Ranger from the North

I was happy to find an Investor's Business Daily column about Australian Prime Minister John Howard's recent visit with President Bush since the MSM pretty much ignored it. However, now I can't find the editorial, it seems to have disappeared. When I copy and paste the link I get an editorial about Helen Thomas. Yikes! Anyway, here's an AP account of the visit (through FOXNews.com).

Then, while in London visiting Tony Blair, PM Howard reminded a reporter that jihadists had in fact carried out terrorist attacks prior to operations in Iraq (from Power Line).

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

I was going to write about Howard Dean making stuff up again, but Rick Brady over at SCO already did the work. Check out Dean on Kelo.

Claudia Rosett points out how the UN has failed to see, or acknowledge, Zimbabwe's obvious problem, President Robert Mugabe. Here's an excerpt:

With a delicacy over-zealously inappropriate in itself to dealings with the tyrant whose regime has been responsible for wreck of Zimbabwe, the report starts by thanking Mr. Mugabe for his "warm welcome" to the U.N. delegation, which visited the country from June 26 to July 8. The report, issued by the secretary-general's special envoy Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, then proceeds to the usual U.N. prescription that what Zimbabwe needs is more aid, and a framework--here comes the UN lingo--"to ensure the sustainability of humanitarian response." While the report also calls for the "culprits" to be called to justice under Zimbabwe laws, Mugabe himself is somehow excused from direct responsibility.

Instead, the report faults wealthy nations for not providing more aid already, and notes that "With respect to the funding issue, some in the Zimbabwe political elite and intelligentsia, as well as others of similar persuasion around the continent, believe the international community is concerned more with 'regime change' and that there is no real and genuine concern for the welfare of ordinary people."

Business as usual at the UN. Read the whole column at OpinionJournal.

Also, Michael Ledeen discusses the structure of the terror network and confronting the state sponsors.

Radio Blogger has the transcript of the debate between Ron Reagan and Christopher Hitchens that took place on MSNBC tonight. The debate was about the War on Terror and quickly became focused on Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism under Saddam Hussein. Here's part of the exchange:

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?

Ouch. Mr. Hitchens' last question in that excerpt certainly deserves an answer from a MSNBC executive.

Beltway Boy Fred Barnes had this to say after hearing the Hitchens-Reagan exchange played on the Hugh Hewitt show:

Ronald Reagan living off his father's name. I mean, c'mon. He's not only a twit, he's...if you've ever watched him, he's fairly obnoxious.

That had me laughing for awhile. The complete transcript of the Beltway Boys on the Hugh Hewitt Show from tonight can be found at Radio Blogger here.

Hewitt's post about the smackdown is here.

Abigail points out that John Nichols from The Nation didn't do much better than Ron in the debate.

Hey Ron, do you want to take a shot at answering Andrew McCarthy's questions?

Several writers at NRO respond to today's terrorist attacks in London.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Aaron Mannes
Andrew C. McCarthy
The Editors
John F. Cullinan

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's statement can be found here. Secretary Rumsfeld concludes,

But if these terrorists thought they could intimidate the people of a great nation, they picked the wrong people and the wrong nation. For generations, tyrants, fascists, and terrorists have sought to carry out their violent designs upon the British people only to founder upon its unrelenting shores.

Before long, I suspect that those responsible for these acts will encounter British steel. Their kind of steel has an uncommon strength. It does not bend or break.

The British have learned from history that this kind of evil must be confronted. It cannot be appeased. Our two countries understand well that once a people give in to terrorists’ demands, whatever they are, their demands will grow.

The British people are determined and resolute. And I know the people of the United States are proud to stand at their side.

Liberals can't stop her, they can only hope to contain her. Well, apparently that doesn't work either. My favorite blogger, Abigail Brayden, is now a contributor at the group blog Stones Cry Out! Look for Abigail's posts at SCO and continue to visit her self named blog for terrific commentary.