Ranger from the North

Last night on MSNBC's The Situation, Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow (of Air America fame) discussed the foolish comments made by Pat Robertson calling on the U.S. government to assassinate Hugo Chavez. The complete transcript can be found here. Consider this excerpt:

CARLSON: Which is why I‘m not defending Pat Robertson. I‘m merely attacking the press for giving undue attention to this guy.

MADDOW: And following his lead to go attack Hugo Chavez, which I think...

CARLSON: I‘m not. I‘m just saying Hugo Chavez is a creep. Merely pointing that out.

MADDOW: Pat Robertson, bigger creep.

CARLSON: No, he‘s not a bigger creep.

MADDOW: He is.

CARLSON: He didn‘t murder his opponents like Hugo Chavez did. I mean, it‘s one thing to say something far out on television, another thing to actually kill people as Chavez has.

MADDOW: But how about advocating killing your opponent?

CARLSON: I don‘t know. It‘s not as bad as actually killing them.

So, according to Ms. Maddow, a political opponent with waning influence who has made some dumb public statements over the years is worse than an anti-American thug like Chavez. Interesting. I don't understand why anyone would think the American Left is weak on national security.

Check out Thor Halvorssen's Weekly Standard article Hurricane Hugo for a look at Venezuela under the lesser creep.

Austin Bay reports on U.S. "Military Operations in the Horn of Africa" (from RealClearPolitics). This is a story that the MSM has almost completely ignored. Of course judging by their pathetic reporting on events in Iraq, that's probably a good thing.

Iraq Sunnis Urge U.S., U.N. to Block Draft

So close the window. Geez, do we have to do everything?

Hugh Hewitt saw The Great Raid today and described it as "a very, very good movie." He then takes on one of the movie's critics, Stephen Holden. Mr. Hewitt's concluding paragraph is particularly insightful.

Perhaps Mr. Holden's dismissive review of The Great [Raid] is anchored in part in the lesson this movie teaches about why the American actions at the end of World War 2 were so intentionally devastating. First hand knowledge of the brutality and fanaticism of Imperial Japan persuades most observors that the capitulation that followed the two atomic bomb attacks could never have been achieved through other means except for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. From a distance of 60 years it is easy to denounce American tactics. The Great [Raid] makes it much harder to do that. Maybe that's why Mr. Holden would prefer you skip the movie.

I agree. Any debate over American tactics in the Pacific during WWII needs to include a discussion of the brutal, fanatical enemy that we faced, an enemy that was willing to throw everything and everyone it had at us in order to repel an American invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Also see Abigail's summary of the John Roberts documents known as the Iran Emergency. It's a story of international intrigue and a high-stakes game of brinkmanship. Well, not quite. It's actually a story about proper punctuation and font styles. She will be reporting on documents pertaining to pardons and pro bono work in the coming days. Stay tuned.

John Hinderaker posts about the AP granting Chuck Hagel "leading Republican senator" status:

But wait! What exactly makes Chuck Hagel a "leading Republican senator"? Not seniority; he is a second-termer. Not any official responsibilities; Hagel is not a member of the Senate leadership, nor does he chair a Senate committee. Not legislative accomplishment or influence; Hagel has little noteworthy legislation to his name, and is more often an eccentric voice--e.g., in his call for reinstatement of the draft--than an influence on his fellow Senators. It is hard to escape the conclusion that for the Associated Press, any Republican who attacks the Bush administration and claims that we're losing in Iraq is automatically promoted to "leading Republican senator" status.

It is indeed hard to escape that conclusion because it's the correct one.

The following quote appears in this post by Hugh Hewitt:

"One ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them."

I assume Mr. Hewitt was trying to quote from:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien

Therefore, the quote in Mr. Hewitt's post should read:

"One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"

Or he needs to add three dots like so,

"One Ring to rule them all...and in the darkness bind them."

Yes, I'm a bit picky when it comes to The Lord of the Rings.

UPDATE: The quote has been corrected. :) Thank you, Mr. Hewitt.