A case of massive overkill

I’m afraid that after spending five minutes actually looking at the case that Malkin makes for herself, as opposed the case I assumed she’d be making, I have to say that there is about a zero percent chance she’ll show up to debate. I spoke too soon when I said there’s no shame in making a mistake. Sometimes, it depends on the order of magnitude.

Let me put it this way. If it takes me more than 30 seconds to demonstrate that a) Malkin made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to examine the question of military necessity for herself, and, b) that she is demonstrably less qualified to make any statement with regards to military necessity than she is to be the offensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings, and, c) cause the moderators to burst out laughing in the process, I’ll be hugely shocked. I called Big Chilly; there was a moment of silence and the first words out of his mouth were: Are you kidding me?

It’s a good thing I enjoyed the research so much, because I didn’t even need to do most of it to discredit her. She discredits herself with her own words, not just badly, but to the point that even her biggest fans are going to be cringing with embarrassment. Some of you probably think I’m talking smack, others are already hearing the blades go snicker-snack. Tune in to the Northern Alliance on Saturday and you’ll understand very quickly why I am supremely and completely confident of my case.

Exit from Iraq

Robert Novak writes:

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal….

This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam’s police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

I’m glad some officials are starting to believe that. I could have told them that from the start. If you don’t have a game plan for victory, you will not win. If you can’t even bring yourself to identify the enemy, you will not win. If your objective is not possible, you will not win.

The wild card, however, is Iran. Ledeen and other neocons are still pushing for correcting the conflict by expanding it, which would be an amazingly stupid thing to do. If their nuke program is a problem, then take it out or wait and let Israel take it out*, but whatever you do, don’t try to expand a doomed nation-building program. Nations cannot be built! The very concept is a contradiction in terms. Germany was a nation prior to WWII. So was Japan. Iraq is something more akin to a peripheral state in the House of Islam and a tripartite one at that, without a dictator to hold it together by horrific force, it is no more a nation than the former Yugoslavia.

Perhaps now we can return to the immigration issue and other matters that might actually help the America meet the challenge of resurgent Islam without committing the usual suicide through security.

*Some very inobservant people say that we cannot permit this, because then the Arabs will hate the Israelis infinity plus one, or perhaps even double-dog infinity. Personally, I suspect the administration’s apparent lack of concern about the Iranian program is because they already know that Israel is planning to take it out before it goes online.

The internment debate

In case there are any visitors from WND, LRC or a blog interested in perusing some of my many points related to the lack of military necessity, or if Mrs. Malkin decides she might like to actually have a look at some of the military realities for the first time, here are links to some related posts over the last two weeks:

The 10 questions Michelle Malkin will not answer.

Percent of US air strength devoted to the Pacific.

An email to Malkin from a Marine descendant of internees

A perspective on the potential danger of bombing raids

An interrogation of Admiral Toyoda, Chief of Naval Combined Forces, Imperial Japanese Navy.

There’s a lot more, of course, as my weary regulars can attest. Just scroll down or click on the September archives for the full deluge. Nor is this even close to all the information at my disposal on the subject, but you’ll have to wait for the debate to hear that. I’ll arrange to post a transcript here after the fact; if Mrs. Malkin is afraid to show, I believe the Northern Alliance is planning to arrange for one of her proponents to serve as a stand-in.

Sweet Shub-Niggurath on steroids!

I don’t know if is the higher than normal volume of critical mail today or the Vikings game tonight, but the adrenaline is definitely flowing. And I’ll never utter a dismissive remark about trainers again – okay, I probably will – but not about The Perfect Aryan Male’s guy, Eric.

Regulars may recall that TPAM got me going on a new program a month ago, one that has him up to 240 from 225. So, I wandered off to the gym this morning and found that I was already able to jack the two top sets of three up to 295. I’m not even on protein or creatine, which of course, has me thinking that maybe I should be. Forget Malkin, I want Alice! In a cage!

Anyhow, those of you who were asking about lifting programs should give that one a serious whirl.

Mailvox: I’m right here

A few emails from Mrs. Malkin’s fans have begun to flow in:

Vox, you’re too bright and insightful to eschew Michelle’s logic and the clear history that she presents about the Japanese removal. I haven’t read her book but I have seen her defend herself on TV and she’s absolutely right on the mark. If she accepts your challenge for a debate my friend, prepare to lose. – JM

I’m always prepared for that risk. I’m also demonstrably willing to take it. Is she?

Although I usually like your articles, I have to part with you on this one. You sound so frightening when you call Ms. Malkin “Out”. Ooooooh, Vox Day is so tough… – TC

I thought I proposed a debate, not a fight. Although I’m always up for that too. I can’t say that I like her odds any better that way, but I’m amenable.

I have observed Michelle Malkin discussing the Japanese internment on several occasions. I believe you are not quoting her correctly. In no case has she said that this was a good thing. She was merely making a case that there was some logical reasoning behind this unhappy event. And the lack of a direct threat of attack on the US mainland, there was a direct threat of harm to Americans and their allies elsewhere. And there WERE many “spies” among Japanese Americans. And Malkin’s discourse is not about facts – many are recorded in the hsitorical record, and she is merely rendering an opinion – just like you are. – FZ

I’m not quoting her at all, I’m tearing apart the foundation of her case, which is fatally flawed. The reasoning behind internment was neither logical nor defensible. Furthermore, Malkin not only continues to insist that there was a direct threat of an attack on the US mainland, her case rests upon it. Spies do not necessarily entail military necessity, otherwise we’d be rounding up all the Jews now, or at least those we missed after the Pollard affair. It is her opinion, and I’m demonstrating why her opinion is wrong.

Usually I like what you print but I’m with Michelle on this one… – MM

With what, refusing to address specific points and throwing out a few snarky comments while simultaneously complaining that others are ducking her? I can’t imagine that you are with Dan Rather too. I have no problem with those who think she’s got a convincing case, in fact, what I’d suggest is that if you’re confident she’s right, write to her at the email address she gives out on her blog: malkin@comcast.net, and encourage her to pick up the gauntlet.

Eminent shadows

George Will warns of more rights being lost:

Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the [Supreme] court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4-3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenues. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corporation, to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for upscale condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenues than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear this case, it will be a truly ominous testimony to the extent to which creeping left-wing fascism is moving from the shadows and out into the open. I wonder which “conservative Republicans” will hail a decision favorable to the New London government as a wise and correct move, despite its total destruction of what remains of our Constitutionally-protected property rights.

I think it’s past time to call for a Constitutional amendment banning eminent domain. You’d think there’d be plenty of politicians who would support absolute invidual property rights, and you’d also almost certainly be wrong.