That's what Jonah Goldberg gives the French today. And Victor Davis Hanson gives the other idiotarians.

And since the Germans don't seem to be getting their due, despite being a member of the Axis of Weasels, here's mine: The Germans have chosen the wrong side on the World Wars up to this point - why would they change that streak now?

Another winger makes an appearance. This time, R. Emmett Tyrell at The American Prowler.

For some not very well thought out reasons, Mr. Roh seems to think that the United States is the reason North Korea is a brutish tyranny. He blames the Bush Administration for not being more sympathetic to the North. He seems to think that Kim Jong Il is a reasonable man with whom he can do business. I say let him do business with Mr. Kim. In fact I say it is time we save ourselves the expense of those 37,000 rowdy troops in South Korea and bring them home. Let Mr. Roh deal with Mr. Kim unimpeded by Washington.

Trent Telenko says that this is exactly the right thing to do:

And it is good news for us and bad news for China. North Korea is a failed state doomed to fall because of its corruption no matter what anyone does. It is only a question of when and what the body count will be, despite China's providing the Kim regime 40% of its food and 88% of its oil. All America has to do is nothing, and it will win in North Korea, something Steven Den Beste pointed out recently. And no matter what else happens, China will be faced with a free, unified, Korea with lots of ethnic Koreans on China's side of their common border.

Apparently, Rummy has escaped from his lair at IMAO. According to this report on scrappleface:

Rumsfeld Sorry for 'Axis of Weasels' Remark
(2003-01-22) -- U.S. Secretary Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized today for referring to France and Germany as an "Axis of Weasels."

"I'm sorry about that Axis of Weasels remark," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I didn't mean to dredge up the history France and Germany share of pathetic compliance with ruthless dictators."

If you don't know what it means, head on over to Misha's and get a lesson. He's on a tear.

Note to self: keep remembering that when you write something stupid, don't leave it where Misha can find it.

Gentlemen:

I have your submission to the UN Security Council, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing the Ba'athist regime from Baghdad. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that will be occasioned, and yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Iraq have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only in Iraq, but in the whole world. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the terrorists which are arrayed against the laws and culture of the West. To defeat those terrorists, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Baghdad for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our cultures. If the United States submits to appeasement now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of the Middle East, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of peace and security. Once admit the UN mandates, once more acknowledge the authority of the Security Council, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept Iraq into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Iraq can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.

We don't want your oil, or your lands, or any thing you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the world. That we will have, and if it involved the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Iraq, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that Iraq began the war by developing forbidden weapons, firing on its own population, shooting at Allied aircraft, etc., etc., long before Mr. Bush was installed, and before Iraq had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen among Iranians, and Kuwaitis, and Kurds, and Marsh Arabs, hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Iraq, we fed thousands and thousands of the abandoned soldiers left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent money and developed weapons, to carry terror into New York and Tel Aviv, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes in Baghdad. Yours in haste,

W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding

To space, I mean. But we will:

President Bush is set to endorse using nuclear power to explore Mars and open up the outer Solar System.

He is expected to back the US space agency's recent nuclear propulsion initiative, Project Prometheus, either in his State of the Union speech, due on 28 January, or later this year when he submits his 2004 budget to Congress.

Rich Galen comments on the fact that France says it will oppose a second UN Security Council resolution authorizing a war with Iraq:

The French government has, therefore, all but surrendered to Iraq in advance of any fighting, thus doing away with that pesky business of actually pick up rifles only to have to lay them down again and get them dirty.

All the papers are reporting this as a huge setback for the US. As if we were going to ask for a second resolution. We have maintained from the beginnning that was not necessary. Colin Powell (you know, the one guy in the Bush administration that the NYT actually respects) has said that from the beginning.

Its not like we actually need them anyway.

Okay, if they won't accept the environmentalists, how about we offer the full support of the University of California? They seem to be doing really well with our nuclear labs:

The university has been under intense scrutiny since the firing in November of two former police officers hired by the lab to investigate charges of lost or stolen equipment, credit card theft and mismanagement at Los Alamos. The officers claim they were fired as part of a coverup.

That's what I get on this test.

Hands down. From Tacitus.

There is only one reason that the United States should be going to war – because it is in the national security interests of the United States. The Bush administration has published, as required, a National Security Strategy. The introduction of the NSS contains this description of the greatest threat to our national security:

The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed.We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery. We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.

The cost of the destruction of one of the world’s cities – one of our cities - is literally incalculable. The cost in lives, the cultural treasures, the architecture, the businesses, the blow to the economies of the world will dwarf the 9/11 losses. And it is a cost that is simply unacceptable.

We must prevent, at all costs, the formation of that nexus of terrorists and nuclear weapons. Whatever nation or organization is closest to that nexus must be stopped. Iraq is the closest to it. Saddam Hussein’s support of international terrorism is blatant. He publicly supports Hamas with millions of dollars. The mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing left the US and flew to Baghdad. Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas both found homes in Baghdad, and despite the claims of many, the ties between Hussein and al Qaida are extensive and well documented. We know he possesses chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, and that he is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Think about the following “threat matrix” – on your x-axis, you have your capability and desire to obtain nuclear weapons. On your y-axis, support or opposition to global terrorism. The upper right quadrant becomes the danger zone – a country that both supports terrorism and has nuclear weapons is in that zone. Below, I have created a matrix and placed countries into it (KSA= Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, PI = Philippine Islands, YEM = Yemen, the rest should be intuitive).

One can argue whether the subjective locations of one country or another on the scales of capability/desire and support for terrorism are correct. But I think most people can agree on the general placement. Iraq is the most supportive of terrorism and the closest to achieving nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea are the two next closest to the area of “Impermissible Danger.” But Pakistan isn’t that far off – we need to keep a very close eye on them.

Understanding the danger in terms of both dimensions is the key to understanding why there are different policies for different countries. And the key to understanding why Iraq, and why now.

UPDATE: See! (via littlegreenfootballs)

From FoxNews:

Following urgent two-hour talks Sunday morning held in a last-resort effort to evade war, top U.N. inspectors said Baghdad revealed that it had found four more empty chemical warheads like a dozen others discovered last week.

This story, though, is something different:

United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.