This Day in History: The Invasion of Poland, September 1, 1939

We're dealing with international history in the first few weeks of my World Politics course (theory too, but the history's also a foundation for the class). And I thought about September 1st today, while discussing the German challenge to international security, 1919-1939. In any case, there's a report at Digital Journal, "Ceremonies Mark Invasion of Poland and Outbreak of WWII." And check Wikipedia for the historical entry there.

Biden Grudgingly Credits Bush on Success of Iraq Surge

The vice president is deeply pained to even minutely acknowledge the Bush administration's success on the Iraq surge strategy.

Of course, security has to precede political accommodation, so Biden's basically skipping over the military component of the Petraeus program. This is the same argument that hardline lefty bloggers made throughout 2007-08, since there was no way they could concede that President Bush not only did the right thing, but had the cojones to do so. Frankly, Biden should be praising the MILITARY component to high heaven, saying that this was 'a big fucking deal." What's even more interesting --- or troubling, if you will --- are these remarks on the continuing challenges:

"The fact of the matter is we're not there yet. We're making significant progress. The only time success will be able to be declared is when the Iraqis form a government and several years from now they are in a position to maintain their own security, they are not a threat to their neighbors, and their economy is growing and prospering. That's when everyone can say it's a success."

Well, if we're that far from being "successful," why in the hell are we pulling out? It's not as if there's a huge political liability here. National security is not the hottest of the hot-button issues this fall, and good money says the economy will still be tops in 2012. And by that time we'd have given the Iraqi forces two more years to consolidate the gains and for the political process to work out. And I'm not just making hay here. See Jennifer Rubin's post from this morning, "Deadlines." President Obama has committed a cardinal sin with respect to our military commitments: He's imposed a firm deadline on the end of military cooperation with the Iraqi government, which could literally blow up in his face --- not to mention the Iraqis' --- should the security situation go south. But I'm sure it'll all be fine. Obama picked Joe Biden as his V.P. running-mate to shore-up his credentials on foreign policy. While the jury's still out on Biden's foreign policy wisdom, he's no slouch on the political hedging end of things. Sheesh. You'd think we had a bunch of rookies in the Situation Room, or something.

Charles Johnson, Think Progress Strain to Portray Discovery Gunman as Right-Wing Anti-Immigrant Extremist

If James Lee had been a right-wing militia member --- or a Glenn Beck tea party activist, for that matter --- Charles Johnson would have been all over the story, alleging that Fox News and the GOP were inciting far-right extremist violence. Instead we get this pathetic drivel (safe link):

It would be nice if everyone could just agree that James Jay Lee, the hostage taker killed today in a standoff at the offices of the Discovery Channel, was deranged. And leave it at that. But of course, we’re already seeing some extremely partisan bloggers trying to put him in the “left wing” category, simply because his weird views sprang out of a kind of extreme environmentalism ....

Right.

Last year King Charles was all over the James Von Brunn story, playing up the "white supremacy" angle like there was no tomorrow: "Shooting at Holocaust Museum in Washington DC" (cached version).

And then there's Think Progress, where the folks are just as desperate to paint the Discovery gunman as some wild right-wing anti-immigration stormtrooper, "Purported Eco-Terrorist Angered Over ‘Immigration Pollution And Anchor Baby Filth’":

This afternoon, a gunman entered the Discovery Communications building in Silver Spring, MD and appears to have taken at least one person hostage. Among his various bizarre, eco-related demands, one relates directly to immigration. The alleged hostage-taker, James Jay Lee, calls for the elimination of “anchor baby filth” and “immigration pollution”...

Look. I'm just glad that the hostages are safe. And God rest his soul, but James Lee was mentally disturbed. Almost as disturbing is the far-left's hopeless efforts to rewrite the storyline to fit their warped partisan agenda. The bottom line is that the gunman was motivated by radical environmentalism, and he even claimed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as inspiration. It's mostly just sad, either way. See Left Coast Rebel, "Following James Jay Lee's Trail on the Net: The Discovery Channel Ecoterrorist's second website 'World Guardian Voices'."

RELATED: At Pirate's Cove, "Excitable Liberals Still Attempting To Paint Discovery Channel Wacko As On The Right." And at Watts Up With That?, "When Warmistas Attack."

Radical Environmentalist is Suspect in Discovery Channel Seige — UPDATE!! Gunman James Lee is Dead

Nice Deb has the story, "Crazed, Anti-Life, Environmental Wacko Holds Seige In Discovery Channel Building Near DC":

I can’t help but notice how similar his ideas are to Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren’s.

Ouch!

More at AoSHQ, "Radical Environmentalist Demanding Discovery Channel Stop Promoting Births of "Human Parasites" (aka 'Human Beings')."



And at WaPo, "Police: Hostage situation ends after suspect shot."



RELATED: At TMZ, "'Discovery' Gunman Ordered to Mental Institution in '08."



UPDATE: At ABC News, "Environmental Militant Killed by Police at Discovery Channel Headquarters." (Via Memeorandum.)

Why Shouldn't Neocons 'Demand Credit for the Work They've Done'?

The idiots at Think Progress on the "architects" of the Iraq war: "Where are they now?"

They’re on your TV screens, in your radio, and in your newspapers — shamelessly demanding credit for the work they’ve done.

Yeah. Okay. Right.

Like neocons shouldn't "demand credit" for the work they're done? It's not like Obambi should get credit or anything. You know, credit for winning the war after everyone else on the Democratic-left had written off the deployment as the next Vietnam. Obambi opposed the surge and repeatedly attacked the Iraq war as a failure. Shamelessly, come to think of it:

Reactions to Obama's Iraq Speech

I will likely have more on this today. There are a lot of questions following the president's speech. Megan O'Sullivan at the clip suggests Iraq is now in the grips of the worst political crisis since the early stages of the war and Obama again revealed his dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge that challenge for the post-combat situation. Others are hashing out how bad a speech it was, and it was awful. But the most important debate will be on the costs and value of the conflict. Was is worth it? Think Progress probably captures the leftist line perfectly, and what's interesting there is how much ground they concede to war supporters. And there are few wiser than Victor Davis Hanson on such issues, and I'll elaborate on some of his points later. As he notes:

So was Iraq worth the cost? And could Obama have cited anything positive other than banalities? In some sense, that was asked post facto of every war — whether it was the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, Korea, or Vietnam. The truth about Iraq is that, for all the tragedy and the loss, the U.S. military performed a miracle. After nearly seven years, a constitutional government endures in that country. It is too often forgotten that all 23 of the writs for war passed by the Congress in 2002 — from enforcing the Gulf I resolutions and stopping the destruction of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, to preventing the Iraqi state promotion of terrorism, ending suicide bounties on the West Bank, and stopping Iraq from invading or attacking neighbors or trying to acquire WMD — were met and satisfied by the U.S. military. It is also too often forgotten that, as a result, Libya gave up its WMD program; Dr. Khan’s nuclear franchise was shut down; Syria left Lebanon; and American troops in Saudi Arabia, put there as protection against Saddam, were withdrawn. Perhaps a peep about some of that—especially the idea that in an oil-short world, Saddam Hussein might have been more or less free to do what he pleased again in Iraq. (The verdict is out on Iran; playing a genocidal Hussein regime against it was morally bankrupt. Currently, Shiites participating in consensual government could be as destabilizing to Iran in the long run as Iranian terrorists are to Iraq in the short run.)

Furthermore, the destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq helped to discredit the entire idea of radical Sunni Islamic terrorists, and the loss of thousands of foreign radical Islamists in Iraq had a positive effect on U.S. security — despite the fallacy that we created them out of thin air by being in Iraq. Kurdistan was, prior to 2003, faced with the continual threat of genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein; today it is a booming economy. All that would have been impossible without U.S. intervention.

Maybe some of the above was what President Obama meant by a “remarkable chapter,” or what Vice President Biden meant were his administration’s “greatest achievements”?

More at Memeorandum.

Democrat Dishonesty on Iraq

Devastating (c/o Yid With Lid):