THE U.N. CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT

The worthless United Nations continues to be useless. Iran goes into Iraqi waters and kidnaps 15 British sailors, one of them a woman, and the best they can do is to express "grave concern." Oh wow! Grave concern! I'm sure that really curled some beards in Iran. The U.N. originally intended to "deplore" the hostage-taking, but Russia objected. And here we thought that Putin was mad at Iran for not paying its bills! I guess not.
Face it. The U.N.'s response to this naked aggression shows that the organization serves no practical purpose and should be downgraded to a Sunday afternoon tea society.

Here you have an open-and-shut case of a rogue, dictatorial regime kidnapping and holding hostage innocent soldiers...soldiers that were not in Iranian waters when they were apprehended. The Brits have the GPS data to prove it. One of the sailors is a woman, making the situation all the more outrageous. On top of all this, Iran is parading the soldiers on TV...in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

And what does the UN do? Nothing. Why? Because the UN is anti-American, and that makes it anti-Brit. It's time for not only the United States to pull out of the United Nations but for us to kick them out of the United States. Let's form another international organization composed of countries with elected governments that adhere to principles of economic freedom and guaranteed rights for their citizens. The UN? Give it Haiti. The two deserve each other.

The left always tells us we need the U.N. as a place for countries to settle international disputes. Tell me just one international dispute the UN has settled! It's a sounding board for third-world anti-Americanism. Nothing more.

THE SENATE VOTES FOR AL-QAEDA

The Senate approved a bill yesterday calling for the surrender of U.S. forces in Iraq within a year. The bill, has no chance of becoming law. Bush says he will veto it. On the other hand, since there's no abortion or stem cell research provisions in the bill ... who knows? If he does veto the bill there is no chance for an override. Islamic fascism, it seems has plenty of friends on Capitol Hill. Knowing that Joe Lieberman would never vote for such a travesty, you may be wondering what Republicans went along with this nonsense. The answer is (of course) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith from Oregon (who? me neither.)

Check out this quote from Patty Murray, who managed the bill: "Our troops have done everything we've asked them to do, and now it's time to start bringing them home." It is? Well then I am sure the Democrats will have no problem cutting off funding for the war. That will bring them home, right? Well, evidently not. Only an artificial deadline that will never become law will do, I guess.

So what's wrong with all this? Imagine you're a solider serving in Iraq...and you turn on the TV and see that your own Senator has voted to surrender in Iraq. Don't you think that might dent morale just a bit? And what about the terrorists? They will be more emboldened than ever, knowing that they're winning the war in the arena of public opinion.

You do know our efforts were showing success in Iraq, don't you? This is the most dangerous situation for the Democrat Party. Any measure of success in Iraq costs Democrat Part votes in 2008. Can't let that happen. For God's sake, bring the troops home before they can actually succeed!

THE HEARINGS ABOUT NOTHING CONTINUE

The plot thickens in the U.S. Attorney firing non-scandal. Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says the Attorney General was involved in the firings, contradicting his boss. Who cares, right? Bored Democrats with no agenda, that's who. And they show no signs of letting up. Once again, the Democrats are looking for somebody's head in the administration...and that somebody is Alberto Gonzales. Get a nice resignation here and victory will be declared. Then it's off to get the leftist pro-Democrat media to bite on another non-scandal.

Yesterday Kyle Sampson, the AG's former chief of staff said he discussed the firings with his boss on two occasions. Gonzales said at a press conference 17 days ago that he was not involved in the firings. Gotcha! The attorney general is obviously a liar that must be fired. New York Senator Chuck Schumer said Gonzales' credibility has been shattered. But remember, Democrats only worry about credibility when they're talking about Republicans. Fellow Democrats don't count. Just ask Bill Clinton or Congressman William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.

But a little further down in the coverage of Sampson's testimony yesterday is this little nugget: "To my knowledge, no US attorney was asked to resign for the purpose of influencing a particular case for a particular reason." In other words, there's nothing to the Democrats' allegations and never was. Is this witch hunt what people voted for in the last election? Somebody down at the DNC thinks so.

Oh..and did you know President Bush was going to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys, just as his predecessor had done? He only decided to fire eight. An inconsequential fact.

THE NEVER-ENDING NON-SCANDAL

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff says the 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired over politics. That is, they didn't support President Bush's policies the way they administration thought they should. This is the message that will be delivered in testimony today. Expect it to make big news, but it really isn't. This has to be the biggest non-scandal to hit Washington since, well..the last biggest non-scandal: the Valerie Plame affair. God forbid they should tackle something important like the coming crash of this stupid Social Security system we have, or doing something about the Mexican invasion. Eight U.S. Attorneys get fired for political reasons. Who cares? These are political jobs. These are positions just like the ones in the White House...political appointees that serve at the pleasure of the president. Bush could fire them all just for kicks one day. Wait....Bill Clinton already did that once. Nobody cared when George W. Bush replaced his chief of staff, did he? Nope...his choice.

And so here we go...more testimony and more calls for Alberto Gonzales resignation. His former chief of staff will testify on the Hill today over what he knew and when he knew it. The "investigation" is being led by liberal Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He says nothing will stop his hearings, not even Gonzales' resignation.

Why? Because he's hit a political goldmine. The Democrats have the Republicans on the ropes over nothing. They simply invented a scandal out of thin air and the media has gone along for the ride.

HANDCUFFING THE TROOPS

By Michelle Malkin

The Senate passes the Retreat Deadline bill.

Forty-eight Democrats and independent Bernard Sanders of Vermont were joined by two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon, in voting for the measure. Opposed were 46 Republicans and Connecticut independent Joseph Lieberman.

Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., did not vote.

Hello, veto.

***

N.Z. Bear at Victory Caucus notes that Congress is in such an urgent state of emergency over the war spending bill that it's going on Spring Break:

So what happens now? Well, President Bush has made crystal clear that he will veto the bill. But he won't even get a chance for several weeks. The Democratic leadership have decided to stick to the normal (read: non-emergency) calendar, and so Congress is now heading home for Spring Break. Once they return, the Senate bill still needs to be reconciled with the House version, and so the final bill won't make it to President Bush's desk until at least mid-April.

Meanwhile, our troops are waiting. So it turns out that according to the Democratic leadership, funding for the Tree Assistance Program, sugar beets , and the Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program are all "emergencies". But there's nothing urgent at all about actually getting funds to our soldiers on the battlefield.

Party on.

IRAN'S LATEST HOSTAGE GAMBLE

By Austin Bay

The sailors call them "RHIBs" -- rigid hull inflatable boats. Add powerful outboard motors, and the agile, shallow-draft RHIB becomes an ideal watercraft for scooting around the Tigris and Euphrates estuary or for slipping among suspicious dhows in Iraqi coastal waters.

Light boats like RHIBs, however, aren't fighting vessels. Use one for patrol, boarding and police duties (missions 15 British sailors and marines were conducting last week), and the sailors have no protection other than the craft's swiftness and their own individual body armor. One long burst of light machinegun fire will likely sink the boat, as well as kill several of the sailors on board. Life vests worn over body armor will keep survivors bobbing, but make them easy targets for the next machinegun burst.

In 2005, I spent several days with American sailors who were conducting inspection operations in the northern end of the Persian Gulf. The sailors used RHIBs for the close work. The sailors were armed with shotguns and light automatic weapons (as the 15 Royal Navy personnel taken hostage by Iranian Revolutionary Guards most certainly were).

Even a routine boarding has its moment of doubt. A young petty officer acknowledged a fishing dhow could be a floating bomb, with the fisherman a potential "martyr." But he judged the possibility to be remote. "We know a lot of these fishing boats," he said. "We've watched them."

The U.S. sailors, however, weren't alone. A U.S. patrol boat with automatic cannons was never more than a few hundred meters away. A British frigate and an American cruiser patrolled nearby. We were in fairly deep water, 15 kilometers offshore.

The Royal Navy sailors and marines were apparently closer to shore in small open boats when the sailors were surprised and surrounded by Iranian craft. They surrendered in order to avoid a bloodbath and a larger international incident.

Britain says it has definitive evidence its personnel were in Iraqi territory. Even if they strayed into Iranian water, the fact the sailors and marines were surrounded and outgunned suggests a planned operation.

The British sailors are now hostages in an intercontinental game of brinksmanship. Once again, a tactical (small-scale military) engagement in the War on Terror has strategic (large-scale) political and psychological consequences.

It's also a reminder that when confronting terrorists and terror states, everyone is a potential hostage. In 1979, Iranian theo-fascists took the entire U.S. embassy hostage, in what many have come to regard as the first attack in the War on Terror.

But this latest hostage-taking incident smacks of desperation, not revolutionary fervor.

Late spring 2007 finds the Iranian "revolutionary government" facing an extraordinary range of internal and external problems.

There's a war inside Iran -- several wars, actually. Minority Baluchis, Azeris, Kurds and Arabs are restive.

The mullah's core problem is the Iranian people. Under-30 Iranians have had it with the mullahs' failed revolution.

A recent visitor to Iran described a twenty-fold increase in "the standard bribe" Tehran bureaucrats demand for a building permit. Call it indicative rumor, supporting the assertion that Iranians now believe their current government is more corrupt than the Shah's. Moreover, Iranians are aware of Iraq's political progress. There's a war in Iraq, yes, but also an emerging Arab democracy -- and that irritates Iranians who regard themselves as being more sophisticated than Arabs. The latest U.N. sanctions resolution increases political and economic pressure. It also freezes the economic assets of 28 people and organizations -- so the sanctions are tailored to hit specific Iranian actors (bad actors). The resolution passed unanimously, meaning the mullahs cannot count on China and Russia.

Confronting these problems, Iran's Islamist hardliners take Western hostages.

"These people have to be released," Britain's Tony Blair said on Monday. At the moment, Britain and its allies are pursuing diplomatic means. If they fail, Blair says, "then this will move into a different phase." Two U.S. aircraft carrier groups are now operating off Iranian shores. They are not small, open boats.