MSM's Glaring Omission

The enormous coverage of Cindy Sheehan actually highlights the Mainstream Media’s (MSM) failure to cover views other than those opposed to U.S. and Coalition Forces actions in Iraq. It would be great to have an intellectual debate of pros and cons covered in the press, but the MSM has become nothing more than a cheerleading section for partisans.

Anti-Semitism Finds Its Way to the Presbyterians

From the Deseret News today:

A Presbyterian committee accused five companies Friday of contributing to "ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine" and pledged to use the church's multimillion-dollar stock holdings in the businesses to pressure them to stop.

The companies? Caterpillar Inc.; Citigroup; ITT Industries Inc.; Motorola Inc.; and United Technologies Corp.

Four of the five companies supposedly “support” Israeli violence:

The Presbyterians accused all except Citigroup of selling products such as night-vision equipment, wireless communications and helicopters that the Israeli military uses to hurt Palestinians and bolster control of the territories.

The Lutherans take Citigroup to task for supposedly handling money finding its way into “Mideast terrorist groups”

To demonstrate equal abhorrence of violence against Israelis, the panel accused Citigroup of being part of a conduit for funds used to support Mideast terrorist groups.

I can hardly fault the companies here for providing Israel means for defense. What next, complaints against these same companies who provide equipment to U.S. Forces?

It is blatant anti-Semitism, making it’s way from Europe’s “intelligentsia” into U.S. liberal institutions. These clergymen see Israel as “THE problem” in the Middle East. If only they would go away peace would break out all over…

It is laughable that they threw in Citigroup in an attempt to “inoculate” themselves from being cast as anti-Jewish. It just doesn’t fly. First, I don’t believe Citigroup knowing passes money to terrorist organizations; I doubt many terrorists list that occupation when signing up for a credit card. Second, I don’t see how the Presbyterians would have the inside scoop on a Citigroup/terrorism link. I surmise they threw in Citigroup at the last minute when one of the brighter persons of the cloth realized how one-sided their attack was. Unfortunately for them, it is still pretty transparent.

More on Japan and the A-bomb

Mark Steyn comments on the U.S. A-bomb attacks on Japan.

Anniversary of the Atomic Bomb Attacks on Japan

The Deseret News carried an opinion by Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin that the U.S.’s use of the atomic bombs against Japan was unwarranted. They cite for evidence a book written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (Racing the Enemy) even claiming it “definitively” shows it was the Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war on Aug 8 that spurred Japan to surrender.

Well I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on whether it “definitively” answers the question. I am, however, skeptical such a conclusion of such finality can be made when I have rattling between my ears the following questions:

Did the bombing of Hiroshima spur the Soviets into attacking Manchuria because they thought our use of the bomb (two days before they attacked) was going to end the war soon and they wanted to quickly gain territory?

The Japanese fought tooth and nail everywhere the U.S. encountered them. Think of Tarawa, Io Jima, and Okinawa. All of a sudden the Soviets attacked Manchuria and the thought of fighting tooth and nail on the homeland gets chucked? Come on, the Soviets didn’t even have a navy for the invasion needed in the Japanese Islands (much less the experience gained by the Americans at this time for such an invasion).

I may concede on the argument that a million American lives were saved by not having used the bombs. Experience with the Gulf wars seems to indicate pessimistic estimates before hostilities; but do Bird and Sherwin have a more “reasonable” estimate? It certainly wasn’t going to be zero. I would have dropped the bomb to save 100,000 American lives, a mere 10 percent of the number they call inflated. Obviously Truman thought there were a significant number of Americans who would have been killed if he didn’t order the atomic attack. If the 1 Million number was made up in 1947, what number was Truman using in 1945?

It is no secret that the U.S. and the Soviets didn’t like each other and that the U.S. did not want the Soviets moving in a land grab once the war seemed near a close. The only way that both sides (Soviets and US) could presume the war was near a close was the fact that the US had nuclear weapons. Otherwise the Soviets did not have the capability to invade Japan and the U.S. would have been looking at a protracted effort.

Finally, suppose Bird and Sherwin’s premise is correct. What if the U.S. only dropped the bombs because they were racing the Soviet Union in a conquest of Japan? What if the Soviets had the means to occupy more than Manchuria and a few unprotected islands in the North. Do Bird and Sherwin think life would have been better for those Japanese under a Soviet occupation? Do they think fewer Japanese would have been killed under a Soviet occupation then would have been killed by the Atomic bombs? Do they think fewer Japanese would have been killed if the U.S. had to invade?

Because they don’t ask these questions, their analysis falls short of objectivity. It would appear their only object is to attack the U.S.

Ending Islamic Terror

I wrote last about the IRA renouncing violence and opined that terrorism, seen in the light of Islamic terror, has turned the IRA’s supporters off on murder and mayhem. I don’t think the IRA has changed there spots.

A similar change needs to occur with the widespread support for Islamic terrorism found among Muslim communities. Perhaps the first place to start is for the US to increase pressure on the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. This country is the Elephant in the living room that no one in the administration wants to recognize. They fund terror. Lets expose it officially.

I do believe the President is on a proper course in encouraging democracy, even if de-stabilizing, in the Mideast and among other totalitarian led regimes. The House of Saud wants to continue funding terrorism? Then, let us work to overthrow their regime.