspool. Leftist web sites such as Daily KOs and Democratic Underground substantially believe that this was staged by and for the benefit of the political right. An amazing number of their posters believe the timing to be "too convenient". But when is it not convenient - I mean really. There is always something going on in the news where an event like this will overshadow the "other inconvenient" news. In all the news I've read, this plot was as real as it gets. It continues to keep me firmly on the side of the party that takes this threat seriously. The Democrats just don't seem to want to believe that there is a real threat that left unchecked could be devastating. Their solution is anti-war appeasement and frankly that's just naive. I recommend Victor David Hanson's column "The Brink of Madness".

Israel and Hezbollah. The war continues and the pressure continues for other countries to "do something". So, the UN is fulfilling its role of writing "strongly worded resolutions" which are supposed to solve problems - yet mysteriously never seem to work. Well, Resolution 1701 was passed and it will likely have the end result of which I've opined before: a temporary cease-fire which will again be broken and result in another war thus only delaying more death and destruction so that the children of tomorrow can have the "benefit" of experiencing war and hatred for themselves. How long will the useless cease-fire last? A day? A month? A year? Who knows. I just know it won't last and as soon as it starts up, I'll be here to say "I TOLD YOU SO." Even more frustrating is that we took part in co-authoring a resolution that legitimizes a terrorist organization and gives them reason to continue their attacks in the future. We, who pledged to fight terrorism on all fronts, have gone soft on a terrorist organization that is as much our enemy as it is Israel's. Attacks on Israel are attacks on the U.S.. The only reason that Israel gets the rockets and not us is proximity and the terrorists' inability to fire missiles over Europe and the Atlantic to reach us. Michelle Malkin has a post with some links that reviews the UN resolution.

Fauxtography. That's the catchy name given to the scandal in the MSM over the last week or two regarding the alteration of photographs, the staging of photographs and incorrect captions that have been uncovered by bloggers. On the one hand, I think the right-side of the blogosphere is looking for their next Dan "Rathergate" scandal, just like the MSM has been looking for the next Watergate. That's not to say this story isn't disturbing, but I think it's just part of the story that has been out there for a while now - the MSM has a liberal bias. I think that's been established. I would bet that the photograph issue has been going on for years, just subtly and below the radar. Still, this is another slap in the face of what we once took for granted - that the pictures and captions supplied by Reuters and the AP were accurately portraying news. This article is a good overview with links to blogs that have lots of sample photos. Here's a brief video that demos several pictures.

Ned Lamont and Lieberman. If you don't already know, Joe Lieberman lost to unknown millionaire Ned Lamont this past Tuesday in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senator of Connecticut. This vote was a 1 issue vote - the war in Iraq. Lieberman, who is one of the most liberal senators in the senate voting over 92% of the time with the party, sides with the Republicans on one issue, albeit a biggee - the war. Leftist blog sites rallied for Lamont and can probably claim a significant impact on the race with their support for him. But the real question is "what does it mean"? Of course, those on the left think it is significant and the start of "taking the country back." Those on the right think that it is bad news for the left. Personally, I think it's bad news for the left for a lot of reasons:

• Lieberman looks like he's running as an independent and he is leading the three way race in the polls by 5pts over Lamont. That means that the Dems end up loosing a very blue state - even if it's not to the Republicans.
• This is only a win for the left if strong anti-war candidates win general elections in other states. Connecticut is already "blue" and there is no reason to believe that an anti-war democrat beating a pro-war democrat by only 4 points among ONLY DEMOCRATS is anything to rave about.
• The demographics of Lamont's win suggests that they are increasingly attracting the "nut-roots" wing of the Democratic party - those that are wealthy and those that are just nutty - while alienating the large group of blue-collar liberals who aren't as anti-war as they might be pro-minimum wage hikes and other domestic issues.

Powerline has a good analysis with some links.

There's been a lot of news recently - at least on the right side of the blogosphere - about some faked pictures from Reuters. Powerline has several posts, including this one. Altering news images is certainly wrong and warrants the firing of the photographer, which is what happened in this case. However, the images themselves did not significantly distort the "truth" on the ground (I know, "fake" but accurate doesn't exactly cut it, but that's why I'm saying it is WRONG).

What I believe to be worse is the bias that seems to show a preponderance of images on one side of the war. My home page is My Yahoo and at the top is the Lead Photo. I had noticed that it always seems to be a bombing or death in Lebanon and I hadn't recalled seeing one image of anything bad that happened in Israel. So, I clicked on the story which had a link to a "Mideast Slideshow" and started scrolling through pictures. I got through about 100 and here's what I found (note that they do not add up to 100. This is because I didn't count pictures of diplomatic meetings, maps and other unrelated photos):

In Lebanon:

• 28: death, injury, funeral, bodies, etc.
• 25: rubble, smoke and other bombing impacts
• 2: Nasarallah images
• 3: Israeli army, tanks, etc.
• 1: Lebanese soldier

In Gaza:

• 8: rubble, smoke and other bombing impacts
• 1: militant (i.e. terrorist - non-uniformed)
• 1: Israeli army

In Israel:

• 8: funeral (not one body or injury shown, just pictures of people at funerals)
• 3: life in shelters
• 1: Israeli army
• 1: Olmert

In addition to the obvious bias of Yahoo to display the horrors that Israel has caused as opposed to those that Israel endures, I find the following quite interesting:

• there is a constant argument that Lebanese "civilians" are being targeted and-or killed. Yet, there is NOT ONE picture of a Hezbollah "soldier". Why? Because there aren't any. They are terrorists dressed as civilians, hiding amongst civilians. If this isn't a gross miscarriage of justice that seems to have been missed or ignored by Human Rights groups, then I don't know what is.
• There is NOT ONE picture of dead bodies, bloodied bodies, broken bodies in hospital beds or stretchers, broken buildings, rubble or even 1 rocket in Israel. Yet, we know there have been multiple deaths and injuries, not as many as in Lebanon, but many nonetheless. We know that over 2,000 Katyusha rockets have landed in Israel.

When these are the images you are presented with, it's hard not to want to take sides - unless you know that they don't represent what is really going on.

Back on May 21, I suggested that to "Leave Iraq Now" as many on the left suggest would not be what the troops wanted. One of the commenters pointed out a poll I was not aware of that was often titled "A whopping 72% want out of Iraq within 6 months". I read the poll differently. 29% said we should leave immediately, which to me means that 71% said we should stay longer.

I further suggested that the percentage of those suggesting we stay "6 more months" would probably not shift significantly in 6 months time. In other words, if people really meant what they said (this is not an indictment of our troops, just human nature) then in 6 months the polls would suggest that 72% say "leave now."

To my knowledge, there has not been a similar poll among troops, but there is a Gallup poll out from 8/3 headed "Majority favor withdrawal now or within a year". Now, I don't offer this as proof positive that I'm right, but I think it tends to support my view. It does not present the specific results, but it says "only about 1 in 5 favor immediate withdrawal." I take that to mean that less than 20% want that - otherwise it would have read MORE than 1 in 5. Anyway, let's use 20%. It further says that 55% want us to leave now or within a year. Thus 35% say "leave within a year". So, this poll suggests that the acceptable timeframe has lengthened over time rather than shortened.

Further, as the Washington Times reports, the poll "finds little shift in U.S. attitudes toward the Iraq war with a majority favoring withdrawal of U.S. troops within a year." My point is that even though a year ago 50% might have said "leave within a year" that does not translate to 50% saying "leave now" a year later. People don't look at time that way. They make decisions based on current conditions.

In my recent post "Intemperate Remarks" I made the following statement:

The only way to stop the terrorists - other than accepting to live under their control - is to WIPE THEM OUT!!

A thoughtful commentor asked why I wouldn't consider peace a better outcome. I'm amazed at how differently two people can see the same facts and yet come to such diametrically opposed outcomes. Interestingly, my comment is a tactic that could be used to get to peace (success or failure is up for debate I know). Peace in and of itself is the aim, not the path.

So how do those that say peace is the answer suggest that we move from where we are now - specifically with Israel and Hezbollah, but also the broader war against Islamisct fascism - to a state of peace? I realize there are some quite nuanced approaches and relative levels of force that some propose, but most on the side of "peace at all costs" are advocating or accepting the following:

• negotiating with terrorists works
• a cease-fire (by definition temporary) means peace
• both sides will abide by the cease-fire
• because shooting has ceased, the ideology that drives men to kill will abate

I find all of these absurd. As Thomas Sowell points out:

"If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent."

The rest of the article basically goes on to describe better than I can that "peace movements" may in fact bring more war than would otherwise exist.

"There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?"

If Israel could use all necessary force to "Wipe Out" its immediate enemy - Hezbollah in Lebanon (yes, it gets much more complicated since Iran and Syria still want to wipe out Israel), there could be peace at least on that border.

What exactly does to "wipe them out" mean though? Does it mean using a nuclear bomb to turn the entire country and all of its people into glass? No, that is certainly not necessary. It does mean to use sufficient force such that Hezbollah cries "uncle" - kill enough of them, remove them of their ability to launch any rockets or missiles and have a force present to help Lebanon rebuild, prevent Hezbollah from re-emerging and allowing Lebanon to continue on its independent path of a peaceful nation without the threat of external intervention trying to use this border country to launch attacks against Israel.

Instead of suggesting that I'm a heartless, warmongering a**hole, why not offer an alternative suggestion based on something that has been shown to work in the past.