Tuesday, November 25, 2003
A BREAK
With the Bush visit to Britain now behind us, it seems like a good time for a short break.
I won't tell you where I'm going just yet, but I will. After all, it's not to a "secure, undisclosed location."
I will do some posting if and when I get a chance. . .
Otherwise, things may be a bit quiet here for a few days.
Anyway, quiet is good -- now and then. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
With the Bush visit to Britain now behind us, it seems like a good time for a short break.
I won't tell you where I'm going just yet, but I will. After all, it's not to a "secure, undisclosed location."
I will do some posting if and when I get a chance. . .
Otherwise, things may be a bit quiet here for a few days.
Anyway, quiet is good -- now and then. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
ON "GUANTANAMO"
As we know, in Britain and elsewhere the Guantanamo detainees' "plight" has become a predictable moaning point for Islamists and crusty, old leftist anti-Bush, anti-American bashers.
Sorry to be late with this one, but back on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reminded us why their internment is actually perfectly consistent with long-practiced "laws of war":
The continuing detention of captured al Qaeda and Taliban members at Guantanamo is fast becoming the favored cause of international activists opposed to the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has traditionally maintained "neutrality" on such questions (declining even to publicly criticize the Third Reich's death camps during World War II), recently attacked the U.S. for failing to establish a timetable for trying, or freeing, the Guantanamo detainees. A few points should be made in defense of the administration's policy. . .
Read the whole thing. It's worth your time.
In short, those "gentlemen" may be there a long time.
And there is NOTHING wrong with that fact. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
As we know, in Britain and elsewhere the Guantanamo detainees' "plight" has become a predictable moaning point for Islamists and crusty, old leftist anti-Bush, anti-American bashers.
Sorry to be late with this one, but back on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reminded us why their internment is actually perfectly consistent with long-practiced "laws of war":
The continuing detention of captured al Qaeda and Taliban members at Guantanamo is fast becoming the favored cause of international activists opposed to the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has traditionally maintained "neutrality" on such questions (declining even to publicly criticize the Third Reich's death camps during World War II), recently attacked the U.S. for failing to establish a timetable for trying, or freeing, the Guantanamo detainees. A few points should be made in defense of the administration's policy. . .
Read the whole thing. It's worth your time.
In short, those "gentlemen" may be there a long time.
And there is NOTHING wrong with that fact. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
WITHIN THE HUMOR WAS ALWAYS SERIOUSNESS
In the Wall Street Journal, Terry Teachout writes:
"What an ultramaroon." "You're . . . dethpicable." "Hmm. Pronoun trouble." "Of course you know this means war."
Ring any bells? No? Well, try this one on for size: "Ehh, what's up, doc?"
. . . Not for nothing did Hugh Kenner, a literary critic with impeccable highbrow credentials, write "Chuck Jones: A Flurry of Drawings," an elegant little monograph about the man who unleashed Bugs on Daffy. The most gifted of Warner's fabled stable of cartoon directors, Jones churned out dozens of six-minute masterpieces shot on the tightest of budgets and fully as witty as the screwiest of live-action screwball comedies, not least because his interpretations of the Warner Bros. characters were deeply rooted in a sophisticated understanding of human nature. Asked to explain Wile E. Coyote's unappeasable yearning to eat the uncatchable Road Runner, Jones cited George Santayana: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." That's not pretentious--it's true.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
In the Wall Street Journal, Terry Teachout writes:
"What an ultramaroon." "You're . . . dethpicable." "Hmm. Pronoun trouble." "Of course you know this means war."
Ring any bells? No? Well, try this one on for size: "Ehh, what's up, doc?"
. . . Not for nothing did Hugh Kenner, a literary critic with impeccable highbrow credentials, write "Chuck Jones: A Flurry of Drawings," an elegant little monograph about the man who unleashed Bugs on Daffy. The most gifted of Warner's fabled stable of cartoon directors, Jones churned out dozens of six-minute masterpieces shot on the tightest of budgets and fully as witty as the screwiest of live-action screwball comedies, not least because his interpretations of the Warner Bros. characters were deeply rooted in a sophisticated understanding of human nature. Asked to explain Wile E. Coyote's unappeasable yearning to eat the uncatchable Road Runner, Jones cited George Santayana: "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." That's not pretentious--it's true.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
SO THIS WAS "PEACE" THEN?
"Stop The War" must define "peace" differently than the rest of us, I guess. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
"Stop The War" must define "peace" differently than the rest of us, I guess. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Monday, November 24, 2003
LILEKS ON THE "PAX FLAP"
I will not quote specifically how James Lileks "apologized" for using THAT word. You have to read it. But this part of the "apology" (on France) is worth quoting here, given my previous post:
. . .I’d like my daughter to see the glories of Paris some day. (Yes, Paris. And I say that as someone who had a Frenchman sit at my kitchen table and say yes, Bush is much like Hitler. A sensible, amiable, educated man. Came to America, got a good job in a snap, bought a house, a car, settled in. And Bush is much like Hitler.) For her to go to Paris means that A) France must remain free and Western, and B) she’s not killed before she gets there because someone blew up her office building. Oh, but what do we expect, when we invade Muslim countries? Fine. Why did they blow up the World Trade Center in 1993? Because we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? Yes! And if we’d turned a blind eye to that, and struck back only when Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, then we’d be accused of supporting him in his previous war. We can’t win. And according to this line of thought, winning is something we shouldn’t be thinking about. It’s the wrong way to look at the world. Only losers win.
I’ve never been one of those people who think that America should walk around like an elephant and crush everyone else into a thin red paste. But if the other side regards themselves as war with you, and victory is their objective, you’re a fool not to pay notice. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 24, 2003
I will not quote specifically how James Lileks "apologized" for using THAT word. You have to read it. But this part of the "apology" (on France) is worth quoting here, given my previous post:
. . .I’d like my daughter to see the glories of Paris some day. (Yes, Paris. And I say that as someone who had a Frenchman sit at my kitchen table and say yes, Bush is much like Hitler. A sensible, amiable, educated man. Came to America, got a good job in a snap, bought a house, a car, settled in. And Bush is much like Hitler.) For her to go to Paris means that A) France must remain free and Western, and B) she’s not killed before she gets there because someone blew up her office building. Oh, but what do we expect, when we invade Muslim countries? Fine. Why did they blow up the World Trade Center in 1993? Because we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait? Yes! And if we’d turned a blind eye to that, and struck back only when Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia, then we’d be accused of supporting him in his previous war. We can’t win. And according to this line of thought, winning is something we shouldn’t be thinking about. It’s the wrong way to look at the world. Only losers win.
I’ve never been one of those people who think that America should walk around like an elephant and crush everyone else into a thin red paste. But if the other side regards themselves as war with you, and victory is their objective, you’re a fool not to pay notice. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 24, 2003
OH, YES, THAT OLD "AMERICANO-MANIA"
The BBC's Caroline Wyatt reports that, when it comes to Blair's closeness with Bush, "Le Monde" editorial writer Patrice de Beer offers this gem:
. . .To some French, the pomp and ceremony of President Bush's state visit to London only rubbed in what they already feared - that Tony Blair seems more concerned with the transatlantic relationship than with his neighbours across the Channel.
Patrice de Beer, an editorial writer for the newspaper Le Monde, and a former London and Washington correspondent for the newspaper, says the French political establishment is feeling rather disillusioned with Mr Blair's Britain.
"There is a general feeling that under Blair, Britain is back to its old pre-EU Americano-mania, and at the same time it's surprising as Britain is getting far less from the Bush administration than the previous British government were getting from the previous US administration," he tells me. . .
Two points:
1) Apparently, for France, any policy closeness with Washington is synonymous with "Americano-mania".
So if France disagrees with the U.S., should Americans be able to accuse France of, err, "Saddamo-mania?"
Americans will remember all that the next time France might need U.S. troops to land in, say, Normandy.
"Sorry," we should say. "That would make us TOO close."
Moving right along. . .
2) That Britain is "getting far less" from this U.S. administration than it did from the previous is entirely his opinion -- and one not supported by the facts.
Apparently, the esteemed journalist is referring to the likes of "Kyoto", and Bush's "backing out" of it, while Blair believes it should be ratified by all.
But let's recall this. We are told endlessly that good guy Bill Clinton supported that treaty, while Bush -- "Dr Evil" -- doesn't. Well, Clinton paid only lip service to Kyoto, while he knew full well that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it. On the other hand, Bush told the truth -- that there was no way that the U.S. could back it, and that the U.S. wouldn't. What Blair got from the previous administration was lots of, urrr, hot air. At least Bush has been honest -- which is a reason that Blair and Bush seem to get along so well.
In any event, so much has happened since September 11, 2001 that comparisons of that sort are hardly relevant anyway.
What we do know for sure is that Britain now stands where de Gaulle had hoped France one day would find itself. Militarily rejuvenated, the war in Iraq demonstrated that it is Britain (not France) that is now Europe's major military power. Indeed, Britain probably has what is the world's second most effective military.
No offense, but that is in stark contrast to the current French military, which might have trouble overpowering Monaco, never mind taking someplace like Basra.
This also escapes de Beers: Unlike France, the U.S. doesn't ridicule Blair and Britain. The U.S. takes the views of Britain seriously. In contrast, it has become next to impossible to take France seriously on far too many issues. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 24, 2003
The BBC's Caroline Wyatt reports that, when it comes to Blair's closeness with Bush, "Le Monde" editorial writer Patrice de Beer offers this gem:
. . .To some French, the pomp and ceremony of President Bush's state visit to London only rubbed in what they already feared - that Tony Blair seems more concerned with the transatlantic relationship than with his neighbours across the Channel.
Patrice de Beer, an editorial writer for the newspaper Le Monde, and a former London and Washington correspondent for the newspaper, says the French political establishment is feeling rather disillusioned with Mr Blair's Britain.
"There is a general feeling that under Blair, Britain is back to its old pre-EU Americano-mania, and at the same time it's surprising as Britain is getting far less from the Bush administration than the previous British government were getting from the previous US administration," he tells me. . .
Two points:
1) Apparently, for France, any policy closeness with Washington is synonymous with "Americano-mania".
So if France disagrees with the U.S., should Americans be able to accuse France of, err, "Saddamo-mania?"
Americans will remember all that the next time France might need U.S. troops to land in, say, Normandy.
"Sorry," we should say. "That would make us TOO close."
Moving right along. . .
2) That Britain is "getting far less" from this U.S. administration than it did from the previous is entirely his opinion -- and one not supported by the facts.
Apparently, the esteemed journalist is referring to the likes of "Kyoto", and Bush's "backing out" of it, while Blair believes it should be ratified by all.
But let's recall this. We are told endlessly that good guy Bill Clinton supported that treaty, while Bush -- "Dr Evil" -- doesn't. Well, Clinton paid only lip service to Kyoto, while he knew full well that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it. On the other hand, Bush told the truth -- that there was no way that the U.S. could back it, and that the U.S. wouldn't. What Blair got from the previous administration was lots of, urrr, hot air. At least Bush has been honest -- which is a reason that Blair and Bush seem to get along so well.
In any event, so much has happened since September 11, 2001 that comparisons of that sort are hardly relevant anyway.
What we do know for sure is that Britain now stands where de Gaulle had hoped France one day would find itself. Militarily rejuvenated, the war in Iraq demonstrated that it is Britain (not France) that is now Europe's major military power. Indeed, Britain probably has what is the world's second most effective military.
No offense, but that is in stark contrast to the current French military, which might have trouble overpowering Monaco, never mind taking someplace like Basra.
This also escapes de Beers: Unlike France, the U.S. doesn't ridicule Blair and Britain. The U.S. takes the views of Britain seriously. In contrast, it has become next to impossible to take France seriously on far too many issues. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 24, 2003
Sunday, November 23, 2003
WHY BUSH?
The other day, I found myself suddenly in a conversation about -- well, you know who. I don't normally allow myself to get into that position with anyone other than someone who's reasonable. This (British) person was reasonable. And we had a useful, civil and rational exchange. I don't believe her mind was changed. But then again, neither was mine.
The discussion led me to want to note my views on the main points she raised:
1) "Most people do seem to think Bush is a moron".
My response: I do admit that I was not impressed by him, and he did not get my vote for president in November 2000. However, I have spent the last two years paying attention to him -- reading his speeches carefully, following his evolving policies closely. Bush may not be an "intellectual", but the last thing we need in the White House right now is that sort. Remember, this president has had to deal with the worst domestic crisis since Lincoln. Given the circumstances, I do not believe that anyone else on the political scene currently could be handling the situation any better.
2) "Do the American people who defend Bush do so simply because he is president"?
My response: Some might, but I don't believe most who support him do so for that reason. If most didn't believe he and the administration were pointed in the right direction, the administration would not be able to impose unpopular policies on an unwilling electorate. What is the alternative anyway? We have yet to see a single Democrat provide tangible evidence of what he/she would do substantively differently, which could actually improve the situation. I keep listening, but they have nothing to say.
3) "Don't you think the attacks on the British interests in Istanbul were because Bush was visiting Britain"?
My response: They may very well have been. But that is really beside the point. After all, if one thinks that the way to avoid such attacks would have been not to have had Bush visit Britain, where will such blackmail end? Should we allow maniacs to dictate what we do, because they might attack us?
4) "How can we hope to fight and defeat people who blow themselves up"?
My response: Yes, we can fight them and we can win. We have fought and defeated people far more brave and technologically resourceful, who killed themselves in the thousands -- the Japanese in the Second World War. Even they ran out of kamikazes. This bunch, too, will eventually run out of self-detonating, cannon fodder. Suicide killers are desperate for their deaths to be meaningful, to attract others to the suicidal cause. So the long-term key to winning is to demonstrate to potential recruits that their deaths will actually be meaningless -- that "the cause" will not be furthered. In the short-term, we must simply kill them in droves before they have a chance to kill us. They want to die -- so let's help them. Above all, it must always be us, not them, who decides just when and where they will die. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 23, 2003
The other day, I found myself suddenly in a conversation about -- well, you know who. I don't normally allow myself to get into that position with anyone other than someone who's reasonable. This (British) person was reasonable. And we had a useful, civil and rational exchange. I don't believe her mind was changed. But then again, neither was mine.
The discussion led me to want to note my views on the main points she raised:
1) "Most people do seem to think Bush is a moron".
My response: I do admit that I was not impressed by him, and he did not get my vote for president in November 2000. However, I have spent the last two years paying attention to him -- reading his speeches carefully, following his evolving policies closely. Bush may not be an "intellectual", but the last thing we need in the White House right now is that sort. Remember, this president has had to deal with the worst domestic crisis since Lincoln. Given the circumstances, I do not believe that anyone else on the political scene currently could be handling the situation any better.
2) "Do the American people who defend Bush do so simply because he is president"?
My response: Some might, but I don't believe most who support him do so for that reason. If most didn't believe he and the administration were pointed in the right direction, the administration would not be able to impose unpopular policies on an unwilling electorate. What is the alternative anyway? We have yet to see a single Democrat provide tangible evidence of what he/she would do substantively differently, which could actually improve the situation. I keep listening, but they have nothing to say.
3) "Don't you think the attacks on the British interests in Istanbul were because Bush was visiting Britain"?
My response: They may very well have been. But that is really beside the point. After all, if one thinks that the way to avoid such attacks would have been not to have had Bush visit Britain, where will such blackmail end? Should we allow maniacs to dictate what we do, because they might attack us?
4) "How can we hope to fight and defeat people who blow themselves up"?
My response: Yes, we can fight them and we can win. We have fought and defeated people far more brave and technologically resourceful, who killed themselves in the thousands -- the Japanese in the Second World War. Even they ran out of kamikazes. This bunch, too, will eventually run out of self-detonating, cannon fodder. Suicide killers are desperate for their deaths to be meaningful, to attract others to the suicidal cause. So the long-term key to winning is to demonstrate to potential recruits that their deaths will actually be meaningless -- that "the cause" will not be furthered. In the short-term, we must simply kill them in droves before they have a chance to kill us. They want to die -- so let's help them. Above all, it must always be us, not them, who decides just when and where they will die. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 23, 2003
Saturday, November 22, 2003
ENGLAND 20, AUSTRALIA 17
The BBC reports:
England won the Rugby World Cup with a breathtaking drop goal from Jonny Wilkinson just 26 seconds from the end of a thrilling final in Sydney.
Millions watched around the world as captain Martin Johnson became the first player to lead a northern hemisphere side to the world title as they edged out defending champions Australia in the rain.
Wilkinson's last-gasp effort was all that separated the sides after 100 minutes of rugby. . .
I love most team sports. I would rank England's win today as probably the single most exciting sports events I have ever watched. I don't think I will ever forget it. It was that flippin' good. If you didn't see it, you missed something spectacular.
It always helps when your team wins, in dramatic fashion of course. . .
Oh, and thank goodness. My weekend is safe: The wife is thrilled!!!!
It is also worth mentioning this. There were exactly three commercial breaks (the last one only very short, at the 10 min change end mark of overtime) -- that's right, I said THREE! -- in ITV's coverage of a game that started at 9 AM and went on until after 11 AM. They didn't cut to a Miller, Ford or drug company ad every 30 seconds throughout, which utterly destroys the drama and flow of the action of the likes of the Super Bowl.
American TV execs should take note of that. Although you know that they probably never will. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 22, 2003
The BBC reports:
England won the Rugby World Cup with a breathtaking drop goal from Jonny Wilkinson just 26 seconds from the end of a thrilling final in Sydney.
Millions watched around the world as captain Martin Johnson became the first player to lead a northern hemisphere side to the world title as they edged out defending champions Australia in the rain.
Wilkinson's last-gasp effort was all that separated the sides after 100 minutes of rugby. . .
I love most team sports. I would rank England's win today as probably the single most exciting sports events I have ever watched. I don't think I will ever forget it. It was that flippin' good. If you didn't see it, you missed something spectacular.
It always helps when your team wins, in dramatic fashion of course. . .
Oh, and thank goodness. My weekend is safe: The wife is thrilled!!!!
It is also worth mentioning this. There were exactly three commercial breaks (the last one only very short, at the 10 min change end mark of overtime) -- that's right, I said THREE! -- in ITV's coverage of a game that started at 9 AM and went on until after 11 AM. They didn't cut to a Miller, Ford or drug company ad every 30 seconds throughout, which utterly destroys the drama and flow of the action of the likes of the Super Bowl.
American TV execs should take note of that. Although you know that they probably never will. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 22, 2003
Friday, November 21, 2003
WELL THIS IS IT, GUYS!
About the only sure thing about the game tomorrow is that the U.S. won't be winning this World Cup. We were eliminated in the opening round.
The Rugby Union World Cup final game begins around 9 AM Saturday, U.K. time (evening in Sydney, Australia, where it is being played.) The champion will be either, England!!!!!, led by fly half Jonny Wilkinson. . .
. . .or, urrrrr, oh, yes, our magnificent ally, Australia.
England has been accused of being boring, plodding and without flash. Indeed, watching them defeat France 24-7 last week, their style increasingly reminds me of the New Jersey Devils, who've won three Stanley Cups since 1995 being boring, plodding and without flash -- and by being the best damn team on NHL ice.
In the end, style doesn't really matter. Winning matters.
You know, somebody really should teach Curtis Martin how to play rugby. . .
If the U.S. put its mind to it, it could win this cup much quicker than the soccer World Cup!
And if England doesn't win tomorrow, the wife will be very depressed -- which will ruin my weekend!
Go England!!!!!!! ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
About the only sure thing about the game tomorrow is that the U.S. won't be winning this World Cup. We were eliminated in the opening round.
The Rugby Union World Cup final game begins around 9 AM Saturday, U.K. time (evening in Sydney, Australia, where it is being played.) The champion will be either, England!!!!!, led by fly half Jonny Wilkinson. . .
. . .or, urrrrr, oh, yes, our magnificent ally, Australia.
England has been accused of being boring, plodding and without flash. Indeed, watching them defeat France 24-7 last week, their style increasingly reminds me of the New Jersey Devils, who've won three Stanley Cups since 1995 being boring, plodding and without flash -- and by being the best damn team on NHL ice.
In the end, style doesn't really matter. Winning matters.
You know, somebody really should teach Curtis Martin how to play rugby. . .
If the U.S. put its mind to it, it could win this cup much quicker than the soccer World Cup!
And if England doesn't win tomorrow, the wife will be very depressed -- which will ruin my weekend!
Go England!!!!!!! ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE THIRD DAY III
Well, the big visit is finished. Of course, the BBC reporters have their views on what it all meant. Guto Harri lines up all the predictable BBC talking points:
Teesside Airport :: Guto Harri :: 1705GMT
In the end very little policy was sorted out. We all had a list that we were hoping to tick things off from. Was George Bush going to give the signal that perhaps he was going to lift those punitive measures that make it very hard for us to sell British steel in the United States? Not sorted, a few hints were dropped, but nothing was agreed.
And with Guantanamo Bay, again hints were dropped that if Tony Blair wanted to bring British suspects back to the UK to stand trial then President Bush might be agreeable to that, but again it wasn't sorted.
What happens in Iraq? Well they had lots of discussions on that. But in the end it was all overshadowed by those terrible events in Turkey, events which distracted them, but also added a certain poignancy and edge to what they were talking about.
Let's take these one at a time.
It is hard to believe that Guto actually believes there was going to be a "steel tariff" moment, when Bush would blurt out: "Yes! We are lifting the tariff right this minute!" When do things like that happen in politics? Almost never. In the end, of course it will be sorted out.
"Guantanamo" has been argued to death. The bottom line is, the slugs there who hold British passports are in no danger of being lined up against a wall and shot. Anyone who moans that the Bush administration is going to place British passport holders before a U.S. military court WITHOUT British government support, frankly doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about.
What happens in Iraq, Guto? Well, we have secured over 85 percent of the country. How to mop up those who as a last resort are using roadside bombs, taking shots at helicopters, engaging in suicide attacks on democratic officials, and launching the occasional missile hidden in a donkey cart, is what they were talking about. It's not that complicated, really.
It's proper that it was all a bit overshadowed by Istanbul. For Istanbul is a reminder of what can happen in a major city. Such attacks have now finally targeted a European city. If they did not pay attention to Istanbul, Bush and Blair would not be doing their jobs. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
Well, the big visit is finished. Of course, the BBC reporters have their views on what it all meant. Guto Harri lines up all the predictable BBC talking points:
Teesside Airport :: Guto Harri :: 1705GMT
In the end very little policy was sorted out. We all had a list that we were hoping to tick things off from. Was George Bush going to give the signal that perhaps he was going to lift those punitive measures that make it very hard for us to sell British steel in the United States? Not sorted, a few hints were dropped, but nothing was agreed.
And with Guantanamo Bay, again hints were dropped that if Tony Blair wanted to bring British suspects back to the UK to stand trial then President Bush might be agreeable to that, but again it wasn't sorted.
What happens in Iraq? Well they had lots of discussions on that. But in the end it was all overshadowed by those terrible events in Turkey, events which distracted them, but also added a certain poignancy and edge to what they were talking about.
Let's take these one at a time.
It is hard to believe that Guto actually believes there was going to be a "steel tariff" moment, when Bush would blurt out: "Yes! We are lifting the tariff right this minute!" When do things like that happen in politics? Almost never. In the end, of course it will be sorted out.
"Guantanamo" has been argued to death. The bottom line is, the slugs there who hold British passports are in no danger of being lined up against a wall and shot. Anyone who moans that the Bush administration is going to place British passport holders before a U.S. military court WITHOUT British government support, frankly doesn't know what the hell he/she is talking about.
What happens in Iraq, Guto? Well, we have secured over 85 percent of the country. How to mop up those who as a last resort are using roadside bombs, taking shots at helicopters, engaging in suicide attacks on democratic officials, and launching the occasional missile hidden in a donkey cart, is what they were talking about. It's not that complicated, really.
It's proper that it was all a bit overshadowed by Istanbul. For Istanbul is a reminder of what can happen in a major city. Such attacks have now finally targeted a European city. If they did not pay attention to Istanbul, Bush and Blair would not be doing their jobs. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
AND SALAM PAX GETS IT FROM LILEKS
"Salam Pax's" piece in the Guardian was too much for James Lileks:
Hey, Salam? F--k you. I know you’re the famous giggly blogger who gave us all a riveting view of the inner circle before the war, and thus know more about the situation than I do. Granted. But there’s a picture on the front page of my local paper today: third Minnesotan killed in Iraq. He died doing what you never had the stones to do: pick up a rifle and face the Ba’athists. You owe him.
As they say, read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
"Salam Pax's" piece in the Guardian was too much for James Lileks:
Hey, Salam? F--k you. I know you’re the famous giggly blogger who gave us all a riveting view of the inner circle before the war, and thus know more about the situation than I do. Granted. But there’s a picture on the front page of my local paper today: third Minnesotan killed in Iraq. He died doing what you never had the stones to do: pick up a rifle and face the Ba’athists. You owe him.
As they say, read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
THE COUNTRY CAN'T AFFORD TO GET LOST IN A "JACKO" HAZE
Charles Johnson at LGF is absolutely right:
If you’re disgusted by the US media’s obsessive focus on trivial, inconsequential garbage like the Michael Jackson case, and the Laci Peterson case (soon to be relegated to the back burner now that Jacko has done something stupid again), please use our Media Contacts page to let these people know what you think about their pandering. As car bombs explode in Turkey, and the Arab world screams hatred of the West, and the radical left lays down in the streets of London and offers its belly to the radical Muslims, we cannot go back to sleep.
If we do fall into dreamland, watching mindless television as the killers plot our deaths—and I’m becoming more and more convinced that’s what’s going on in this country—we are going to pay a very high price. A very high price indeed.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
Charles Johnson at LGF is absolutely right:
If you’re disgusted by the US media’s obsessive focus on trivial, inconsequential garbage like the Michael Jackson case, and the Laci Peterson case (soon to be relegated to the back burner now that Jacko has done something stupid again), please use our Media Contacts page to let these people know what you think about their pandering. As car bombs explode in Turkey, and the Arab world screams hatred of the West, and the radical left lays down in the streets of London and offers its belly to the radical Muslims, we cannot go back to sleep.
If we do fall into dreamland, watching mindless television as the killers plot our deaths—and I’m becoming more and more convinced that’s what’s going on in this country—we are going to pay a very high price. A very high price indeed.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
NO NEUTRALITY?
This comment on the Istanbul attacks CANNOT have been in France's left-wing Liberation newspaper, but the BBC says it did indeed appear:
Bin Laden's infernal machines will one of these days target Berlin or Paris, just as they targeted New York and Istanbul. In this war, neutrality is not an option
Liberation is correct, of course.
But let's see if they still feel this way in say, a week or two. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
This comment on the Istanbul attacks CANNOT have been in France's left-wing Liberation newspaper, but the BBC says it did indeed appear:
Bin Laden's infernal machines will one of these days target Berlin or Paris, just as they targeted New York and Istanbul. In this war, neutrality is not an option
Liberation is correct, of course.
But let's see if they still feel this way in say, a week or two. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE THIRD DAY II
The BBC reporters are wandering around in County Durham.
Amazing they can find the place. This bunch would have an easier time locating Baghdad.
Indeed, they've probably spent more time in Baghdad.
But that doesn't stop them from taking cheap shots at the president, of course. Why, here's a couple of them now:
Trimdon Colliery, Co Durham :: Richard Wells :: 1230GMT
In recent years the French president Jacques Chirac and the French prime minister of the time Lionel Jospin, came here, and went to the Dun Cow Inn for a pub lunch. But the people here are saying that the level of security for those visits was nowhere near as strict or as tight as it has been for this visit.
This is no Camp David. Trimdon Colliery was built because of the two collieries that used to be around here. It is not the most affluent area of Co Durham. There are lots of terraced houses which used to be miners homes. The prime minister's home used to be occupied by a couple of teachers.
It is not perhaps the sort of place that President Bush and the First Lady usually spend their time. Hopefully they are enjoying this taste of the north east.
That Lionel Jospin or Jacques Chirac would not have required Bush's security is pretty much self-evident. Indeed, most people in Britain wouldn't have recognized Lionel Jospin even if he had had his name taped to his forehead.
And the Bush couple wouldn't have spent much time in any northeast of England village -- because, Mr Insightful, they are from Texas.
Good grief. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
The BBC reporters are wandering around in County Durham.
Amazing they can find the place. This bunch would have an easier time locating Baghdad.
Indeed, they've probably spent more time in Baghdad.
But that doesn't stop them from taking cheap shots at the president, of course. Why, here's a couple of them now:
Trimdon Colliery, Co Durham :: Richard Wells :: 1230GMT
In recent years the French president Jacques Chirac and the French prime minister of the time Lionel Jospin, came here, and went to the Dun Cow Inn for a pub lunch. But the people here are saying that the level of security for those visits was nowhere near as strict or as tight as it has been for this visit.
This is no Camp David. Trimdon Colliery was built because of the two collieries that used to be around here. It is not the most affluent area of Co Durham. There are lots of terraced houses which used to be miners homes. The prime minister's home used to be occupied by a couple of teachers.
It is not perhaps the sort of place that President Bush and the First Lady usually spend their time. Hopefully they are enjoying this taste of the north east.
That Lionel Jospin or Jacques Chirac would not have required Bush's security is pretty much self-evident. Indeed, most people in Britain wouldn't have recognized Lionel Jospin even if he had had his name taped to his forehead.
And the Bush couple wouldn't have spent much time in any northeast of England village -- because, Mr Insightful, they are from Texas.
Good grief. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
TO PLAY SOME CATCH UP
I've spent so much time in the last few days reading mostly the BBC, that I suddenly realized I had better get some fresh air! And quickly!
Adrian and "Former Belgian" on Istanbul. . .
Debbye on how Canada might be targeted next. . .
"Italian Girl" (November 21) on Iraqis asking France and the "anti-war" crowd for an apology.
Robert "In Notts Forest" used to train with the 101st. . .
Murdoc Online gets the London marchers and Xenophon into the same paragraph. Excellent!
Gregory on the founding date of the "Stop The War" coalition. What a bunch.
"Viking Pundit" directs us to the "lefty Spice Girls" -- who do seem to be making an, urr, impression.
And there I was, just labelling them as part of the grand axis of commies/Islamists/dimwits. (Scroll to the end of the post.)
See what happens if you read too much BBCi?
And back to the day to day, Astrid's returned from her great grandmother's funeral.
So if you visit this site, you probably also visit those great people now and then -- or those like them. If you haven't seen any of those above, click over and have a look. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
I've spent so much time in the last few days reading mostly the BBC, that I suddenly realized I had better get some fresh air! And quickly!
Adrian and "Former Belgian" on Istanbul. . .
Debbye on how Canada might be targeted next. . .
"Italian Girl" (November 21) on Iraqis asking France and the "anti-war" crowd for an apology.
Robert "In Notts Forest" used to train with the 101st. . .
Murdoc Online gets the London marchers and Xenophon into the same paragraph. Excellent!
Gregory on the founding date of the "Stop The War" coalition. What a bunch.
"Viking Pundit" directs us to the "lefty Spice Girls" -- who do seem to be making an, urr, impression.
And there I was, just labelling them as part of the grand axis of commies/Islamists/dimwits. (Scroll to the end of the post.)
See what happens if you read too much BBCi?
And back to the day to day, Astrid's returned from her great grandmother's funeral.
So if you visit this site, you probably also visit those great people now and then -- or those like them. If you haven't seen any of those above, click over and have a look. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE THIRD DAY
After that busy and hectic day in London yesterday, which included having Nigella Lawson make his lunch (Now, now, behave yourselves; not this president) . . .
. . . today, the president leaves London, and will visit Tony Blair's constituency in Sedgefield, County Durham. (For lack of a better description, it is essentially Blair's congressional district.)
BBC world affairs correspondent John Simpson has noted:
What happened in Turkey changed everything here.
Gee, John, ya think?
But commies, Islamists and general dimwits didn't get the message. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
After that busy and hectic day in London yesterday, which included having Nigella Lawson make his lunch (Now, now, behave yourselves; not this president) . . .
. . . today, the president leaves London, and will visit Tony Blair's constituency in Sedgefield, County Durham. (For lack of a better description, it is essentially Blair's congressional district.)
BBC world affairs correspondent John Simpson has noted:
What happened in Turkey changed everything here.
Gee, John, ya think?
But commies, Islamists and general dimwits didn't get the message. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 21, 2003
Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY VIII
Well, it is after 10 PM in London. At 9:30 PM, the BBC had this, from Trafalgar Square:
Trafalgar Square :: Andy Tighe :: 2130GMT
There's more activity going on here from the street cleaners now than the demonstrators. Until a few minutes ago they seemed to have a bonfire going, but that's petered out now. Really it's finished, and that's in accordance with the organisers' wishes.
So that was the big demo, huh?
Hmm, I do wonder if anyone ever told Dominic Casciani about the horrific Istanbul bombings?
Those big pretzel carriers were so interesting. . .
Yawn. . .
Night everyone. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
Well, it is after 10 PM in London. At 9:30 PM, the BBC had this, from Trafalgar Square:
Trafalgar Square :: Andy Tighe :: 2130GMT
There's more activity going on here from the street cleaners now than the demonstrators. Until a few minutes ago they seemed to have a bonfire going, but that's petered out now. Really it's finished, and that's in accordance with the organisers' wishes.
So that was the big demo, huh?
Hmm, I do wonder if anyone ever told Dominic Casciani about the horrific Istanbul bombings?
Those big pretzel carriers were so interesting. . .
Yawn. . .
Night everyone. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY VII
The BBC has these "voices" of the protests. Those who are "anti-war" come across as either ill-informed, naive, myopic or just plain nasty, or combinations of all. However, one gentleman in particular struck a sour note with me:
Name: Clive Munn
Location: The Strand
Time: 14:00 GMT
I hate the Americans, or rather I like the people but not any of their leaders. I was in the British Army during World War II and the Americans did nothing for two and a half years until they themselves were attacked at Pearl Harbour even though we were having a dreadful time, nothing has changed since then so that's why I'm marching today.
Well, I like the British. And though I may be critical at times, I respect their democratic right to elect those representatives they wish, which is something he doesn't grant Americans.
In fact, I think the first part of his first sentence is very telling, despite his sudden attempt to soften it.
And as Harry Truman would say, his main point is undiluted manure.
Understand that I would normally not contradict any veteran, and I have the greatest respect for British veterans. But if veterans of the Second World War, or First World War, from my family were alive today, they would have something to say in response.
So, in their place, I will.
The Second World War in Europe came about because the British and the French governments of the middle and later 1930s chose to ignore the growing danger and militarism on their own doorsteps. The war became worldwide starting in 1941 mostly because Hitler's rampaging through Europe since 1939 emboldened the Japanese militarists into thinking that they could take on the U.S. singlehandedly. Hence the attack on Pearl Harbor.
There were reasons European governments did not stop Hitler of course. Similarly, there were reasons that Americans did not yearn to jump into the fight immediately.
This gentleman has some stinking nerve to infer that Americans just chose to try to sit out the war, ignoring British suffering. In fact, it was primarily British and French inaction prior to 1939 which had allowed the war to come about in the first place! If the U.S. was slow to join the second war, that was mostly because many Americans felt that they had been conned into joining the first in 1917 -- which, lest we forget, started in Europe also.
Thankfully, in the end, we all -- British, Americans, French, Russians, Chinese and others -- did the right thing, in fighting through to win over the horrific evil that had unleashed the second.
Today, that veteran marched in London shoulder to shoulder with those who believe a terrible evil should to be allowed to rampage unchecked. . .
. . . Just like another evil, back in the 1930s.
If they were alive today, either of my grandfathers would turn to him mockingly and smirk, "You know, there's no fool like an old fool." ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
The BBC has these "voices" of the protests. Those who are "anti-war" come across as either ill-informed, naive, myopic or just plain nasty, or combinations of all. However, one gentleman in particular struck a sour note with me:
Name: Clive Munn
Location: The Strand
Time: 14:00 GMT
I hate the Americans, or rather I like the people but not any of their leaders. I was in the British Army during World War II and the Americans did nothing for two and a half years until they themselves were attacked at Pearl Harbour even though we were having a dreadful time, nothing has changed since then so that's why I'm marching today.
Well, I like the British. And though I may be critical at times, I respect their democratic right to elect those representatives they wish, which is something he doesn't grant Americans.
In fact, I think the first part of his first sentence is very telling, despite his sudden attempt to soften it.
And as Harry Truman would say, his main point is undiluted manure.
Understand that I would normally not contradict any veteran, and I have the greatest respect for British veterans. But if veterans of the Second World War, or First World War, from my family were alive today, they would have something to say in response.
So, in their place, I will.
The Second World War in Europe came about because the British and the French governments of the middle and later 1930s chose to ignore the growing danger and militarism on their own doorsteps. The war became worldwide starting in 1941 mostly because Hitler's rampaging through Europe since 1939 emboldened the Japanese militarists into thinking that they could take on the U.S. singlehandedly. Hence the attack on Pearl Harbor.
There were reasons European governments did not stop Hitler of course. Similarly, there were reasons that Americans did not yearn to jump into the fight immediately.
This gentleman has some stinking nerve to infer that Americans just chose to try to sit out the war, ignoring British suffering. In fact, it was primarily British and French inaction prior to 1939 which had allowed the war to come about in the first place! If the U.S. was slow to join the second war, that was mostly because many Americans felt that they had been conned into joining the first in 1917 -- which, lest we forget, started in Europe also.
Thankfully, in the end, we all -- British, Americans, French, Russians, Chinese and others -- did the right thing, in fighting through to win over the horrific evil that had unleashed the second.
Today, that veteran marched in London shoulder to shoulder with those who believe a terrible evil should to be allowed to rampage unchecked. . .
. . . Just like another evil, back in the 1930s.
If they were alive today, either of my grandfathers would turn to him mockingly and smirk, "You know, there's no fool like an old fool." ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY VI
Oh, yes, "Stop The War" is there. The commies and Islamists have arrived.
Hmm, why aren't they marching in Istanbul?
Anyway, the fun continues. Dominic is with them, still giving no indication that he has any idea of what is happening right now in the dark, in Istanbul, where rescuers are digging through rubble:
Sorry, but they don't drown out the noise made by suicidal car bomb attacks.
In any event. . .
Hmm, so the numbers are way down from February? But not to worry, says Dominic, because "Stop The War" will be "delighted" at the turnout for a "weekday".
Really? They know what a "weekday" is?
These people have 9-5 jobs, from which they are absent this afternoon?
Really? 9-5?
But 9-5 is just so, so, so . . . Halliburton.
Impossible! They'd never sell-out!
. . . I suppose that is about par for the course, representative of just how, indeed, this "anti-war movement" has no clothes.
Someone should tell them that you cannot stop a war that the other side is trying to win.
But why bother. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
Oh, yes, "Stop The War" is there. The commies and Islamists have arrived.
Hmm, why aren't they marching in Istanbul?
Anyway, the fun continues. Dominic is with them, still giving no indication that he has any idea of what is happening right now in the dark, in Istanbul, where rescuers are digging through rubble:
Waterloo :: Dominic Casciani :: 1535GMTOh, good, drums and whistles. That's original.
The head of the march has just passed Waterloo on its way to Westminster Bridge, and it's now clear that tens of thousands have turned out to protest.
Although the numbers appear to be well down on February's enormous anti-war demonstration, the organisers of the Stop the War coalition will be delighted at the turnout on a weekday.
As ever the protest is noisy with drums, whistles and anti-George Bush chants. But there are also big numbers of people chanting against Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Sorry, but they don't drown out the noise made by suicidal car bomb attacks.
In any event. . .
Hmm, so the numbers are way down from February? But not to worry, says Dominic, because "Stop The War" will be "delighted" at the turnout for a "weekday".
Really? They know what a "weekday" is?
These people have 9-5 jobs, from which they are absent this afternoon?
Really? 9-5?
But 9-5 is just so, so, so . . . Halliburton.
Impossible! They'd never sell-out!
Trafalgar Square :: Andy Tighe :: 1555GMTA streaker?
The square itself isn't completely full, there is still room for the additional demonstrators to find their way into here. They've been enjoying live music, admiring perhaps the 18ft effigy of George Bush. In the last few minutes people have been admiring a streaker in one of the fountains, who's just been arrested by the police.
. . . I suppose that is about par for the course, representative of just how, indeed, this "anti-war movement" has no clothes.
Someone should tell them that you cannot stop a war that the other side is trying to win.
But why bother. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY V
This!!!! is what is meant by an irregular action and irregular fighters.
Do such people really deserve the same treatment afforded to those who obey the "rules" of war? Well, I think not.
But some people still apparently do think so.
Foreign Office, London :: Justin Webb :: 1245GMT
President Bush and Tony Blair have just held a joint press conference at which they expressed their condolences to the families of those who have died in the attacks in Turkey.
Both leaders said the attacks in Turkey demonstrated the importance of winning the war on terrorism and in particular bringing peace to Iraq. Mr Blair said there could be no holding back, no compromise, no hesitation in confronting this menace and defeating it utterly.
This was the time to show strength, determination and complete resolve. President Bush said Britain and America were united in determination to fight this evil - "We will," he said, "finish the job we have begun."
On the issue of the British detainess at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Blair made it clear that no agreement had been reached so far on what to do. "We are in discussion," he said, "and it will be resolved at some point soon."
What is particularly mind-numbing is how the false issue of Guantanamo was raised by a questioner at a press conference overshadowed by suicide bombings the very same day in Istanbul, which killed the British consul general and two dozen others.
Considering what is going on today, just how miserably and painfully tone deaf is that? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
This!!!! is what is meant by an irregular action and irregular fighters.
Do such people really deserve the same treatment afforded to those who obey the "rules" of war? Well, I think not.
But some people still apparently do think so.
Foreign Office, London :: Justin Webb :: 1245GMT
President Bush and Tony Blair have just held a joint press conference at which they expressed their condolences to the families of those who have died in the attacks in Turkey.
Both leaders said the attacks in Turkey demonstrated the importance of winning the war on terrorism and in particular bringing peace to Iraq. Mr Blair said there could be no holding back, no compromise, no hesitation in confronting this menace and defeating it utterly.
This was the time to show strength, determination and complete resolve. President Bush said Britain and America were united in determination to fight this evil - "We will," he said, "finish the job we have begun."
On the issue of the British detainess at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Blair made it clear that no agreement had been reached so far on what to do. "We are in discussion," he said, "and it will be resolved at some point soon."
What is particularly mind-numbing is how the false issue of Guantanamo was raised by a questioner at a press conference overshadowed by suicide bombings the very same day in Istanbul, which killed the British consul general and two dozen others.
Considering what is going on today, just how miserably and painfully tone deaf is that? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY IV
They are preparing to fell the tyrant.
No one appears to have rung Dominic yet:
Trafalgar Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1410GMT
A few thousand people are now gathered in Trafalgar Square as the main march sets off a few miles away. The organisers have placed a large "Stop Bush" banner across Nelson's Column.
They're getting ready to erect the statue of George Bush which they plan to topple at the height of today's protest.
The mood is easygoing with people from many different backgrounds-and the security presence from the police is low key.
Hey guys! No one cares right now. Far more tragic and important things are happening, while you topple your, urr, "Bush statue". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
They are preparing to fell the tyrant.
No one appears to have rung Dominic yet:
Trafalgar Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1410GMT
A few thousand people are now gathered in Trafalgar Square as the main march sets off a few miles away. The organisers have placed a large "Stop Bush" banner across Nelson's Column.
They're getting ready to erect the statue of George Bush which they plan to topple at the height of today's protest.
The mood is easygoing with people from many different backgrounds-and the security presence from the police is low key.
Hey guys! No one cares right now. Far more tragic and important things are happening, while you topple your, urr, "Bush statue". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
EXPLOSIONS IN ISTANBUL II
The BBC now reports that at least 25 people have been killed in a bombing of the British consulate in Istanbul.
While Britain usually responds to such attacks with a cold determination, this will probably put an end to the most public pagentry of the Bush visit. And rightly so.
It should not, of course, put a stop to behind closed doors consultations over how to throttle such people.
Parliament Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1200GMT
It's little over an hour after George Bush's departure from Westminster the hub of British government remains strangely quiet.
It appears a lot of people who work in the area - principally civil servants - have decided to stay away for the day.
Normally at this time the coffee bars and sandwich shops of Westminster and St James would be thronging with people.
But with a huge police presence throughout the area, and no customers to serve, staff are just looking glum.
Somebody please ring Dominic and tell him that something more important is happening. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
The BBC now reports that at least 25 people have been killed in a bombing of the British consulate in Istanbul.
While Britain usually responds to such attacks with a cold determination, this will probably put an end to the most public pagentry of the Bush visit. And rightly so.
It should not, of course, put a stop to behind closed doors consultations over how to throttle such people.
Parliament Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1200GMT
It's little over an hour after George Bush's departure from Westminster the hub of British government remains strangely quiet.
It appears a lot of people who work in the area - principally civil servants - have decided to stay away for the day.
Normally at this time the coffee bars and sandwich shops of Westminster and St James would be thronging with people.
But with a huge police presence throughout the area, and no customers to serve, staff are just looking glum.
Somebody please ring Dominic and tell him that something more important is happening. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY III
The BBC reporters are at the ready. Follow them today, as they cover the president while always hoping and praying that some "deep thinker" wearing a Saddam, bin Laden or Tony Blair mask manages to get in close enough to hit the president in the face with "a coconut custard pie, with whipped cream". . .
Buckingham Palace :: Brian Hanrahan :: 0935GMT
So far here at Buckingham Palace not a curtain has twitched, metaphorically speaking.
We know that the President's schedule has him up at 05:30am, so no doubt inside the Palace he has been busy with his staff, working on things that American Presidents do.
Any moment now he should emerge from the gates.
The motorcycle outriders who will accompany his convoy are lined up outside the Palace, ready to head off into London.
Now that's quality reporting. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
The BBC reporters are at the ready. Follow them today, as they cover the president while always hoping and praying that some "deep thinker" wearing a Saddam, bin Laden or Tony Blair mask manages to get in close enough to hit the president in the face with "a coconut custard pie, with whipped cream". . .
Buckingham Palace :: Brian Hanrahan :: 0935GMT
So far here at Buckingham Palace not a curtain has twitched, metaphorically speaking.
We know that the President's schedule has him up at 05:30am, so no doubt inside the Palace he has been busy with his staff, working on things that American Presidents do.
Any moment now he should emerge from the gates.
The motorcycle outriders who will accompany his convoy are lined up outside the Palace, ready to head off into London.
Now that's quality reporting. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
HANSON CALLS IT WHAT IT IS
Victor Hanson explains what is wrong with the protesters -- and the danger they do represent. He feels:
. . .the shrillness of the London protest reflects the mood of the new Western citizen; the most affluent and privileged individual in the history of civilisation, who, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, can afford to find patriotism, civic militarism and the singularity of Western culture all so passé. In an era when the horrors of the Somme, the Great Depression, the Jewish Holocaust and even SS10 Soviet nukes are dim memories, we have riches and unrivalled freedom. So we demand perfection, expecting that we can stop racism, class oppression, sexism and environmental desecration as quickly and easily as we can find information on the internet or communicate across the globe.
In this unrealistic view of the perfectibility of human nature, far from being appreciative of our fragile peace, accomplishments and luck, well-off Westerners demand more. Furious over our perceived failures, we equate the pathologies of man exclusively with the sins of an all-powerful West, especially those of its most powerful nation as it is symbolised now by George Bush.
America reads daily about this growing anti-American sentiment and I wonder whether those abroad stop to ponder the effect of all this easy invective on those of us who live here. Americans as never before are re-examining all the old alliances and friendships, from troops in Europe and bases in the Mediterranean to peacekeepers in the Balkans and ships in the Gulf. If privileged Western protesters cannot tell the difference between what Saddam did and what America is trying to do in Iraq, if they think that tomorrow's Saddams, Milosevics and Kim Jong Ils will be awed by Nobel Prize awards, barristers in The Hague and EU resolutions rather than aircraft carriers, or if they assume in their end-of-history world that their worship of reason is equally shared by all those outside the West, we may be soon entering a far scarier world, when America in exasperation — as it did for most of its history before the European wars — will simply shrug and say: "Good luck to you all."
Let's hope it doesn't have to come to that.
Interestingly, those who disagree use arguments that speak volumes.
Here's one:
. . .If freedom really does mean what President Bush says it does, then people have reason, as well as right, to complain. The Victor Davis Hansons of America need to understand that their preachy attitude makes matters worse, while a little more US humility, understanding and forbearance would go a long way to help clear up the world’s messes. . .
Yet for the better part of a decade, we were led by the "president of forebearance" himself, who apologized for everything in sight, and said all the right things. At the very same time, America was still targeted. So much for being understanding.
Now, instead of apologizing for breathing, what Americans have started to do since September 11, 2001 is mouth right back. And that irks letter writers like this no end apparently. Sorry that Americans have opinions, too.
And from the Edmund Burke school, we get this:
. . .Other nations believe in solid, permanent culture built over many centuries. Starbucks, Mickey Mouse and McDonald’s may be fine, but in the long term, as the song goes in Miss Saigon, the American effect is “rather like a chocolate eclair when you suck out the cream”. There’s not much left to dwell on for the future.
The US Administration are unpopular right now because they have little knowledge of, or interest in, other cultures or their future.
It’s a pity, but unfortunately, these days, wherever the US goes its tendency for self-serving pragmatism prevails. . .
But I thought it is supposed to be all about Bush? And that it is not about "anti-Americanism?
Anyway, this other guy absolutely hates Bush:
GEORGE W. BUSH should not have been allowed to disrupt London. We have given the honour of a state visit to a man who started an illegal war. Does that not make him a war criminal? We honour a man who disregards the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Does not that make him guilty of crimes against humanity? Should the Queen have been asked to play host to such a man? I think not.
Actually, I think that's pinhead logic at its best.
First, Bush did not start an "illegal war." Bush and the coalition have moved to finish a conflict that had been smouldering since Iraq first started it in 1990. (How quickly they forget all those intervening years of "no fly zones".)
Secondly, this has been done to death. Well, why not again.
In this context, the Geneva Conventions protect those wearing uniform and following the recognized rules of war. Apparently, the men now in Guantanamo were doing neither. THAT'S the main reason they are there. Yet even so, they are, by most rational accounts, still being treated as humanely as if they were classified officially as prisoners of war.
Get captured by the U.S. while following the "rules of war" and wearing an enemy uniform, and one will be treated as a official P.O.W. -- as were Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner earlier this year.
On the other hand, use the cover of a legitimate flying school student, get caught planning to blow up Manhattan, and one is not a P.O.W. One may be something else, but one is NOT an official prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush didn't create this abnormal situation. Fifth columnists who masqueraded as flying school students, and who used such training to seize civilian airliners and crash them suicidally into buildings did.
By granting those captured engaging in such irregular actions normal P.O.W. status, the Bush administration would essentially be saying that there need be no rules.
Talk about dangerous and scary. If this letter writer who seems to believe Bush is a "war criminal" were to have his way, we are supposed to reward those who openly flout such "rules" as exist, which bring a small measure of civility to the horror that is warfare? That's bizarre.
Such are the nature of the criticisms. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
Victor Hanson explains what is wrong with the protesters -- and the danger they do represent. He feels:
. . .the shrillness of the London protest reflects the mood of the new Western citizen; the most affluent and privileged individual in the history of civilisation, who, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, can afford to find patriotism, civic militarism and the singularity of Western culture all so passé. In an era when the horrors of the Somme, the Great Depression, the Jewish Holocaust and even SS10 Soviet nukes are dim memories, we have riches and unrivalled freedom. So we demand perfection, expecting that we can stop racism, class oppression, sexism and environmental desecration as quickly and easily as we can find information on the internet or communicate across the globe.
In this unrealistic view of the perfectibility of human nature, far from being appreciative of our fragile peace, accomplishments and luck, well-off Westerners demand more. Furious over our perceived failures, we equate the pathologies of man exclusively with the sins of an all-powerful West, especially those of its most powerful nation as it is symbolised now by George Bush.
America reads daily about this growing anti-American sentiment and I wonder whether those abroad stop to ponder the effect of all this easy invective on those of us who live here. Americans as never before are re-examining all the old alliances and friendships, from troops in Europe and bases in the Mediterranean to peacekeepers in the Balkans and ships in the Gulf. If privileged Western protesters cannot tell the difference between what Saddam did and what America is trying to do in Iraq, if they think that tomorrow's Saddams, Milosevics and Kim Jong Ils will be awed by Nobel Prize awards, barristers in The Hague and EU resolutions rather than aircraft carriers, or if they assume in their end-of-history world that their worship of reason is equally shared by all those outside the West, we may be soon entering a far scarier world, when America in exasperation — as it did for most of its history before the European wars — will simply shrug and say: "Good luck to you all."
Let's hope it doesn't have to come to that.
Interestingly, those who disagree use arguments that speak volumes.
Here's one:
. . .If freedom really does mean what President Bush says it does, then people have reason, as well as right, to complain. The Victor Davis Hansons of America need to understand that their preachy attitude makes matters worse, while a little more US humility, understanding and forbearance would go a long way to help clear up the world’s messes. . .
Yet for the better part of a decade, we were led by the "president of forebearance" himself, who apologized for everything in sight, and said all the right things. At the very same time, America was still targeted. So much for being understanding.
Now, instead of apologizing for breathing, what Americans have started to do since September 11, 2001 is mouth right back. And that irks letter writers like this no end apparently. Sorry that Americans have opinions, too.
And from the Edmund Burke school, we get this:
. . .Other nations believe in solid, permanent culture built over many centuries. Starbucks, Mickey Mouse and McDonald’s may be fine, but in the long term, as the song goes in Miss Saigon, the American effect is “rather like a chocolate eclair when you suck out the cream”. There’s not much left to dwell on for the future.
The US Administration are unpopular right now because they have little knowledge of, or interest in, other cultures or their future.
It’s a pity, but unfortunately, these days, wherever the US goes its tendency for self-serving pragmatism prevails. . .
But I thought it is supposed to be all about Bush? And that it is not about "anti-Americanism?
Anyway, this other guy absolutely hates Bush:
GEORGE W. BUSH should not have been allowed to disrupt London. We have given the honour of a state visit to a man who started an illegal war. Does that not make him a war criminal? We honour a man who disregards the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Does not that make him guilty of crimes against humanity? Should the Queen have been asked to play host to such a man? I think not.
Actually, I think that's pinhead logic at its best.
First, Bush did not start an "illegal war." Bush and the coalition have moved to finish a conflict that had been smouldering since Iraq first started it in 1990. (How quickly they forget all those intervening years of "no fly zones".)
Secondly, this has been done to death. Well, why not again.
In this context, the Geneva Conventions protect those wearing uniform and following the recognized rules of war. Apparently, the men now in Guantanamo were doing neither. THAT'S the main reason they are there. Yet even so, they are, by most rational accounts, still being treated as humanely as if they were classified officially as prisoners of war.
Get captured by the U.S. while following the "rules of war" and wearing an enemy uniform, and one will be treated as a official P.O.W. -- as were Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner earlier this year.
On the other hand, use the cover of a legitimate flying school student, get caught planning to blow up Manhattan, and one is not a P.O.W. One may be something else, but one is NOT an official prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush didn't create this abnormal situation. Fifth columnists who masqueraded as flying school students, and who used such training to seize civilian airliners and crash them suicidally into buildings did.
By granting those captured engaging in such irregular actions normal P.O.W. status, the Bush administration would essentially be saying that there need be no rules.
Talk about dangerous and scary. If this letter writer who seems to believe Bush is a "war criminal" were to have his way, we are supposed to reward those who openly flout such "rules" as exist, which bring a small measure of civility to the horror that is warfare? That's bizarre.
Such are the nature of the criticisms. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
EXPLOSIONS IN ISTANBUL
The BBC is reporting (via Reuters) that there have been 2 explosions in Istanbul this morning, one of which caused damage to the British consulate.
Sounds like those Shakers again. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
The BBC is reporting (via Reuters) that there have been 2 explosions in Istanbul this morning, one of which caused damage to the British consulate.
Sounds like those Shakers again. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY II
Well, the Beeb have let Paul Reynolds loose again:
George Bush began his state visit to Britain with an arrival ceremony which made him look like George Custer in the badlands of Dakota.
Buckingham Palace could have been renamed Fort London. . .
That ranks as the stupidest -- and that's saying a lot -- major media "analysis" of the visit I have seen thus far.
What George Custer has to do with George Bush, other than shared first names, is unclear.
Presumably, Reynolds knows Custer because of his defeat at the Little Big Horn.
Apparently, Reynolds doesn't know that there was no fort there -- the famous "battle" was apparently just a running slaughter.
Curiously, Reynolds finishes this "analysis" with a flourish that shows he apparently forgot what he composed throughout the preceding bulk of it:
. . .The audience at the Banqueting House, almost opposite Downing Street and the only remaining building of the old Whitehall Palace, liked what it heard.
The audience, though, was from the great and the good in the British establishment, and was not about to shove him outside to his execution - as happened to Charles I in this same place a few centuries ago.
Maybe the protestors will take a different view when they pass this spot in their march.
That Buckingham Palace had to be heavily secured had more to do with the idiots outside, who wouldn't know civil discourse if it ran over them, than anything to do with Bush.
After all, if civility were present, "Fort London" wouldn't have been necessary.
But people dancing around outside, claiming they want Bush's head, is not something any security service can take lightly -- even if Paul Reynolds apparently does. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
Well, the Beeb have let Paul Reynolds loose again:
George Bush began his state visit to Britain with an arrival ceremony which made him look like George Custer in the badlands of Dakota.
Buckingham Palace could have been renamed Fort London. . .
That ranks as the stupidest -- and that's saying a lot -- major media "analysis" of the visit I have seen thus far.
What George Custer has to do with George Bush, other than shared first names, is unclear.
Presumably, Reynolds knows Custer because of his defeat at the Little Big Horn.
Apparently, Reynolds doesn't know that there was no fort there -- the famous "battle" was apparently just a running slaughter.
Curiously, Reynolds finishes this "analysis" with a flourish that shows he apparently forgot what he composed throughout the preceding bulk of it:
. . .The audience at the Banqueting House, almost opposite Downing Street and the only remaining building of the old Whitehall Palace, liked what it heard.
The audience, though, was from the great and the good in the British establishment, and was not about to shove him outside to his execution - as happened to Charles I in this same place a few centuries ago.
Maybe the protestors will take a different view when they pass this spot in their march.
That Buckingham Palace had to be heavily secured had more to do with the idiots outside, who wouldn't know civil discourse if it ran over them, than anything to do with Bush.
After all, if civility were present, "Fort London" wouldn't have been necessary.
But people dancing around outside, claiming they want Bush's head, is not something any security service can take lightly -- even if Paul Reynolds apparently does. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE SECOND DAY
The reviews are rolling in this morning about the president's speech yesterday. By now, it is becoming known as the "Three Pillars" speech. And it is superb. It appears this way on Whitehouse.gov.
. . .The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars: First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation. . .
. . .The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain* {sic} aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views. . .
. . .The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance. . .
Geezh, sounds like the second coming of Hitler to me!
And the president addresses the Israeli/Arab conflict -- yet again:
The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of the world that has known many. Yet, our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long. (Applause.) We seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long. (Applause.) These are worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we will also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the broader Middle East. . .
. . .Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel. Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.
Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.
Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. . .
Clearly, those who plan to spend today shouting/ chanting/ dancing/ waving placards proclaiming how everything they deem to be wrong on this planet is the fault of Israel, the U.S. and even Britain, etc., and far too little time LISTENING to anyone except Islamists and washed up, crusty, old left wingers (who still debate the good points of Stalin), will of course have paid zero attention to it.
Another point. The "framework for the Muslim life" are the "Five Pillars". Don't be surprised if -- if they did bother to have listened to anything the president said -- Islamikaze/Islamists and other fifth columnists will have heard only, and will complain vociferiously about (if they haven't already someplace), his using the phrase the "three pillars". Simply recall their "horror" at Bush having used the word "crusade" in the World War II, Eisenhower "Crusade In Europe" sense -- not in the freakin' Pope Urban II, seize Jerusalem from the heathens, A.D. 1095, sense.
You see, if Islamists use a word -- any word -- infidels are not supposed to.
Fair enough. Myself, I get utterly offended when I so much as hear an Islamikaze/Islamist open his mouth to spout the word, uh, "the".
Anyway, all that aside, today should be fun, even if the weather is supposed to close in later. (It is supposed to rain pretty hard toward the London evening rush hour.) Now the "Stop The War" crowd moves front and center. No group sponsors an insane protest march more effectively. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
The reviews are rolling in this morning about the president's speech yesterday. By now, it is becoming known as the "Three Pillars" speech. And it is superb. It appears this way on Whitehouse.gov.
. . .The peace and security of free nations now rests on three pillars: First, international organizations must be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation. . .
. . .The second pillar of peace and security in our world is the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to retain* {sic} aggression and evil by force. There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views. . .
. . .The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance. . .
Geezh, sounds like the second coming of Hitler to me!
And the president addresses the Israeli/Arab conflict -- yet again:
The forward strategy of freedom must also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's a difficult period in a part of the world that has known many. Yet, our commitment remains firm. We seek justice and dignity. We seek a viable, independent state for the Palestinian people, who have been betrayed by others for too long. (Applause.) We seek security and recognition for the state of Israel, which has lived in the shadow of random death for too long. (Applause.) These are worthy goals in themselves, and by reaching them we will also remove an occasion and excuse for hatred and violence in the broader Middle East. . .
. . .Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can bring about a Palestinian state and a secure Israel. Those who would lead a new Palestine should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy.
Israel should freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and not prejudice final negotiations with the placements of walls and fences.
Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel. . .
Clearly, those who plan to spend today shouting/ chanting/ dancing/ waving placards proclaiming how everything they deem to be wrong on this planet is the fault of Israel, the U.S. and even Britain, etc., and far too little time LISTENING to anyone except Islamists and washed up, crusty, old left wingers (who still debate the good points of Stalin), will of course have paid zero attention to it.
Another point. The "framework for the Muslim life" are the "Five Pillars". Don't be surprised if -- if they did bother to have listened to anything the president said -- Islamikaze/Islamists and other fifth columnists will have heard only, and will complain vociferiously about (if they haven't already someplace), his using the phrase the "three pillars". Simply recall their "horror" at Bush having used the word "crusade" in the World War II, Eisenhower "Crusade In Europe" sense -- not in the freakin' Pope Urban II, seize Jerusalem from the heathens, A.D. 1095, sense.
You see, if Islamists use a word -- any word -- infidels are not supposed to.
Fair enough. Myself, I get utterly offended when I so much as hear an Islamikaze/Islamist open his mouth to spout the word, uh, "the".
Anyway, all that aside, today should be fun, even if the weather is supposed to close in later. (It is supposed to rain pretty hard toward the London evening rush hour.) Now the "Stop The War" crowd moves front and center. No group sponsors an insane protest march more effectively. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 20, 2003
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE FIRST DAY V
The BBC reports:
Hundreds of protesters have charged down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace in a day of protests against US President George Bush.
Police moved swiftly to stop the activists - who had broken away from a rally in Trafalgar Square -before allowing them closer to the palace.
A short sit-down protest in the Mall was followed by a good-natured protest near a statue of Queen Victoria. . .
Hmmm. That may be. However, on television, the ITV News Channel has noted on its bottom of screen news "ticker" (I haven't found it on their web site yet) that an American flag had also been burned today on the Mall.
. . . Do please tell me again that such nonsense is about Bush only, and not about anti-Americanism.
NOTE: It's now about 7.15 PM, London time. And its pitch dark outside. While there is likely going to be some more fun as the evening progresses, we have more than likely seen most of "The First Day's" best offerings. Thursday is supposed to be the "big rally".
We are supposed to take seriously the views of people who carry on like this? Oh, please. At best, they're a joke. At worst, they are traitors and enemy supporters. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
The BBC reports:
Hundreds of protesters have charged down the Mall towards Buckingham Palace in a day of protests against US President George Bush.
Police moved swiftly to stop the activists - who had broken away from a rally in Trafalgar Square -before allowing them closer to the palace.
A short sit-down protest in the Mall was followed by a good-natured protest near a statue of Queen Victoria. . .
Hmmm. That may be. However, on television, the ITV News Channel has noted on its bottom of screen news "ticker" (I haven't found it on their web site yet) that an American flag had also been burned today on the Mall.
. . . Do please tell me again that such nonsense is about Bush only, and not about anti-Americanism.
NOTE: It's now about 7.15 PM, London time. And its pitch dark outside. While there is likely going to be some more fun as the evening progresses, we have more than likely seen most of "The First Day's" best offerings. Thursday is supposed to be the "big rally".
We are supposed to take seriously the views of people who carry on like this? Oh, please. At best, they're a joke. At worst, they are traitors and enemy supporters. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
THIS IS PAINFUL TO HAVE TO READ
Debbye in Ontario is clearly CNNnd out:
I just finished listening to Pres. Bush's speech, and it was excellent. He challenged nations to stand up to anti-Semitism and for European nations to stop supporting those who support terrorism (i.e., Arafat). CNN hastened to interview a French commentator -- why? The European Perspective is already infamous.
I HATE CNN! I WANT FOX IN CANADA! WAAAH!. . .
At times like these, I think, "Thanks Rupert, for Sky channel 531." (Fox News, in the U.K.) ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Debbye in Ontario is clearly CNNnd out:
I just finished listening to Pres. Bush's speech, and it was excellent. He challenged nations to stand up to anti-Semitism and for European nations to stop supporting those who support terrorism (i.e., Arafat). CNN hastened to interview a French commentator -- why? The European Perspective is already infamous.
I HATE CNN! I WANT FOX IN CANADA! WAAAH!. . .
At times like these, I think, "Thanks Rupert, for Sky channel 531." (Fox News, in the U.K.) ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE FIRST DAY IV
No, not that!
. . . Not a BBC reporters' log!
Have they no mercy?
Some, urr, highlights:
Banqueting House, Whitehall :: Guto Harri :: 1410GMT
Downing Street remains confident that a majority of people on balance think that the right thing was done in Iraq. And that Iraq is a better place, and the world a safer place without Saddam Hussein.
But as far as a lot of people are concerned they can't get over this cardboard cut-out of this gun slinging Texan who's a warmonger. Who goes around the world oblivious to the effect he has on certain countries, oblivious to what he does to multilateral institutions.
And perhaps he took them head on there talking about why he did what he did. Whether he persuades them or not I'm not sure because the aftermath of this war has left a lot of people sore. If this visit does anything, it's reminding a lot of people just how angry they still feel over this war they think we should never have been involved in.
I guess Guto had too much time to fill, so he just starting blabbering away. His views or the protesters'? Hmmm.
Or was he doing a "Homer?": Was I just thinking that, or did I say it? D'oh!
The stellar journalism continues. . .
Glasgow :: Duncan Kirkhope :: 1340GMT
Several hundred protestors gathered in Glasgow's George Square, to be addressed by speakers claiming that George Bush was evil. One of the speakers was an American woman from Vermont.
Marching around the square with their banners and placards, the demonstrators were accompanied by an effigy of the president, with a skeletal-like head, and blood soaked hands.
Ah, ha! That's where Mrs. Dean is! Glasgow!
And ya gotta have an effigy. Your protest just ain't as cool as the one across the street if you ain't got an effigy. And it's gotta have a skeletal-like head . . . and don't forget the blood! Gotta have fake blood!
Outside Buckingham Palace :: Catherine Marston :: 1025GMT
Things are drawing to a close here and we can see some of the guests leaving now.
There were no huge crowds here. There have been a few protesters.
You can still hear a few people shouting "Go home Bush" but that is really as animated as it has got here.
Clearly, the revolution is finally upon us.
Trafalgar Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1230GMT
At least 600 protestors have now reached Trafalgar Square, the end of the first demonstration against President George Bush's visit.
London's South Bank :: Dominic Casciani :: 1130GMT
At least 400 people have gathered to join the alternative state procession which will soon be leaving from the South Bank of the Thames as the first official protest of the day.
Wow, things are now "official".
Just some perspective. The sum total of Glasgow's "several hundred" (which must mean 300 hundred or so, really) plus those final two is about 1/5 of the number of people who turn out for a sparsely attended NHL game.
And so it goes. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
No, not that!
. . . Not a BBC reporters' log!
Have they no mercy?
Some, urr, highlights:
Banqueting House, Whitehall :: Guto Harri :: 1410GMT
Downing Street remains confident that a majority of people on balance think that the right thing was done in Iraq. And that Iraq is a better place, and the world a safer place without Saddam Hussein.
But as far as a lot of people are concerned they can't get over this cardboard cut-out of this gun slinging Texan who's a warmonger. Who goes around the world oblivious to the effect he has on certain countries, oblivious to what he does to multilateral institutions.
And perhaps he took them head on there talking about why he did what he did. Whether he persuades them or not I'm not sure because the aftermath of this war has left a lot of people sore. If this visit does anything, it's reminding a lot of people just how angry they still feel over this war they think we should never have been involved in.
I guess Guto had too much time to fill, so he just starting blabbering away. His views or the protesters'? Hmmm.
Or was he doing a "Homer?": Was I just thinking that, or did I say it? D'oh!
The stellar journalism continues. . .
Glasgow :: Duncan Kirkhope :: 1340GMT
Several hundred protestors gathered in Glasgow's George Square, to be addressed by speakers claiming that George Bush was evil. One of the speakers was an American woman from Vermont.
Marching around the square with their banners and placards, the demonstrators were accompanied by an effigy of the president, with a skeletal-like head, and blood soaked hands.
Ah, ha! That's where Mrs. Dean is! Glasgow!
And ya gotta have an effigy. Your protest just ain't as cool as the one across the street if you ain't got an effigy. And it's gotta have a skeletal-like head . . . and don't forget the blood! Gotta have fake blood!
Outside Buckingham Palace :: Catherine Marston :: 1025GMT
Things are drawing to a close here and we can see some of the guests leaving now.
There were no huge crowds here. There have been a few protesters.
You can still hear a few people shouting "Go home Bush" but that is really as animated as it has got here.
Clearly, the revolution is finally upon us.
Trafalgar Square :: Dominic Casciani :: 1230GMT
At least 600 protestors have now reached Trafalgar Square, the end of the first demonstration against President George Bush's visit.
London's South Bank :: Dominic Casciani :: 1130GMT
At least 400 people have gathered to join the alternative state procession which will soon be leaving from the South Bank of the Thames as the first official protest of the day.
Wow, things are now "official".
Just some perspective. The sum total of Glasgow's "several hundred" (which must mean 300 hundred or so, really) plus those final two is about 1/5 of the number of people who turn out for a sparsely attended NHL game.
And so it goes. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE FIRST DAY III
The BBC reports that Home Secretary David Blunkett:
. . . has announced a review of Buckingham Palace security following a lapse ahead of President Bush's visit.
An undercover reporter worked for two months as a footman at the Palace after applying using a false reference.
Mr Blunkett told the House of Commons that the Security Commission would conduct a thorough review.
He said employment checks on the man were "insufficient" but appropriate criminal checks were carried out. . .
. . . Security and criminal checks on Mr Parry were carried out "robustly and correctly," Mr Blunkett said.
So, it is about what might have been expected: They didn't really look too closely at Parry's references but did do a criminal background check, which apparently turned up nothing that caused anyone to jump from a chair, pound a table and exclaim to a skeptical superior, "Good god, man! Look! It's bin Laden!".
More photos of the Bush visit to the Palace are here. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
The BBC reports that Home Secretary David Blunkett:
. . . has announced a review of Buckingham Palace security following a lapse ahead of President Bush's visit.
An undercover reporter worked for two months as a footman at the Palace after applying using a false reference.
Mr Blunkett told the House of Commons that the Security Commission would conduct a thorough review.
He said employment checks on the man were "insufficient" but appropriate criminal checks were carried out. . .
. . . Security and criminal checks on Mr Parry were carried out "robustly and correctly," Mr Blunkett said.
So, it is about what might have been expected: They didn't really look too closely at Parry's references but did do a criminal background check, which apparently turned up nothing that caused anyone to jump from a chair, pound a table and exclaim to a skeptical superior, "Good god, man! Look! It's bin Laden!".
More photos of the Bush visit to the Palace are here. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE FIRST DAY II
Upon their arrival, the President and the First Lady were met at Heathrow by Prince Charles.
The BBC reports:
US President George Bush is to defend the invasion of Iraq on the first day of his historic state visit to the UK.
Mr Bush is expected to tell the audience at London's Banqueting House on Wednesday that war is sometimes the only way "to defend values".
The president's visit comes amid unprecedented security due to anti-war protests and increased terror fears.
His speech will follow a formal welcome from the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh at Buckingham Palace, where he is staying. . .
The BBC notes also that there will a "lighter side" to the visit. At one point, the President is going to meet Nigella:
. . .The president will be treated to a celebrity chef lunch on Thursday at Downing Street, with a meal specially prepared by Nigella Lawson.
There is no word yet on a menu from Number 10, but odds are that neither broccoli, which George Bush senior famously showed his dislike for, nor pretzels, which caused his son some trouble, will feature. . .
Making "light" of a near choking episode. Isn't the Beeb just SOOOOOOO funny sometimes? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Upon their arrival, the President and the First Lady were met at Heathrow by Prince Charles.
The BBC reports:
US President George Bush is to defend the invasion of Iraq on the first day of his historic state visit to the UK.
Mr Bush is expected to tell the audience at London's Banqueting House on Wednesday that war is sometimes the only way "to defend values".
The president's visit comes amid unprecedented security due to anti-war protests and increased terror fears.
His speech will follow a formal welcome from the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh at Buckingham Palace, where he is staying. . .
The BBC notes also that there will a "lighter side" to the visit. At one point, the President is going to meet Nigella:
. . .The president will be treated to a celebrity chef lunch on Thursday at Downing Street, with a meal specially prepared by Nigella Lawson.
There is no word yet on a menu from Number 10, but odds are that neither broccoli, which George Bush senior famously showed his dislike for, nor pretzels, which caused his son some trouble, will feature. . .
Making "light" of a near choking episode. Isn't the Beeb just SOOOOOOO funny sometimes? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
GAY MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS
I see that back home the likes of Scott Peterson having to face trial, the Michael Jackson search warrant and the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage may actually manage to overshadow the Bush visit to Britain.
Scott Peterson was an unknown until "the events", and is not important in a wider context. (He is not the second coming of O.J. Simpson.) Aside from the particular circumstances of the horrible murder (and all murders are horrible) of his wife Laci (another private person) and her unborn child, other than a liking for sheer voyeurism and tackiness, why so much of the media is so fascinated by this case is unclear.
Michael Jackson is entertainment. If he has done anything wrong, he should of course face charges. But overall, he is irrelevant and a sideshow.
On whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, I am, believe it or not, rather indifferent.
But, come to think of it, I do find that I am increasingly in favor of just about anything that makes Islamikazes and Islamists hopping mad. And there are people around who actually do ask, "Why do they hate us?" Well, here's one answer: the "Great Satan's" permitting two men and two women to marry is bound to make them REALLY despise us even more than they already do.
Excellent!
Seriously, in such a light, maybe it is indeed a time whose idea has come? After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be defending human freedom from the forces of darkness, reaction and oppression.
Just worth considering, that's all. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
I see that back home the likes of Scott Peterson having to face trial, the Michael Jackson search warrant and the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage may actually manage to overshadow the Bush visit to Britain.
Scott Peterson was an unknown until "the events", and is not important in a wider context. (He is not the second coming of O.J. Simpson.) Aside from the particular circumstances of the horrible murder (and all murders are horrible) of his wife Laci (another private person) and her unborn child, other than a liking for sheer voyeurism and tackiness, why so much of the media is so fascinated by this case is unclear.
Michael Jackson is entertainment. If he has done anything wrong, he should of course face charges. But overall, he is irrelevant and a sideshow.
On whether gay marriage should be allowed or not, I am, believe it or not, rather indifferent.
But, come to think of it, I do find that I am increasingly in favor of just about anything that makes Islamikazes and Islamists hopping mad. And there are people around who actually do ask, "Why do they hate us?" Well, here's one answer: the "Great Satan's" permitting two men and two women to marry is bound to make them REALLY despise us even more than they already do.
Excellent!
Seriously, in such a light, maybe it is indeed a time whose idea has come? After all, we are the ones who are supposed to be defending human freedom from the forces of darkness, reaction and oppression.
Just worth considering, that's all. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
BUSH IN BRITAIN: THE FIRST DAY
Already, there appears to have been a "very British tabloid" sort of security breach. The anti-American rag newspaper the Daily Mirror -- to put the Mirror into some context, it makes shabby, American tabloids look like Encylopedia Britannica -- this morning claims a Mirror employee managed to get into a footman job at Buckingham Palace on shoddy references, and was still in employment last night, when the President and First Lady arrived:
. . .Parry, who used bogus references to get the job, was still in the Palace lastnight as Mr Bush arrived. He watched unchallenged as the president and his wife Laura were met by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh in the Palace garden at around 8pm.
He had a full view from a pitch by the state dining room through a net curtain. Had he been a terrorist hell bent on assassinating the royals or Mr Bush, nothing could have stopped him.
Parry, who infiltrated the Palace two months ago, would have served breakfast today to the president’s chief aides, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Bush’s exact itinerary had been handed out to staff more than 90 minutes before he arrived. . .
For those who prefer their reporting BBC-style, the Beeb is covering this story this way:
An undercover reporter has exposed flaws in royal security by gaining a job as a footman at Buckingham Palace by using a false reference.
The Daily Mirror said Ryan Parry worked for two months at the Palace despite unprecedented security for the visit of US President George Bush.
Mr Parry, who had access to private suites, claims he could have assassinated the Queen or Mr Bush.
Buckingham Palace said it was conducting a full investigation. . .
It is too early to know what to make of this. Given the shrill nature of British tabloidism, some of this could be exaggeration aimed at selling newspapers.
On the other hand, given British tabloids' skills at infiltrating royal events, that this actually did take place as the Mirror describes is entirely possible. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Already, there appears to have been a "very British tabloid" sort of security breach. The anti-American rag newspaper the Daily Mirror -- to put the Mirror into some context, it makes shabby, American tabloids look like Encylopedia Britannica -- this morning claims a Mirror employee managed to get into a footman job at Buckingham Palace on shoddy references, and was still in employment last night, when the President and First Lady arrived:
. . .Parry, who used bogus references to get the job, was still in the Palace lastnight as Mr Bush arrived. He watched unchallenged as the president and his wife Laura were met by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh in the Palace garden at around 8pm.
He had a full view from a pitch by the state dining room through a net curtain. Had he been a terrorist hell bent on assassinating the royals or Mr Bush, nothing could have stopped him.
Parry, who infiltrated the Palace two months ago, would have served breakfast today to the president’s chief aides, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Bush’s exact itinerary had been handed out to staff more than 90 minutes before he arrived. . .
For those who prefer their reporting BBC-style, the Beeb is covering this story this way:
An undercover reporter has exposed flaws in royal security by gaining a job as a footman at Buckingham Palace by using a false reference.
The Daily Mirror said Ryan Parry worked for two months at the Palace despite unprecedented security for the visit of US President George Bush.
Mr Parry, who had access to private suites, claims he could have assassinated the Queen or Mr Bush.
Buckingham Palace said it was conducting a full investigation. . .
It is too early to know what to make of this. Given the shrill nature of British tabloidism, some of this could be exaggeration aimed at selling newspapers.
On the other hand, given British tabloids' skills at infiltrating royal events, that this actually did take place as the Mirror describes is entirely possible. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
AND WHERE ARE THE YELPS ABOUT "CENSORSHIP"?
Best of the Web says (scroll down to "A Press Critic") that the AP is probably going to get around to removing this photo from Yahoo.
So, if you want to see it in its original form, better hurry!
But fear not, if you miss it. LGF has it, and we can be pretty certain Mr Johnson will keep it safely visible. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Best of the Web says (scroll down to "A Press Critic") that the AP is probably going to get around to removing this photo from Yahoo.
So, if you want to see it in its original form, better hurry!
But fear not, if you miss it. LGF has it, and we can be pretty certain Mr Johnson will keep it safely visible. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
JUST WHAT THEY NEED, ANOTHER RELIGION
Roman Catholics or Protestants?
Division between North and South?
Enough already. A third faith will bridge the religious chasm, and of course bring peace and unity.
. . . After all, it, urrrr, does everywhere else.
(via Mark Steyn and letter writer Rona Hart, Ireland.) ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Roman Catholics or Protestants?
Division between North and South?
Enough already. A third faith will bridge the religious chasm, and of course bring peace and unity.
. . . After all, it, urrrr, does everywhere else.
(via Mark Steyn and letter writer Rona Hart, Ireland.) ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
HE NEEDED HIS JIHAD ROTA BACK, YOU SEE
Centcom has news of this interesting capture of an enemy:
82d Airborne Division, also known as Task Force “All American,” conducted operations in order to stop violence and acts of insurgents who oppose the transition of Iraq to a free and democratic state. . .
In a separate incident, soldiers from 1st Brigade conducted a cordon and search in Ar Ramadi last night. Their search yielded anti-coalition paperwork including Jihad sign-up sheets. Later this morning, the resident of that house was detained as he went to coalition forces to claim his paperwork. . .
Clearly, while the enemy undoubtedly respects U.S. force, those same forces don't cause knee-knocking fear of the sort that might have led a dunderhead like this to have second thoughts about asking for his "paperwork" back. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Centcom has news of this interesting capture of an enemy:
82d Airborne Division, also known as Task Force “All American,” conducted operations in order to stop violence and acts of insurgents who oppose the transition of Iraq to a free and democratic state. . .
In a separate incident, soldiers from 1st Brigade conducted a cordon and search in Ar Ramadi last night. Their search yielded anti-coalition paperwork including Jihad sign-up sheets. Later this morning, the resident of that house was detained as he went to coalition forces to claim his paperwork. . .
Clearly, while the enemy undoubtedly respects U.S. force, those same forces don't cause knee-knocking fear of the sort that might have led a dunderhead like this to have second thoughts about asking for his "paperwork" back. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
A DIFFERENT KIND OF SALUTE?
LGF notes that a U.S. soldier appears to be giving an AP photographer an, errr, shall we say, "salute".
"We report. You decide." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
LGF notes that a U.S. soldier appears to be giving an AP photographer an, errr, shall we say, "salute".
"We report. You decide." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
ANDREW ON AMERICAN HUMANITY AND BUSH IN LONDON
On the level of casualties in Iraq, Andrew Sullivan notes that in a recent poll:
. . .64 percent say the casualty rate in this war is "unacceptable." It's a good thing that we are sensitive to such tragedy. It's real and awful. At the same time, wars kill soldiers. To have invaded and occupied a country of 26 million, defended by the remnants of a brutal dictatorship with nothing to lose, and to have lost between 300 and 400 soldiers is, by historical standards, astonishing. If this is "unacceptable," then we are moving into a situation in which any war is unacceptable. Which is, of course, what the bad guys out there want.
And remember, too, how on one day -- September 11, 2001 -- 343 NYC firefighters were killed, in lower Manhattan.
And Andrew's critique of Bush is the single, best refutation of the anti-Bush, anti-American lunacy that I have read to date. It is too dense and well-written to quote. However, one bit on the perpetual "Bush is a moron" mantra is worth citing:
. . .You cannot reason someone out of an idea he was never reasoned into. But the truth is: no one who has dealt with George W. Bush personally sees him this way. Least of all Tony Blair. For a moron, Bush has a record in American politics that is truly striking: two terms as governor of a major state, and a presidency won on a technicality (when his incumbent opponent had all the advantages) that has yet seen him achieve ratings far better than his three predecessors at this point in their terms. Unlike the allegedly magisterial politician, Bill Clinton, Bush has also seen his own party gain traction and power under his presidency. He may even be on the verge of an historic realignment in American politics as the Republicans become the majority party for the first time in decades. Even his direst enemies in American politics do not view him as a political idiot. No, he's not reading Habermas in his off-hours. But neither did Truman.
And in political terms, he has one clear advantage. He is an easy man to deal with. He follows through. His sticks with policies through difficult times. There's a reason Tony Blair has come to like him more then he did Bill Clinton. Because you know where you are with George W. Bush. If he says he'll do something, he generally does. He fulfilled every promise to Tony Blair. He went to the U.N. over Iraq; he did everything he could to win international support for the war; he pursued the road-map between Israel and the Palestinians; and he won't cut and run in Iraq. The one thing you want in an ally is trustworthiness and reliability. On that front, even though he deserves criticism in some respects (on free trade, deficits, and sometimes excessive deference to Ariel Sharon), he has delivered on those things he promised. Compare that to the rank duplicity of Jacques Chirac or the shameless opportunism of Gerhard Schroder and you begin to see why Blair might actually get along with the Texas moron. . .
Absolutely.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
On the level of casualties in Iraq, Andrew Sullivan notes that in a recent poll:
. . .64 percent say the casualty rate in this war is "unacceptable." It's a good thing that we are sensitive to such tragedy. It's real and awful. At the same time, wars kill soldiers. To have invaded and occupied a country of 26 million, defended by the remnants of a brutal dictatorship with nothing to lose, and to have lost between 300 and 400 soldiers is, by historical standards, astonishing. If this is "unacceptable," then we are moving into a situation in which any war is unacceptable. Which is, of course, what the bad guys out there want.
And remember, too, how on one day -- September 11, 2001 -- 343 NYC firefighters were killed, in lower Manhattan.
And Andrew's critique of Bush is the single, best refutation of the anti-Bush, anti-American lunacy that I have read to date. It is too dense and well-written to quote. However, one bit on the perpetual "Bush is a moron" mantra is worth citing:
. . .You cannot reason someone out of an idea he was never reasoned into. But the truth is: no one who has dealt with George W. Bush personally sees him this way. Least of all Tony Blair. For a moron, Bush has a record in American politics that is truly striking: two terms as governor of a major state, and a presidency won on a technicality (when his incumbent opponent had all the advantages) that has yet seen him achieve ratings far better than his three predecessors at this point in their terms. Unlike the allegedly magisterial politician, Bill Clinton, Bush has also seen his own party gain traction and power under his presidency. He may even be on the verge of an historic realignment in American politics as the Republicans become the majority party for the first time in decades. Even his direst enemies in American politics do not view him as a political idiot. No, he's not reading Habermas in his off-hours. But neither did Truman.
And in political terms, he has one clear advantage. He is an easy man to deal with. He follows through. His sticks with policies through difficult times. There's a reason Tony Blair has come to like him more then he did Bill Clinton. Because you know where you are with George W. Bush. If he says he'll do something, he generally does. He fulfilled every promise to Tony Blair. He went to the U.N. over Iraq; he did everything he could to win international support for the war; he pursued the road-map between Israel and the Palestinians; and he won't cut and run in Iraq. The one thing you want in an ally is trustworthiness and reliability. On that front, even though he deserves criticism in some respects (on free trade, deficits, and sometimes excessive deference to Ariel Sharon), he has delivered on those things he promised. Compare that to the rank duplicity of Jacques Chirac or the shameless opportunism of Gerhard Schroder and you begin to see why Blair might actually get along with the Texas moron. . .
Absolutely.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
LET THE INSANITY COMMENCE!
The BBC reports:
. . .Tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to march on London's streets to protest at his visit and voice their opposition to the Iraq war. . .
I have been hearing a great deal about how they want to try to intimidate the president, and how they demand to be heard.
It will take a helluva lot more than this latest international, professional protesters' fun fest -- people marching around central London, shaking fists in the air, applauding incoherent and hateful speeches by nutcases, and parading around wearing silly hats with Bush's picture (required swastika also affixed) plastered on -- to intimidate THIS president.
First, this president prefers to listen to people who actually make sense:
Standing upon the ashes of the worst terrorist attack on American soil Sept. 14, President Bush pledges that the voices calling for justice from across the country will be heard. Responding to the Presidents' words, rescue workers cheer and chant, "U.S.A, U.S.A."
Secondly, do they really believe they can intimidate a president who (they forget -- or maybe they choose to forget) stood amidst the rubble of the still burning World Trade Center?
I'm sorry, but what a bunch of ginks.
However, even the Guardian admits that the yahoos are in the distinct minority:
A majority of Labour voters welcome President George Bush's state visit to Britain which starts today, according to November's Guardian/ICM opinion poll.
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world. . .
. . .The ICM poll also uncovers a surge in pro-war sentiment in the past two months as suicide bombers have stepped up their attacks on western targets and troops in Iraq. Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters. . .
I won't even comment on the Guardian's using the expression "pro-war" without qualification. (What sane person is "pro-war"?)
Welcome to Britain, from friends of freedom -- British, Americans abroad and others -- Mr President. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
The BBC reports:
. . .Tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to march on London's streets to protest at his visit and voice their opposition to the Iraq war. . .
I have been hearing a great deal about how they want to try to intimidate the president, and how they demand to be heard.
It will take a helluva lot more than this latest international, professional protesters' fun fest -- people marching around central London, shaking fists in the air, applauding incoherent and hateful speeches by nutcases, and parading around wearing silly hats with Bush's picture (required swastika also affixed) plastered on -- to intimidate THIS president.
First, this president prefers to listen to people who actually make sense:
Standing upon the ashes of the worst terrorist attack on American soil Sept. 14, President Bush pledges that the voices calling for justice from across the country will be heard. Responding to the Presidents' words, rescue workers cheer and chant, "U.S.A, U.S.A."
Secondly, do they really believe they can intimidate a president who (they forget -- or maybe they choose to forget) stood amidst the rubble of the still burning World Trade Center?
I'm sorry, but what a bunch of ginks.
However, even the Guardian admits that the yahoos are in the distinct minority:
A majority of Labour voters welcome President George Bush's state visit to Britain which starts today, according to November's Guardian/ICM opinion poll.
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world. . .
. . .The ICM poll also uncovers a surge in pro-war sentiment in the past two months as suicide bombers have stepped up their attacks on western targets and troops in Iraq. Opposition to the war has slumped by 12 points since September to only 41% of all voters. At the same time those who believe the war was justified has jumped 9 points to 47% of voters. . .
I won't even comment on the Guardian's using the expression "pro-war" without qualification. (What sane person is "pro-war"?)
Welcome to Britain, from friends of freedom -- British, Americans abroad and others -- Mr President. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Monday, November 17, 2003
TO BE SAFE AT LAST
On top of its having lost the battle to save Saddam's Hussein's foul regime, now the Sydney Morning Herald is having spelling troubles.
Tim Blair explains. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
On top of its having lost the battle to save Saddam's Hussein's foul regime, now the Sydney Morning Herald is having spelling troubles.
Tim Blair explains. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
HOW THE STATE VISIT WILL PROBABLY UNFOLD
Writing in the Telegraph, Mark Steyn notes that President Bush has a lot to lose in this visit to Britain. While the:
elderly Saddamite concubines like Tony Benn and George Galloway, their young followers in the "Support The Brave Iraqi Resistance" movement, and the many European admirers of the right of the Palestinian people to self-detonation have everything to gain. I have covered enough G8s and Summits of the Americas to know how it goes when the world's press flies in to cover a formal non-event.
You stroll into the media centre, the deputy assistant press secretary hands you a piece of paper saying, "Today Mrs Bush will be taking tea with HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (no press admittance)", and so you wander back outside and your nostrils catch the heady whiff of an anti-globalisation protester from round the corner, and even though they are the usual lamebrains with the giant Bush and Blair puppets you've seen a gazillion times you find yourself idly speculating - like that lady from Australian television who recently posed a group of Iraqi children on a live munitions dump - just what it would take to set them off. Even if it is only Harold Pinter, Lady Antonia and five Taliban from West Bromwich toppling that Bush statue at Thursday's demo, by the time it's on the BBC it will be the biggest turn-out since the relief of Mafeking. . .
. . .After two years of warnings from clapped-out Arabists that the incendiary "Arab street" was about to explode in anti-American rage across the Middle East, it remains as unrousable as ever. Instead, it is the explosive European street that remains implacably pro-Saddam, pro-Yasser, pro-jihad, pro-Taliban misogynist homophobes, pro-anyone as long as they are anti-American. . .
. . .That's why this week will be a good test of US resolve. The Islamists can't win militarily. They can only win by demoralising America into jacking it in. That's a high price to pay for a Palace photo-op.
So, we'll see. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
Writing in the Telegraph, Mark Steyn notes that President Bush has a lot to lose in this visit to Britain. While the:
elderly Saddamite concubines like Tony Benn and George Galloway, their young followers in the "Support The Brave Iraqi Resistance" movement, and the many European admirers of the right of the Palestinian people to self-detonation have everything to gain. I have covered enough G8s and Summits of the Americas to know how it goes when the world's press flies in to cover a formal non-event.
You stroll into the media centre, the deputy assistant press secretary hands you a piece of paper saying, "Today Mrs Bush will be taking tea with HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (no press admittance)", and so you wander back outside and your nostrils catch the heady whiff of an anti-globalisation protester from round the corner, and even though they are the usual lamebrains with the giant Bush and Blair puppets you've seen a gazillion times you find yourself idly speculating - like that lady from Australian television who recently posed a group of Iraqi children on a live munitions dump - just what it would take to set them off. Even if it is only Harold Pinter, Lady Antonia and five Taliban from West Bromwich toppling that Bush statue at Thursday's demo, by the time it's on the BBC it will be the biggest turn-out since the relief of Mafeking. . .
. . .After two years of warnings from clapped-out Arabists that the incendiary "Arab street" was about to explode in anti-American rage across the Middle East, it remains as unrousable as ever. Instead, it is the explosive European street that remains implacably pro-Saddam, pro-Yasser, pro-jihad, pro-Taliban misogynist homophobes, pro-anyone as long as they are anti-American. . .
. . .That's why this week will be a good test of US resolve. The Islamists can't win militarily. They can only win by demoralising America into jacking it in. That's a high price to pay for a Palace photo-op.
So, we'll see. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
BUSH: "STUPID EVIL GENIUS"
The Scotsman reports that a poll indicates roughly one-third of Britons consider President Bush stupid and incoherent:
The full extent of the low regard Britons have for George Bush was tonight revealed in a poll.
The US President was branded a threat to world peace by a clear majority, 60%, of those questioned by YouGov.
More than one in three, 37%, said Mr Bush was “stupid” while 33% called him “incoherent”.
Only a minority saw positive characteristics in Mr Bush, with just 7% regarding him as a good world leader, 6% as articulate and 10% as intelligent. . .
(In contrast, those sure Bush is stupid and incoherent probably believe that Charles Kennedy is simply brilliant.)
Unfortunately, left out of the Scotsman piece was this important bit. Scrappleface, urr, notes:
"The results indicate that Brits don't think Bush is smart enough to put his right boot on his right foot," said a spokesman for the polling company. "And he's so clever that he tricked the entire U.N. Security Council into thinking Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sponsored terror. He's a stupid evil genius."
According to the poll, people in the United Kingdom now fear that "Mr. Bush will accidentally trick Prime Minister Tony Blair into doing something even more ingeniously moronic in Iraq." ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
The Scotsman reports that a poll indicates roughly one-third of Britons consider President Bush stupid and incoherent:
The full extent of the low regard Britons have for George Bush was tonight revealed in a poll.
The US President was branded a threat to world peace by a clear majority, 60%, of those questioned by YouGov.
More than one in three, 37%, said Mr Bush was “stupid” while 33% called him “incoherent”.
Only a minority saw positive characteristics in Mr Bush, with just 7% regarding him as a good world leader, 6% as articulate and 10% as intelligent. . .
(In contrast, those sure Bush is stupid and incoherent probably believe that Charles Kennedy is simply brilliant.)
Unfortunately, left out of the Scotsman piece was this important bit. Scrappleface, urr, notes:
"The results indicate that Brits don't think Bush is smart enough to put his right boot on his right foot," said a spokesman for the polling company. "And he's so clever that he tricked the entire U.N. Security Council into thinking Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sponsored terror. He's a stupid evil genius."
According to the poll, people in the United Kingdom now fear that "Mr. Bush will accidentally trick Prime Minister Tony Blair into doing something even more ingeniously moronic in Iraq." ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
IN FACT, GIVE THIS OFFICER A MEDAL!
Mona Charen is absolutely right.
Let's hope that common sense prevails. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
Mona Charen is absolutely right.
Let's hope that common sense prevails. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
IS THIS SUCH A SURPRISE?
The Weekly Standard reports:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta. . .
Only the likes of Robin Cook would be "shocked, shocked" by this. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
The Weekly Standard reports:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta. . .
Only the likes of Robin Cook would be "shocked, shocked" by this. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
A STATE VISIT!
Robin Cook is back -- again. The BBC reports:
Former foreign secretary Robin Cook has said the decision to give US President George W Bush a full state visit to London is baffling.
. . .The president is making a full state visit, with a range of ceremonial trappings, whereas his predecessors have usually come as heads of government.
Mr Cook questioned why Mr Bush was being accorded a special privilege when President Bill Clinton had not.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "President Clinton did enormous good for Britain, particularly in the Northern Ireland peace process where he was a great help, and we never gave him a state visit.
"What I can't understand is why we believe that President Bush has done more for Britain, has been a closer friend to Britain or supporter of Britain's foreign interests than any previous American president. . .
Now, let's proceed slowly, so the former foreign secretary might more easily understand.
1) George Bush is President of the United States, and since at least mid-1941, the U.S. and the U.K. have been the closest of allies.
2) That Cook might have personally preferred Clinton over Bush is immaterial. The fact is they were and are presidents of the U.S. Bush was obviously invited, and he has accepted. Last time I looked, Robin didn't have veto power over state visits.
3) The foreign secretary might recall from his POL1001 class that the U.S. president is both head of state (like the Queen) and head of government (like the U.K. prime minister).
The reasons for, or timing of, a visit by a U.S president to the United Kingdom is never "baffling". . .
. . . except, apparently, to the likes of Cook
What is truly "baffling" is just how Robin Cook ever became foreign secretary.
Of course President Bush is ready for the carryings on of Cook and his fellow travellers, as well as the professional protesting class:
. . ."I can understand people not liking war, if that's what they're there to protest. I don't like war.". . .
On Blair, Bush called him a:
. . ."smart, capable, trustworthy friend".
He said he was in "weekly" contact with the UK prime minister about the security situation in Iraq.
"I admire him as a strong leader. He tells you what he thinks and he does what he says he's going to do.
"And that's about as high a compliment as I can pay a fellow leader," he said.
Mr Bush said Mr Blair made decisions "for the right reasons".
"In my relationship with him, he is the least political person I've dealt with. And I say that out of respect. He makes decisions based upon what he thinks is right.
"He's plenty independent. If he thought the policy that we have both worked on was wrong, he'd tell me."
Poodle, indeed.
Mr Bush's three-day trip, which begins next Wednesday, will be the first full state visit by a US leader since Woodrow Wilson in 1918.
Cook and comrades might actually think for once. In 1918, Woodrow Wilson and the Allies found themselves at cross purposes in too many respects. Wilson saw a chance, after the slaughter of the First World War, to forge a better world. But his idealism proved too inflexible, and could not compete with the lack of idealism in other Allied leaders -- especially in France -- which simply wanted their pound of German reparation flesh.
Now, too, Britain has a head of government with views similar to this generation's idealistic U.S. president. More importantly, in Bush the U.S. has an idealistic president who, in contrast to Wilson, is also proving himself flexible. Together, they may prove a winning combination.
It is not Bush and Blair who are the problems nowadays. As in 1918-1919, it is the likes of the apparently very easily baffled Robin Cook, and those who, urrr, "think" as he does.
As the WSJ calmly pointed out:
. . .It of course suits the political interests of Mr. Blair's and Mr. Bush's opponents to foment discord. The Labour left opposed the war in Iraq as well as many of Mr. Blair's public service reforms and it has nothing but contempt for what is often described in Britain simply as the "neo-con" cast in the White House.
Many of the opposition Conservatives are reluctant internationalists and all are eager to capitalize on public discontent over Iraq if it will weaken the prime minister. Mr. Bush's detractors equally delight in the prospect of an embarrassing or at least strained visit with his closest ally. . .
. . .The British and American leaders are so controversial because they are trying to achieve large things. To wit, a redefinition of the threats to Western security and how to deal with them. They are attempting to drain the swamp of terror nurtured for generations in a dictatorial Middle East. And they are trying to change the thinking of their own security and political establishments to help in the cause.
Another word for this is leadership. Leaders who aim for little nearly always achieve it, while stirring much less opposition. As Churchill observed, this is especially dangerous in wartime because the polls will never tell a leader until it is too late the risks that need to be taken on behalf of long-term security or peace. If Ronald Reagan had been cowed by the millions of protesters in Europe who opposed the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, the Cold War might still be going on.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
Robin Cook is back -- again. The BBC reports:
Former foreign secretary Robin Cook has said the decision to give US President George W Bush a full state visit to London is baffling.
. . .The president is making a full state visit, with a range of ceremonial trappings, whereas his predecessors have usually come as heads of government.
Mr Cook questioned why Mr Bush was being accorded a special privilege when President Bill Clinton had not.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "President Clinton did enormous good for Britain, particularly in the Northern Ireland peace process where he was a great help, and we never gave him a state visit.
"What I can't understand is why we believe that President Bush has done more for Britain, has been a closer friend to Britain or supporter of Britain's foreign interests than any previous American president. . .
Now, let's proceed slowly, so the former foreign secretary might more easily understand.
1) George Bush is President of the United States, and since at least mid-1941, the U.S. and the U.K. have been the closest of allies.
2) That Cook might have personally preferred Clinton over Bush is immaterial. The fact is they were and are presidents of the U.S. Bush was obviously invited, and he has accepted. Last time I looked, Robin didn't have veto power over state visits.
3) The foreign secretary might recall from his POL1001 class that the U.S. president is both head of state (like the Queen) and head of government (like the U.K. prime minister).
The reasons for, or timing of, a visit by a U.S president to the United Kingdom is never "baffling". . .
. . . except, apparently, to the likes of Cook
What is truly "baffling" is just how Robin Cook ever became foreign secretary.
Of course President Bush is ready for the carryings on of Cook and his fellow travellers, as well as the professional protesting class:
. . ."I can understand people not liking war, if that's what they're there to protest. I don't like war.". . .
On Blair, Bush called him a:
. . ."smart, capable, trustworthy friend".
He said he was in "weekly" contact with the UK prime minister about the security situation in Iraq.
"I admire him as a strong leader. He tells you what he thinks and he does what he says he's going to do.
"And that's about as high a compliment as I can pay a fellow leader," he said.
Mr Bush said Mr Blair made decisions "for the right reasons".
"In my relationship with him, he is the least political person I've dealt with. And I say that out of respect. He makes decisions based upon what he thinks is right.
"He's plenty independent. If he thought the policy that we have both worked on was wrong, he'd tell me."
Poodle, indeed.
Mr Bush's three-day trip, which begins next Wednesday, will be the first full state visit by a US leader since Woodrow Wilson in 1918.
Cook and comrades might actually think for once. In 1918, Woodrow Wilson and the Allies found themselves at cross purposes in too many respects. Wilson saw a chance, after the slaughter of the First World War, to forge a better world. But his idealism proved too inflexible, and could not compete with the lack of idealism in other Allied leaders -- especially in France -- which simply wanted their pound of German reparation flesh.
Now, too, Britain has a head of government with views similar to this generation's idealistic U.S. president. More importantly, in Bush the U.S. has an idealistic president who, in contrast to Wilson, is also proving himself flexible. Together, they may prove a winning combination.
It is not Bush and Blair who are the problems nowadays. As in 1918-1919, it is the likes of the apparently very easily baffled Robin Cook, and those who, urrr, "think" as he does.
As the WSJ calmly pointed out:
. . .It of course suits the political interests of Mr. Blair's and Mr. Bush's opponents to foment discord. The Labour left opposed the war in Iraq as well as many of Mr. Blair's public service reforms and it has nothing but contempt for what is often described in Britain simply as the "neo-con" cast in the White House.
Many of the opposition Conservatives are reluctant internationalists and all are eager to capitalize on public discontent over Iraq if it will weaken the prime minister. Mr. Bush's detractors equally delight in the prospect of an embarrassing or at least strained visit with his closest ally. . .
. . .The British and American leaders are so controversial because they are trying to achieve large things. To wit, a redefinition of the threats to Western security and how to deal with them. They are attempting to drain the swamp of terror nurtured for generations in a dictatorial Middle East. And they are trying to change the thinking of their own security and political establishments to help in the cause.
Another word for this is leadership. Leaders who aim for little nearly always achieve it, while stirring much less opposition. As Churchill observed, this is especially dangerous in wartime because the polls will never tell a leader until it is too late the risks that need to be taken on behalf of long-term security or peace. If Ronald Reagan had been cowed by the millions of protesters in Europe who opposed the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, the Cold War might still be going on.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 17, 2003
Sunday, November 16, 2003
QUALITY BBC ANALYSIS -- AGAIN
Paul Reynolds of the BBC opines:
The sudden decision by the United States to hand over power by the end of June next year is a recognition that its present policy has failed. . .
. . .The previous plan envisaged that Iraq would be relatively quiet after the war.
There would be time for a constitution to be drawn up and then for elections to be held before a proper government took power. . .
Does the BBC hire anyone but people who consider elementary research merely an optional extra?
That "analysis" is baffling. Which single POLICY is this man referring to? Indeed, which "THE POLICY" has now been suddenly overturned?
Well, it is impossible to say, because there isn't just ONE. Indeed, there has never been ONE. Not A POLICY. There have been "plans," yes. But to claim that THE PLAN or THE POLICY has been suddenly changed is a distortion of facts.
In the real, non-BBC world, what has always been the case is that under UN Security Council resolution 1483, as reported May 23, the coalition is committed:
. . .to work with the UN and an Iraqi Interim Administration to transition authority to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq as efficiently and effectively as possible.
That's pretty much it. So, if it takes fifteen or fifty "policies" or "plans", which evolve to get to that point, well so be it. I must have missed the beginning of the competition, which specified the winner is those who figure out how to help assist Iraqis best, based on fewest number of policies implemented.
That the coalition would hand over power as soon as possible has never been an issue. There was never any question of a long-term occupation, during which Iraqis would have no say. What has happened in recent weeks is that the coalition is continuing to move toward getting an Iraqi government in place, al Qaeda/Baathist remnants be damned, rather than pausing in that process until the last of the thugs are rounded up.
So, the mopping up continues, which somehow manages to be a surprise to mostly the BBC and their fellow travellers. In contrast, General Tommy Franks -- back in May -- and the U.S. military seemed to have a fairly good idea about how things would unfold in coming months.
So even if Reynolds and some others cannot get their heads 'round more than one PLAN at a time, in the months ahead there will be even more "plans". They may find themselves dizzied by the activity. But when all is said and done, all "plans" will help make the following happen:
1) The thugs who want a return to Saddam or Saddamism, or who wish to set up some sort of Islamikaze state, will be chased to ground, because in the end the population as a whole doesn't want to live under the rule of either. Re-imposing dictatorship on people who have finally felt the yoke lifted from the back of their neck requires power on a scale such as was possessed by the Soviet Union in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Such power the thugs in Iraq utterly lack.
2) There will at long last be a reasonable Iraqi government, which will represent ALL Iraqis. The rape cells, torture chambers and nameless mass graves will be consigned to the past -- even at the cost of BBC hacks', urrrr, "present policy". ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 16, 2003
Paul Reynolds of the BBC opines:
The sudden decision by the United States to hand over power by the end of June next year is a recognition that its present policy has failed. . .
. . .The previous plan envisaged that Iraq would be relatively quiet after the war.
There would be time for a constitution to be drawn up and then for elections to be held before a proper government took power. . .
Does the BBC hire anyone but people who consider elementary research merely an optional extra?
That "analysis" is baffling. Which single POLICY is this man referring to? Indeed, which "THE POLICY" has now been suddenly overturned?
Well, it is impossible to say, because there isn't just ONE. Indeed, there has never been ONE. Not A POLICY. There have been "plans," yes. But to claim that THE PLAN or THE POLICY has been suddenly changed is a distortion of facts.
In the real, non-BBC world, what has always been the case is that under UN Security Council resolution 1483, as reported May 23, the coalition is committed:
. . .to work with the UN and an Iraqi Interim Administration to transition authority to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq as efficiently and effectively as possible.
That's pretty much it. So, if it takes fifteen or fifty "policies" or "plans", which evolve to get to that point, well so be it. I must have missed the beginning of the competition, which specified the winner is those who figure out how to help assist Iraqis best, based on fewest number of policies implemented.
That the coalition would hand over power as soon as possible has never been an issue. There was never any question of a long-term occupation, during which Iraqis would have no say. What has happened in recent weeks is that the coalition is continuing to move toward getting an Iraqi government in place, al Qaeda/Baathist remnants be damned, rather than pausing in that process until the last of the thugs are rounded up.
So, the mopping up continues, which somehow manages to be a surprise to mostly the BBC and their fellow travellers. In contrast, General Tommy Franks -- back in May -- and the U.S. military seemed to have a fairly good idea about how things would unfold in coming months.
So even if Reynolds and some others cannot get their heads 'round more than one PLAN at a time, in the months ahead there will be even more "plans". They may find themselves dizzied by the activity. But when all is said and done, all "plans" will help make the following happen:
1) The thugs who want a return to Saddam or Saddamism, or who wish to set up some sort of Islamikaze state, will be chased to ground, because in the end the population as a whole doesn't want to live under the rule of either. Re-imposing dictatorship on people who have finally felt the yoke lifted from the back of their neck requires power on a scale such as was possessed by the Soviet Union in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Such power the thugs in Iraq utterly lack.
2) There will at long last be a reasonable Iraqi government, which will represent ALL Iraqis. The rape cells, torture chambers and nameless mass graves will be consigned to the past -- even at the cost of BBC hacks', urrrr, "present policy". ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 16, 2003
Saturday, November 15, 2003
ISLAMIKAZES AGAIN
The BBC reports:
At least 20 people have been killed by explosions outside two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul.
Turkish officials said car bombs rocked Istanbul's largest synagogue, the Neve Shalom, and another synagogue nearby. . .
Once again, we see demonstrated that the "battlefield" is not just Iraq. It can be anywhere that civilized people call home.
Now Istanbul, largest city in a mostly Muslim society where it is daily demonstrated that it is indeed possible for Islam and modernity to dwell together, has been defaced. Disgusting.
Let us simply say, in the words of the 128th Psalm:
. . .the Lord bless thee out of Zion; and see thou the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life;
And see thy children's children. Peace be upon Israel! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 15, 2003
The BBC reports:
At least 20 people have been killed by explosions outside two synagogues in the Turkish city of Istanbul.
Turkish officials said car bombs rocked Istanbul's largest synagogue, the Neve Shalom, and another synagogue nearby. . .
Once again, we see demonstrated that the "battlefield" is not just Iraq. It can be anywhere that civilized people call home.
Now Istanbul, largest city in a mostly Muslim society where it is daily demonstrated that it is indeed possible for Islam and modernity to dwell together, has been defaced. Disgusting.
Let us simply say, in the words of the 128th Psalm:
. . .the Lord bless thee out of Zion; and see thou the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life;
And see thy children's children. Peace be upon Israel! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 15, 2003
MISUNDERSTANDING AMERICAN NATIONALITY
Reader responses to Mark Steyn's "Spectator" piece on the decline of Europe were varied -- some agreed, some disagreed. One disagreeing with him was typical of European misunderstanding of American nationality. It is worth examining in its entirety:
Before Steyn gets too comfortable with his gleeful predictions that “Europe is dying “ and the “idea of a childless Europe rivalling America militarily or economically is laughable” he’d better take a second look at the United States‚ demographic future. True, “there will be 500 million Americans” by 2060, but Steyn ignores that at that half billion mark whites (i.e. Europeans) will be less than 50% of the population, Latinos will be 25%, blacks 16% and Asians 9%. In other words, ALL of the increase in the population of the United States will be among groups that have proven difficult to assimilate.
Whoa there. (And I will even leave aside the fact that 50 + 25 + 16 + 9 is exactly 100, which begs the question how whites can at the same time manage to be "less than 50% of the population".) Generally, Latinos are assimilating in ways southern Europeans (like many of my own ancestors) did decades ago, while Asians (in the U.S. that means mainly those from the Pacific Rim, not from India/Pakistan, as in Britain) are assimilating in the manner of, believe it or not, Jews.
In general, the immigrant experience in the U.S. is as follows: By the third generation (grandparent is immigrant, parent is born in U.S., who then has child also born in U.S.) their political attitudes become much like most other Americans.
American nationality -- unlike those in Europe -- is very adaptable and flexible. No one alive in the U.S in 1904 had much of an idea what the U.S. would look like in 2004. Similarly, given the nature of assimilation, while the outer skin of Americans may be a bit more tanned by 2104, it is highly unlikely that the national mentality underneath will be dramatically changed.
Don't believe that? Well, consider right now what is happening in Louisiana. That's right, Louisiana. A Republican, Indian-American (meaning ancestors from India) named Bobby Jindal -- yep, it's the South; he's "Bobby" -- is actually leading in the polls and could be elected governor today. Even if Jindal loses, he will be the highest profile Republican in the state. And if you listen to what comes out of Jindal's mouth, one would hear a Republican of the sort "sophisticated" Europeans would probably loathe.
So asserting that today's immigrants will have descendants a century from now who will see the world exactly the same way is simply not borne out by how things have worked out up to the present. In general, for centuries immigrants have had children, and then find themselves with grandchildren and great-grandchildren who are fully Americans in outlook. So asserting -- or hoping -- that the U.S. will change because of immigrants is wishful thinking. More likely is that the U.S. will change the immigrants' children and grandchildren.
Vis-à-vis Europe and the Middle East, three points follow: Forget US economic and military dominance. Social spending and taxes will increase massively to support the aged White population and the social demands of the younger, much more aggressive Latino and black groups. If Steyn thinks that these groups, with their increased political clout, will sacrifice social goods and support the aged White population while also maintaining a large defence budget, he need only look at Mexico’s attitude towards the US’s “war on terrorism “ and the polling data, which details that Latinos and blacks overwhelmingly favour a reduced military.
Again, since ideas and attitudes are not carved in stone, what American social spending will be in 2104 is impossible to predict. But in all likelihood, given likely Latino and Asian assimilation, there will be no more of a dramatic struggle between "aged" whites and "younger, much more aggressive" non-whites than there is right now. (That non-whites also grow old never seems to figure in these arguments somehow.)
While it is true that Latinos and blacks generally think the U.S. should spend less on defense, in recent years the gap between those groups and white Americans has narrowed substantially. Since September 11, 2001 Latinos (even recent immigrants) especially have become far more defense oriented than previously.
Lopping in Latino Americans with Mexicans is dangerous. While no one will assert that all is perfect in Mexican-American assimilation (three-quarters of all Latinos are of Mexican origin), assimilation does seem to be following the same patterns as previous immigrant groups.
In one high-profile example, it is well-known that over the years many Mexican-Americans seemed to prefer the Mexican national soccer team to that of the U.S. U.S. coach Bruce Arena even has remarked that whether he played in Mexico or L.A., the U.S. team was always playing on the road.
Yet that could have easily had as much to do with the fact that the U.S. team was generally lousy as with assimilation problems. Indeed, during the World Cup 2002, millions of Americans of Latino ancestry (especially third generation Latino Americans) supported the vastly improved U.S. team, not teams from Latin America. Norman Tebbit's point was made -- in the U.S.
More recently -- and more important, politically -- a large percentage of Latino voters supported Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger over Mexican-American Democrat, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante. Increasingly, Latinos and Asians (although not blacks, but this is changing, albeit more slowly) are both Republicans and Democrats.
Second, forget Israel, the focus of half of the ‘Items’ of shame that Steyn uses to support his “cockroaches” theory. Latinos and blacks have no sympathy for Israel; they will certainly not permit the US to continue with the financial and military support that makes Israel possible. This support gone, Israel’s options are to use its nuclear arsenal or to negotiate a bloodless withdrawal. If Steyn’s ravings are any indication of the mindset of Israel’s staunchest defenders, then a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East is not unlikely, and the 59% of Europeans who think that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace have a pretty clear picture of what the world will look like in the next fifty years.
While support for Israel may be somewhat less among non-white Americans, it is still much stronger among them than it is among Europeans. Evangelical blacks in particular are strong supporters of Israel. So it is a falsehood to claim that Latinos and blacks have no sympathy with Israel. That being the case, the rest of that paragraph is not worth addressing.
Finally, unlike the US, Europe (and Japan, for that matter) has no history or culture of welcoming non-natives and granting them full political rights. Whatever immigration “Fortress Europe” will permit in the future is not likely to be anything like the scale of the US, and will not likely affect its political or social institutions in the same way as the US. Russia provides the first example of a European country contracting while at the same time ethnically cleansing itself. It’s quite likely other European countries will follow suit.
Well, he got the first part right. As for the rest. . .
Immigrants who get into the U.S. usually passionately want to make a better life for themselves and their children, and wish fervently that they could be Americans. (The main exceptions being some members of a certain religion, who apparently wish to blow America up.) Legal and illegal immigration is also changing the "face of Europe" as assuredly as it is changing the U.S. To assert that Europe will be able to keep out those it doesn't want is not borne out by immigration and asylum statistics of the last twenty years. Europe is no better at controlling its borders than is the U.S.
As for Russia, that country's history, the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. and its post-communist troubles make it very hard to draw conclusions about anything -- other than the fact that Russia has a great many troubles.
Interestingly, as Europe’s population declines, and as the non-European population in the US increases, it may well be that Europeans in the US, like those in Africa, will return to their ancestors‚ lands.
I don't know if this is meant to be sarcastic or nasty, or is badly misinformed or just delusional. The whites of southern Africa (presumably, meaning South Africa and Zimbabwe) sometimes have parentage and grandparentage ties to European countries, and thus are able to get European passports, which enable them to get into Europe through complicated and very narrow European immigration channels in ways "regular immigrants" without such connections cannot. But those who don't have family connections to Europe find themselves pretty much stuck.
The overwhelming majority of Americans one sees in Europe are here due to an international job posting, marriage to an E.U. citizen, a U.S. military or government (including C.I.A. -- but they can't talk about that [cue "evil" laugh here] ) role, or some other non-immigrant scheme. Most Americans' families have been rooted in the U.S. way too long (even my own, who have been there only slightly more than a century) for them to still have the parentage and grandparentage ties that might enable them "to return" to their "ancestors lands" in Europe.
In the end, most "hypenated" Americans think as I do:
. . .my family's Italian roots are now too far removed for me to make a reasonable claim to a right of abode in Italy. If I turned up at the Italian frontier and proclaimed, "Hi, I'm an Italian-American -- CNN has said so, so it must be true -- and I would like to live in Italy," the Italian authorities would in all likelihood politely tell me to go jump in the nearest lake -- provided, I gather, that it isn't in Italy. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 15, 2003
Reader responses to Mark Steyn's "Spectator" piece on the decline of Europe were varied -- some agreed, some disagreed. One disagreeing with him was typical of European misunderstanding of American nationality. It is worth examining in its entirety:
Before Steyn gets too comfortable with his gleeful predictions that “Europe is dying “ and the “idea of a childless Europe rivalling America militarily or economically is laughable” he’d better take a second look at the United States‚ demographic future. True, “there will be 500 million Americans” by 2060, but Steyn ignores that at that half billion mark whites (i.e. Europeans) will be less than 50% of the population, Latinos will be 25%, blacks 16% and Asians 9%. In other words, ALL of the increase in the population of the United States will be among groups that have proven difficult to assimilate.
Whoa there. (And I will even leave aside the fact that 50 + 25 + 16 + 9 is exactly 100, which begs the question how whites can at the same time manage to be "less than 50% of the population".) Generally, Latinos are assimilating in ways southern Europeans (like many of my own ancestors) did decades ago, while Asians (in the U.S. that means mainly those from the Pacific Rim, not from India/Pakistan, as in Britain) are assimilating in the manner of, believe it or not, Jews.
In general, the immigrant experience in the U.S. is as follows: By the third generation (grandparent is immigrant, parent is born in U.S., who then has child also born in U.S.) their political attitudes become much like most other Americans.
American nationality -- unlike those in Europe -- is very adaptable and flexible. No one alive in the U.S in 1904 had much of an idea what the U.S. would look like in 2004. Similarly, given the nature of assimilation, while the outer skin of Americans may be a bit more tanned by 2104, it is highly unlikely that the national mentality underneath will be dramatically changed.
Don't believe that? Well, consider right now what is happening in Louisiana. That's right, Louisiana. A Republican, Indian-American (meaning ancestors from India) named Bobby Jindal -- yep, it's the South; he's "Bobby" -- is actually leading in the polls and could be elected governor today. Even if Jindal loses, he will be the highest profile Republican in the state. And if you listen to what comes out of Jindal's mouth, one would hear a Republican of the sort "sophisticated" Europeans would probably loathe.
So asserting that today's immigrants will have descendants a century from now who will see the world exactly the same way is simply not borne out by how things have worked out up to the present. In general, for centuries immigrants have had children, and then find themselves with grandchildren and great-grandchildren who are fully Americans in outlook. So asserting -- or hoping -- that the U.S. will change because of immigrants is wishful thinking. More likely is that the U.S. will change the immigrants' children and grandchildren.
Vis-à-vis Europe and the Middle East, three points follow: Forget US economic and military dominance. Social spending and taxes will increase massively to support the aged White population and the social demands of the younger, much more aggressive Latino and black groups. If Steyn thinks that these groups, with their increased political clout, will sacrifice social goods and support the aged White population while also maintaining a large defence budget, he need only look at Mexico’s attitude towards the US’s “war on terrorism “ and the polling data, which details that Latinos and blacks overwhelmingly favour a reduced military.
Again, since ideas and attitudes are not carved in stone, what American social spending will be in 2104 is impossible to predict. But in all likelihood, given likely Latino and Asian assimilation, there will be no more of a dramatic struggle between "aged" whites and "younger, much more aggressive" non-whites than there is right now. (That non-whites also grow old never seems to figure in these arguments somehow.)
While it is true that Latinos and blacks generally think the U.S. should spend less on defense, in recent years the gap between those groups and white Americans has narrowed substantially. Since September 11, 2001 Latinos (even recent immigrants) especially have become far more defense oriented than previously.
Lopping in Latino Americans with Mexicans is dangerous. While no one will assert that all is perfect in Mexican-American assimilation (three-quarters of all Latinos are of Mexican origin), assimilation does seem to be following the same patterns as previous immigrant groups.
In one high-profile example, it is well-known that over the years many Mexican-Americans seemed to prefer the Mexican national soccer team to that of the U.S. U.S. coach Bruce Arena even has remarked that whether he played in Mexico or L.A., the U.S. team was always playing on the road.
Yet that could have easily had as much to do with the fact that the U.S. team was generally lousy as with assimilation problems. Indeed, during the World Cup 2002, millions of Americans of Latino ancestry (especially third generation Latino Americans) supported the vastly improved U.S. team, not teams from Latin America. Norman Tebbit's point was made -- in the U.S.
More recently -- and more important, politically -- a large percentage of Latino voters supported Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger over Mexican-American Democrat, Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante. Increasingly, Latinos and Asians (although not blacks, but this is changing, albeit more slowly) are both Republicans and Democrats.
Second, forget Israel, the focus of half of the ‘Items’ of shame that Steyn uses to support his “cockroaches” theory. Latinos and blacks have no sympathy for Israel; they will certainly not permit the US to continue with the financial and military support that makes Israel possible. This support gone, Israel’s options are to use its nuclear arsenal or to negotiate a bloodless withdrawal. If Steyn’s ravings are any indication of the mindset of Israel’s staunchest defenders, then a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East is not unlikely, and the 59% of Europeans who think that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace have a pretty clear picture of what the world will look like in the next fifty years.
While support for Israel may be somewhat less among non-white Americans, it is still much stronger among them than it is among Europeans. Evangelical blacks in particular are strong supporters of Israel. So it is a falsehood to claim that Latinos and blacks have no sympathy with Israel. That being the case, the rest of that paragraph is not worth addressing.
Finally, unlike the US, Europe (and Japan, for that matter) has no history or culture of welcoming non-natives and granting them full political rights. Whatever immigration “Fortress Europe” will permit in the future is not likely to be anything like the scale of the US, and will not likely affect its political or social institutions in the same way as the US. Russia provides the first example of a European country contracting while at the same time ethnically cleansing itself. It’s quite likely other European countries will follow suit.
Well, he got the first part right. As for the rest. . .
Immigrants who get into the U.S. usually passionately want to make a better life for themselves and their children, and wish fervently that they could be Americans. (The main exceptions being some members of a certain religion, who apparently wish to blow America up.) Legal and illegal immigration is also changing the "face of Europe" as assuredly as it is changing the U.S. To assert that Europe will be able to keep out those it doesn't want is not borne out by immigration and asylum statistics of the last twenty years. Europe is no better at controlling its borders than is the U.S.
As for Russia, that country's history, the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. and its post-communist troubles make it very hard to draw conclusions about anything -- other than the fact that Russia has a great many troubles.
Interestingly, as Europe’s population declines, and as the non-European population in the US increases, it may well be that Europeans in the US, like those in Africa, will return to their ancestors‚ lands.
I don't know if this is meant to be sarcastic or nasty, or is badly misinformed or just delusional. The whites of southern Africa (presumably, meaning South Africa and Zimbabwe) sometimes have parentage and grandparentage ties to European countries, and thus are able to get European passports, which enable them to get into Europe through complicated and very narrow European immigration channels in ways "regular immigrants" without such connections cannot. But those who don't have family connections to Europe find themselves pretty much stuck.
The overwhelming majority of Americans one sees in Europe are here due to an international job posting, marriage to an E.U. citizen, a U.S. military or government (including C.I.A. -- but they can't talk about that [cue "evil" laugh here] ) role, or some other non-immigrant scheme. Most Americans' families have been rooted in the U.S. way too long (even my own, who have been there only slightly more than a century) for them to still have the parentage and grandparentage ties that might enable them "to return" to their "ancestors lands" in Europe.
In the end, most "hypenated" Americans think as I do:
. . .my family's Italian roots are now too far removed for me to make a reasonable claim to a right of abode in Italy. If I turned up at the Italian frontier and proclaimed, "Hi, I'm an Italian-American -- CNN has said so, so it must be true -- and I would like to live in Italy," the Italian authorities would in all likelihood politely tell me to go jump in the nearest lake -- provided, I gather, that it isn't in Italy. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 15, 2003
Friday, November 14, 2003
ANTI-BUSHISM OR ANTI-AMERICANISM?
Best of the Web yesterday directed readers to this -- of course -- Reuters article:
Secondly, pay extra attention to the occupations of the Americans cited in the story:
1) Newsweek's London correspondent.
2) A mother at home after taking children to school. Employment not noted.
3) Pennsylvania-born woman. Employment not noted.
4) The New York Times' London correspondent.
5) Film-maker.
6) Banker (who as quoted is curiously more "moderate" than the others).
Doesn't sound like a very representative bunch of Americans to me. (By that I mean that based on their quotes and jobs, there doesn't appear to be a likely Bush voter in the entire bunch.)
My take (and you knew this was coming, of course): What "wave" is Reuters talking about? I haven't been "hit" by any such thing.
However, if an American here spends most of his/her time crossing paths with Britons who are into "anti-war" activism (example, "Stop The War"), who work for or support Mayor Ken, who are on the wing of the Labour Party like Robin Cook and Clare Short, who are supporters of communist-dominated trade unions, who are in media (such as the BBC and the Guardian), who are in universities, and so on and so forth, one will easily encounter the same sort of anti-Bush and anti-American attitudes that one finds among similar folks in the U.S.
So, the views of such people are not a surprise. They and their fellow travellers have always been cool about the U.S. at best. Period. And as Charles Krauthammer has written, there was no real groundswell of goodwill that was squandered post-September 11th. That was essentially a 24 hour phenomenon, which was over long before the fires in the WTC rubble went out.
On the other hand, if one spends time with principled Britons and other Europeans who believe in freedom and rationality -- and not with Reuters reporters -- one will not find oneself beset by hatred and disdain for Bush and the U.S.
And if you look closely at the Reuters piece, those being interviewed often seem simply to be spouting their own views, rather than citing specific examples of their being slighted or abused for being American:
Personally, I would have been a disappointing interviewee had I been in that crowd: I have come across NOTHING of the likes that any of those cited in that Reuters article claim to have experienced.
It is worth recalling for a moment what Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post wrote several months ago: Another issue seems to be the attitudes of many London-based Americans:
While of course there are serious differences of opinion between Americans and Europeans on many issues, "anti-Americanism's" loudest mouths in Europe are mostly its "usual suspects". They are the same people (mostly on the left) who have had problems and complaints over policies put forward by every U.S. administration -- Republican or Democratic -- since at least 1941. ("Greenham Common" and the "anti-war" marches of the 1980s are an example that immediately comes to mind.) New media and the internet have merely given the shouters the ability to scream louder than they could previously.
In November 2004, there will be another U.S. presidential election. And there will be either a new president or the current one will be re-elected. And if it is not Bush, believe me the same Europeans who complain about the U.S. will probably just find different things to complain about.
But complain they will. Be assured of that. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 14, 2003
Best of the Web yesterday directed readers to this -- of course -- Reuters article:
U.S. Expats in UK Hit by Wave of 'Anti-Bushism'. . .The article is suspect first of all not just because it is by Reuters, but because it is all over the lot. Is it fundamentally about "anti-Bushism" or "anti-Americanism"? Clearly, both writer and interviewees appear very confused as to where one ends and the other begins.
. . .The New York Times ' London correspondent Warren Hoge told Reuters: "America is now something of a rogue state, a pariah nation."
"People repeatedly say it isn't Americans we don't like, it is just Bush. He pushes hot buttons. Bush has so much to do with this rather stupendous fall-off in American popularity. It is quite amazing to think where we were the day after September 11 and how much of that goodwill has been squandered."
Film-maker Paul Berczeller, a New Yorker now living in London, agreed: "The groundswell of goodwill has definitely evaporated. It was a real missed opportunity.
"As an American living in Europe, I have tried to explain back home how negatively Americans are viewed in Europe.". . .
Secondly, pay extra attention to the occupations of the Americans cited in the story:
1) Newsweek's London correspondent.
2) A mother at home after taking children to school. Employment not noted.
3) Pennsylvania-born woman. Employment not noted.
4) The New York Times' London correspondent.
5) Film-maker.
6) Banker (who as quoted is curiously more "moderate" than the others).
Doesn't sound like a very representative bunch of Americans to me. (By that I mean that based on their quotes and jobs, there doesn't appear to be a likely Bush voter in the entire bunch.)
My take (and you knew this was coming, of course): What "wave" is Reuters talking about? I haven't been "hit" by any such thing.
However, if an American here spends most of his/her time crossing paths with Britons who are into "anti-war" activism (example, "Stop The War"), who work for or support Mayor Ken, who are on the wing of the Labour Party like Robin Cook and Clare Short, who are supporters of communist-dominated trade unions, who are in media (such as the BBC and the Guardian), who are in universities, and so on and so forth, one will easily encounter the same sort of anti-Bush and anti-American attitudes that one finds among similar folks in the U.S.
So, the views of such people are not a surprise. They and their fellow travellers have always been cool about the U.S. at best. Period. And as Charles Krauthammer has written, there was no real groundswell of goodwill that was squandered post-September 11th. That was essentially a 24 hour phenomenon, which was over long before the fires in the WTC rubble went out.
On the other hand, if one spends time with principled Britons and other Europeans who believe in freedom and rationality -- and not with Reuters reporters -- one will not find oneself beset by hatred and disdain for Bush and the U.S.
And if you look closely at the Reuters piece, those being interviewed often seem simply to be spouting their own views, rather than citing specific examples of their being slighted or abused for being American:
. . ."It's tougher being an American in London than it used to be. Our President has made it so," said Newsweek Magazine's London correspondent Stryker McGuire.Everyday Britons critical of Bush don't generally describe the U.S. in that sort of language. But American journalists who are critical of Bush administration policy sure do. And I'm not sure how Stryker defines "friendly Britons." However, if one writes for Newsweek and is embarrassed by a president whose goal is to protect Americans and make the world a safer place, well, then maybe life is tougher. Sorry about that.
"Even among friendly Britons, there's a growing skepticism about the gun-toting, electric-chairing land that has let Dubya be Dubya for nigh on three years now." . . .
Personally, I would have been a disappointing interviewee had I been in that crowd: I have come across NOTHING of the likes that any of those cited in that Reuters article claim to have experienced.
It is worth recalling for a moment what Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post wrote several months ago: Another issue seems to be the attitudes of many London-based Americans:
. . .I suspect that this extraordinary new perception of America as a vile source of human rights abuse and repression comes from London-based Americans, one of whom told me she had moved to Britain to escape George Bush's abuses. . .The bottom line is all people are entitled to their views. And I am entitled to mine.
While of course there are serious differences of opinion between Americans and Europeans on many issues, "anti-Americanism's" loudest mouths in Europe are mostly its "usual suspects". They are the same people (mostly on the left) who have had problems and complaints over policies put forward by every U.S. administration -- Republican or Democratic -- since at least 1941. ("Greenham Common" and the "anti-war" marches of the 1980s are an example that immediately comes to mind.) New media and the internet have merely given the shouters the ability to scream louder than they could previously.
In November 2004, there will be another U.S. presidential election. And there will be either a new president or the current one will be re-elected. And if it is not Bush, believe me the same Europeans who complain about the U.S. will probably just find different things to complain about.
But complain they will. Be assured of that. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 14, 2003
Thursday, November 13, 2003
THEY DON'T SOUND MUCH LIKE PRESBYTERIANS, DO THEY?
Italian Girl -- whom you should read generally, but really should check now perhaps more than ever -- has this (November 13) on the arrest of a (surprise, surprise) Al Qaeda supporting "Muslim leader". (Capitals in original.)
FANATIC IMAM ABOUT TO BE ARRESTED
A SENEGALESE IMAM IN TURIN,FADLALLAH,IS UNDER CONTROL BY THE ITALIAN POLICE THAT TODAY HAS CHECKED HIS HOME IN TURIN TAKING AWAY MANY DOCUMENTS SHOWING HIS SUPPORT FOR AL QAEDA.THIS IMAM,YESTERDAY HAS AGAIN WARNED THE ITALIANS TO LEAVE IRAQ OR FACE ATTACKS BY "OUR COMRADES OF AL QAEDA".HE CLAIMS TO KNOW WHERE AND WHEN AL QAEDA WILL STRIKE IN ITALY.HE SAYS "AL QAEDA AND OUR COMRADES SEE ITALY AS A NEW TARGET NOW.SO BE CAREFUL,YOU ARE GOING TOWARDS A DISASTER".ALL WE CAN HOPE IS THAT THE POLICE ARRESTS HIM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE RATHER THAN LET HIM SPEAK FREELY IN THE ITALIAN TV.HE HAD OPENLY DEFENDED THE SEPT 11TH ATTACKS AND PROMISED TO CONTINUE THE JIHAD.
Stay tuned. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
Italian Girl -- whom you should read generally, but really should check now perhaps more than ever -- has this (November 13) on the arrest of a (surprise, surprise) Al Qaeda supporting "Muslim leader". (Capitals in original.)
FANATIC IMAM ABOUT TO BE ARRESTED
A SENEGALESE IMAM IN TURIN,FADLALLAH,IS UNDER CONTROL BY THE ITALIAN POLICE THAT TODAY HAS CHECKED HIS HOME IN TURIN TAKING AWAY MANY DOCUMENTS SHOWING HIS SUPPORT FOR AL QAEDA.THIS IMAM,YESTERDAY HAS AGAIN WARNED THE ITALIANS TO LEAVE IRAQ OR FACE ATTACKS BY "OUR COMRADES OF AL QAEDA".HE CLAIMS TO KNOW WHERE AND WHEN AL QAEDA WILL STRIKE IN ITALY.HE SAYS "AL QAEDA AND OUR COMRADES SEE ITALY AS A NEW TARGET NOW.SO BE CAREFUL,YOU ARE GOING TOWARDS A DISASTER".ALL WE CAN HOPE IS THAT THE POLICE ARRESTS HIM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE RATHER THAN LET HIM SPEAK FREELY IN THE ITALIAN TV.HE HAD OPENLY DEFENDED THE SEPT 11TH ATTACKS AND PROMISED TO CONTINUE THE JIHAD.
Stay tuned. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
THE DETERMINED ITALIANS
On the Islamikaze attack of November 12, the New York Post rightly praised the Italians and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and pointed out something most Americans probably don't know:
. . .It's a sad irony that these deaths will mark the first time that many folks realize there are more than 2,000 Italian troops in Iraq.
Their presence is a story that has been deliberately ignored by much of the media for ideological reasons. (Try finding reports of the Italian deployment in The New York Times.)
But the Italians are there, make no mistake.
And they've done a sterling job.
Now they, too, have suffered at the terrorists' hands.
Yet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made clear yesterday that they're there to stay.
Hats off to him.
Good-hearted souls will salute Italy's courage - and resolve. . .
Absolutely! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
On the Islamikaze attack of November 12, the New York Post rightly praised the Italians and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and pointed out something most Americans probably don't know:
. . .It's a sad irony that these deaths will mark the first time that many folks realize there are more than 2,000 Italian troops in Iraq.
Their presence is a story that has been deliberately ignored by much of the media for ideological reasons. (Try finding reports of the Italian deployment in The New York Times.)
But the Italians are there, make no mistake.
And they've done a sterling job.
Now they, too, have suffered at the terrorists' hands.
Yet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made clear yesterday that they're there to stay.
Hats off to him.
Good-hearted souls will salute Italy's courage - and resolve. . .
Absolutely! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
ANOTHER GORE WHO WON'T GO AWAY
Gore Vidal picks on Andrew Sullivan here ("GORED BY VIDAL") not so much for what Andrew writes or says, but because Andrew is non-U.S. born:
. . .Adams thought monarchy, as tamed and balanced by the parliament, could offer democracy. But he was no totalitarian, not by any means. Hamilton, on the other hand, might have very well gone along with the Bush people, because he believed there was an elite who should govern. He nevertheless was a bastard born in the West Indies, and he was always a little nervous about his own social station. He, of course, married into wealth and became an aristo. And it is he who argues that we must have a government made up of the very best people, meaning the rich.
So you’d find Hamilton pretty much on the Bush side. But I can’t think of any other Founders who would. Adams would surely disapprove of Bush. He was highly moral, and I don’t think he could endure the current dishonesty. Already they were pretty bugged by a bunch of journalists who came over from Ireland and such places and were telling Americans how to do things. You know, like Andrew Sullivan today telling us how to be. I think you would find a sort of union of discontent with Bush among the Founders. The sort of despotism that overcomes us now is precisely what Franklin predicted. . .
In attacking Andrew's non-U.S. birth in the context of the Founders, of course Vidal tells us how they'd all feel about President Bush. Vidal believes they'd mostly despise Bush -- except for that "bastard born in the West Indies", Alexander Hamilton.
That "bastard born in the West Indies" line was more or less used about Hamilton in his own lifetime -- which is evidence that Vidal actually did know them all personally, you see.
The irony that his whining about Andrew's opinions and his non-U.S. birth is far more "un-American" than anything said or done by Bush or John Ashcroft (good grief, how Ashcroft is loathed!) is obviously lost on Vidal.
Any argument over how Washington and the rest "would feel" about anyone who lived after them can continue from now until whenever. But what does seem reasonable is this: having fought to create the U.S., it is very hard to believe any of the Founders would have felt the U.S. should react any way other than swiftly and decisively after being assailed by attackers who tried to blow up parts of (at least) two American cities. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
Gore Vidal picks on Andrew Sullivan here ("GORED BY VIDAL") not so much for what Andrew writes or says, but because Andrew is non-U.S. born:
. . .Adams thought monarchy, as tamed and balanced by the parliament, could offer democracy. But he was no totalitarian, not by any means. Hamilton, on the other hand, might have very well gone along with the Bush people, because he believed there was an elite who should govern. He nevertheless was a bastard born in the West Indies, and he was always a little nervous about his own social station. He, of course, married into wealth and became an aristo. And it is he who argues that we must have a government made up of the very best people, meaning the rich.
So you’d find Hamilton pretty much on the Bush side. But I can’t think of any other Founders who would. Adams would surely disapprove of Bush. He was highly moral, and I don’t think he could endure the current dishonesty. Already they were pretty bugged by a bunch of journalists who came over from Ireland and such places and were telling Americans how to do things. You know, like Andrew Sullivan today telling us how to be. I think you would find a sort of union of discontent with Bush among the Founders. The sort of despotism that overcomes us now is precisely what Franklin predicted. . .
In attacking Andrew's non-U.S. birth in the context of the Founders, of course Vidal tells us how they'd all feel about President Bush. Vidal believes they'd mostly despise Bush -- except for that "bastard born in the West Indies", Alexander Hamilton.
That "bastard born in the West Indies" line was more or less used about Hamilton in his own lifetime -- which is evidence that Vidal actually did know them all personally, you see.
The irony that his whining about Andrew's opinions and his non-U.S. birth is far more "un-American" than anything said or done by Bush or John Ashcroft (good grief, how Ashcroft is loathed!) is obviously lost on Vidal.
Any argument over how Washington and the rest "would feel" about anyone who lived after them can continue from now until whenever. But what does seem reasonable is this: having fought to create the U.S., it is very hard to believe any of the Founders would have felt the U.S. should react any way other than swiftly and decisively after being assailed by attackers who tried to blow up parts of (at least) two American cities. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
OPERATION ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY
The New York Post reports:
Following another deadly terror attack by Iraqi extremists, U.S. forces last night launched Operation Iron Hammer in a bid to smash Saddam Hussein's loyalists.
As part of the operation, U.S. soldiers mounted diversions aimed at drawing the terrorists out of their lairs, where they could be more easily hunted down or killed.
Several of the diversions were activated almost simultaneously last night around Baghdad, said Pentagon officials.
In one dramatic showdown in Baghdad's western Abu Ghraib suburb, guerrillas drawn from their hiding spot fired mortars at U.S. troops.
As the terrorists fled, other U.S. forces chased them down in Humvees and an Apache helicopter. The chopper fired rockets at the terrorists' van, killing two people inside. . .
At Centcom's briefing November 11, Coalition ground force commander General Sanchez was asked by a John Berman:
. . .It's been months, I think, since we've seen bombing from U.S. military jets. Why bomb now? What are you trying to accomplish by doing that? And does this signify that this conflict has reached a new level?
GEN. SANCHEZ: No, I think what we are seeing is that, unmistakably, the numbers of engagements have increased over time. The trend has gone up. It was in the mid-teens about 60 days ago, and it is now about 30 to 35 engagements in a day. And why now? Because that's the combat power that is necessary to defeat and to send a very clear signal that our intent is to defeat the former regime loyalists, the terrorists, and those people that are attacking the coalition and the Iraqi people. We are going to accomplish our task here. And if that's what's necessary, that's what we'll employ. . .
The president has been claiming that we have to take it to the Islamikazes (although, of course he doesn't use THAT word). It seems that the forces are now moving to do just that. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
The New York Post reports:
Following another deadly terror attack by Iraqi extremists, U.S. forces last night launched Operation Iron Hammer in a bid to smash Saddam Hussein's loyalists.
As part of the operation, U.S. soldiers mounted diversions aimed at drawing the terrorists out of their lairs, where they could be more easily hunted down or killed.
Several of the diversions were activated almost simultaneously last night around Baghdad, said Pentagon officials.
In one dramatic showdown in Baghdad's western Abu Ghraib suburb, guerrillas drawn from their hiding spot fired mortars at U.S. troops.
As the terrorists fled, other U.S. forces chased them down in Humvees and an Apache helicopter. The chopper fired rockets at the terrorists' van, killing two people inside. . .
At Centcom's briefing November 11, Coalition ground force commander General Sanchez was asked by a John Berman:
. . .It's been months, I think, since we've seen bombing from U.S. military jets. Why bomb now? What are you trying to accomplish by doing that? And does this signify that this conflict has reached a new level?
GEN. SANCHEZ: No, I think what we are seeing is that, unmistakably, the numbers of engagements have increased over time. The trend has gone up. It was in the mid-teens about 60 days ago, and it is now about 30 to 35 engagements in a day. And why now? Because that's the combat power that is necessary to defeat and to send a very clear signal that our intent is to defeat the former regime loyalists, the terrorists, and those people that are attacking the coalition and the Iraqi people. We are going to accomplish our task here. And if that's what's necessary, that's what we'll employ. . .
The president has been claiming that we have to take it to the Islamikazes (although, of course he doesn't use THAT word). It seems that the forces are now moving to do just that. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
"ISLAMIKAZES"
Being American in T.O. is absolutely right. "Islamikaze" is the perfect descriptive word for these slugs.
She got it from Blog Quebecois, which seems to have gotten it from Dog of Flanders.
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
Being American in T.O. is absolutely right. "Islamikaze" is the perfect descriptive word for these slugs.
She got it from Blog Quebecois, which seems to have gotten it from Dog of Flanders.
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
ON IRAQ AND POST-WWII GERMANY
The debate on the scale of the trouble in postwar Germany seems to have died down of late. However, currently Instapundit directs us to two new postings: one by the CounterRevolutionary and another by Justin Katz.
It is worth noting that no one who knows anything about the Second World War will tell you that the reconstruction plans were all in place in December 1941, and that occupation went smoothly from the day after V-E day -- with German women always tossing flowers at Allied soldiers, German men opening wine bottles for them and German children singing happy songs about freedom. Some of that happened. But mostly it didn't.
Mostly, industry was a mess, there were still disaffected enemy, people were having a tough time, and such reconstruction plans that had been implemented for some two years after May 1945 had not really worked well. All that was why there had to be a "Marshall Plan". (Interesting that the second largest recipient of "Marshall Plan" expenditures from 1948-1952 was, after the U.K., not Germany, or even Italy.)
The strategic need for a democratic, peaceful Germany (and in the process saving Western Europe from falling under communist and Soviet domination) had to trump all tactical problems encountered getting there. If lower level snags and troubles were allowed to define the reconstruction, there would never have been a speedy reconstruction -- and in the end, no lasting peace.
The situation in Iraq is similar. The remaining fighting on the ground needs to be won, and Iraq needs to be rebuilt. Arguing over "the small stuff" must not be allowed to overshadow the larger strategic issue: a peaceful, viable, democratic Iraq is as important to peace in the Middle East as a peaceful, viable, democratic Germany was to peace in Europe. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
The debate on the scale of the trouble in postwar Germany seems to have died down of late. However, currently Instapundit directs us to two new postings: one by the CounterRevolutionary and another by Justin Katz.
It is worth noting that no one who knows anything about the Second World War will tell you that the reconstruction plans were all in place in December 1941, and that occupation went smoothly from the day after V-E day -- with German women always tossing flowers at Allied soldiers, German men opening wine bottles for them and German children singing happy songs about freedom. Some of that happened. But mostly it didn't.
Mostly, industry was a mess, there were still disaffected enemy, people were having a tough time, and such reconstruction plans that had been implemented for some two years after May 1945 had not really worked well. All that was why there had to be a "Marshall Plan". (Interesting that the second largest recipient of "Marshall Plan" expenditures from 1948-1952 was, after the U.K., not Germany, or even Italy.)
The strategic need for a democratic, peaceful Germany (and in the process saving Western Europe from falling under communist and Soviet domination) had to trump all tactical problems encountered getting there. If lower level snags and troubles were allowed to define the reconstruction, there would never have been a speedy reconstruction -- and in the end, no lasting peace.
The situation in Iraq is similar. The remaining fighting on the ground needs to be won, and Iraq needs to be rebuilt. Arguing over "the small stuff" must not be allowed to overshadow the larger strategic issue: a peaceful, viable, democratic Iraq is as important to peace in the Middle East as a peaceful, viable, democratic Germany was to peace in Europe. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 13, 2003
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
SUCH FORTITUDE
The BBC reports:
At least 23 people have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on an Italian police base in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya.
Fourteen of the dead were Italian military personnel, while one Italian civilian and eight Iraqis also died.
These are the first deaths to hostile action among the 2,400-strong Italian force in Iraq. . .
In Italy, President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi called:
. . . the bombing a "terrorist act" and said the officers were killed "in carrying out their duty to help the people of Iraq recover peace, order and security".
"No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security and freedom.
"Our carabinieri, our armed forces are in Iraq by a mandate and the will of parliament," he said. "All of Italy is behind them and supports them in this bitter trial.". . .
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said:
"No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security and freedom."
However, there has to be another, urr, view, of course:
. . .the Italian opposition has demanded the withdrawal of the country's troops from Iraq.
"They were sent to an Iraq in flames because the government wanted to do a favour for the Bush administration without taking risks into consideration," said Pietro Folena of the main opposition party, the Democrats of the Left.
"Now the Italian soldiers must come home. It is the only right thing to do at this moment."
If freedom depended solely on that last bunch, it's pretty clear that the white flag would long since have been raised.
However, whether that white flag would be any more respected than a Red Cross is clearly open to question.
NOTE: "Italian Girl" is posting like crazy on this one. (See November 12.) Click over there for much more. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
The BBC reports:
At least 23 people have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on an Italian police base in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya.
Fourteen of the dead were Italian military personnel, while one Italian civilian and eight Iraqis also died.
These are the first deaths to hostile action among the 2,400-strong Italian force in Iraq. . .
In Italy, President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi called:
. . . the bombing a "terrorist act" and said the officers were killed "in carrying out their duty to help the people of Iraq recover peace, order and security".
"No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security and freedom.
"Our carabinieri, our armed forces are in Iraq by a mandate and the will of parliament," he said. "All of Italy is behind them and supports them in this bitter trial.". . .
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said:
"No intimidation will budge us from our willingness to help that country rise up again and rebuild itself with self-government, security and freedom."
However, there has to be another, urr, view, of course:
. . .the Italian opposition has demanded the withdrawal of the country's troops from Iraq.
"They were sent to an Iraq in flames because the government wanted to do a favour for the Bush administration without taking risks into consideration," said Pietro Folena of the main opposition party, the Democrats of the Left.
"Now the Italian soldiers must come home. It is the only right thing to do at this moment."
If freedom depended solely on that last bunch, it's pretty clear that the white flag would long since have been raised.
However, whether that white flag would be any more respected than a Red Cross is clearly open to question.
NOTE: "Italian Girl" is posting like crazy on this one. (See November 12.) Click over there for much more. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
THE INTEREST IN JESSICA
Many ask, why Jessica Lynch? Why all the coverage? Why her and not any of the other freed American prisoners? What about the dead? This Newsweek report is typical:
The Jessica Lynch blitz isn’t a feel-good celebration for everyone. Lynch miraculously survived the ambush on the Army’s 507th Maintenance Company. First Sgt. Robert Dowdy—scarcely a household name—was killed riding in the military vehicle along with her. His 14-year-old daughter, Kristy, swallows hard at the constant mentions of Jessica’s battle. “Don’t they know it was Dad’s Humvee?” she says. “Don’t they know it was Dad doing stuff?”. . .
This is not the first time that something of this nature has happened, of course. The Department of the Navy -- Naval Historical Center has this:
George H. Gay, Jr. was born in Waco, Texas, on 8 March 1917. He entered the Navy in 1941. After completing flight training and receiving his commission in September 1941, Ensign Gay was assigned to Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8). On 4 June 1942, while operating from USS Hornet (CV-8) during the Battle of Midway, his squadron was wiped out while making an unsupported torpedo attack on the Japanese carrier force. Gay was the only survivor of the thirty pilots and radiomen in that attack. While swimming after his plane went down, he observed the dive bombing attack that destroyed three of the four Japanese carriers present.
Ensign Gay was rescued by a seaplane the following day. After recovering from his injuries, he served in Torpedo Squadron Eleven (VT-11) during the Guadalcanal Campaign, and was later a flight instructor. He was also active making public appearances in support of the war effort. Following the end of World War II, he remained in the Naval Reserve into the 1950s and was a pilot with Trans-World Airlines for thirty years. George Gay died on 21 October 1994. . .
After his rescue at sea, Ensign Gay became famous. He was obviously incredibly brave -- all of his squadron had been killed and he himself had survived a terrible ordeal. On top of that, he was handsome and articulate. He never considered himself a hero, but believed his dead comrades were the real heroes. As writers on the battle of Midway noted decades later, Gay was a public relations officer's dream.
The similarities between Jessica and George are telling. Jessica too is young, articulate, and makes a good magazine cover (no television in George's day of course, but if there had been you can bet he'd have been on CNN and with Diane Sawyer, too). She is also apparently disturbed that others considered her a hero, when she feels it is her rescuers who are the real heroes. On top of that she is a woman soldier, who was badly injured, captured by the enemy and later freed.
Simply, Jessica Lynch has those undefinable qualities that the modern media both adores and feeds on voraciously.
That reality is not a reflection on, nor does it take away from the actions and contributions of, any other soldier, pilot, sailor or Marine.
Someone becomes a star. 99.9 percent don't.
Nothing new in that. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Many ask, why Jessica Lynch? Why all the coverage? Why her and not any of the other freed American prisoners? What about the dead? This Newsweek report is typical:
The Jessica Lynch blitz isn’t a feel-good celebration for everyone. Lynch miraculously survived the ambush on the Army’s 507th Maintenance Company. First Sgt. Robert Dowdy—scarcely a household name—was killed riding in the military vehicle along with her. His 14-year-old daughter, Kristy, swallows hard at the constant mentions of Jessica’s battle. “Don’t they know it was Dad’s Humvee?” she says. “Don’t they know it was Dad doing stuff?”. . .
This is not the first time that something of this nature has happened, of course. The Department of the Navy -- Naval Historical Center has this:
George H. Gay, Jr. was born in Waco, Texas, on 8 March 1917. He entered the Navy in 1941. After completing flight training and receiving his commission in September 1941, Ensign Gay was assigned to Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8). On 4 June 1942, while operating from USS Hornet (CV-8) during the Battle of Midway, his squadron was wiped out while making an unsupported torpedo attack on the Japanese carrier force. Gay was the only survivor of the thirty pilots and radiomen in that attack. While swimming after his plane went down, he observed the dive bombing attack that destroyed three of the four Japanese carriers present.
Ensign Gay was rescued by a seaplane the following day. After recovering from his injuries, he served in Torpedo Squadron Eleven (VT-11) during the Guadalcanal Campaign, and was later a flight instructor. He was also active making public appearances in support of the war effort. Following the end of World War II, he remained in the Naval Reserve into the 1950s and was a pilot with Trans-World Airlines for thirty years. George Gay died on 21 October 1994. . .
After his rescue at sea, Ensign Gay became famous. He was obviously incredibly brave -- all of his squadron had been killed and he himself had survived a terrible ordeal. On top of that, he was handsome and articulate. He never considered himself a hero, but believed his dead comrades were the real heroes. As writers on the battle of Midway noted decades later, Gay was a public relations officer's dream.
The similarities between Jessica and George are telling. Jessica too is young, articulate, and makes a good magazine cover (no television in George's day of course, but if there had been you can bet he'd have been on CNN and with Diane Sawyer, too). She is also apparently disturbed that others considered her a hero, when she feels it is her rescuers who are the real heroes. On top of that she is a woman soldier, who was badly injured, captured by the enemy and later freed.
Simply, Jessica Lynch has those undefinable qualities that the modern media both adores and feeds on voraciously.
That reality is not a reflection on, nor does it take away from the actions and contributions of, any other soldier, pilot, sailor or Marine.
Someone becomes a star. 99.9 percent don't.
Nothing new in that. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
YOU CANNOT SQUANDER THAT WHICH YOU NEVER HAD
In Time, the brilliant Charles Krauthammer dismantles Democrats' "Bush squandered the world's goodwill after September 11th" assertion:
. . . It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.
Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism. . .
. . .The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy — remain on our knees, humble and supplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world.
This is not just degrading. It is a fool's bargain--3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The Democrats would forfeit American freedom of action and initiative in order to get back — what? Another nice French editorial? To be retracted as soon as the U.S. stops playing victim?. . .
As they say, click over and read the whole thing.
I didn't want to quote what are arguably his best points -- on "sympathy" and "the search for logic in anti-Americanism". They are towards the end. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
In Time, the brilliant Charles Krauthammer dismantles Democrats' "Bush squandered the world's goodwill after September 11th" assertion:
. . . It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.
Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism. . .
. . .The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy — remain on our knees, humble and supplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world.
This is not just degrading. It is a fool's bargain--3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The Democrats would forfeit American freedom of action and initiative in order to get back — what? Another nice French editorial? To be retracted as soon as the U.S. stops playing victim?. . .
As they say, click over and read the whole thing.
I didn't want to quote what are arguably his best points -- on "sympathy" and "the search for logic in anti-Americanism". They are towards the end. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
THEY ARE LUCKY IN ONE RESPECT
The BBC can't wait for this. They are salivating already!:
Anyway, all this is no surprise. Both "Stop The War" and Mayor Ken manifestly hate President Bush and make no apologies for that.
Actually, they don't realize that having Bush as president makes life much easier for protest organizers in at least one respect. Had they had to deal with an American president who had lots of vowels, no convenient "S" to convert into a "$" (oh, how smart are they!), and ten or so letters in his/her surname, the placard makers would have had a difficult time getting the name to fit on your standard, easy to carry and wave overhead, protest poster.
Mine and tens of millions of others would have taken at least two and a half cards for each. Some probably three! A bit cumbersome, that.
But President Bush's name takes only one card.
And yet they claim Bush has never done anything for them? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
The BBC can't wait for this. They are salivating already!:
George Bush's three-day visit to London next week is prompting tension between US security agents and Ken Livingstone.And where would the Today programme be without an interview with a "Stop The War" "activist"? These folks are so off the beam they make Democrats Abroad U.K. look like Bush supporters. Now, over to the insanity:
American officials are demanding an exclusion zone round the president, while the London mayor wants to keep the city as "open as possible". . .
. . . Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North and a Stop the War activist, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We've had long discussions with the police and one gets the feeling that there is a bigger hand somewhere that is trying to prevent a march going along Whitehall and past Parliament Square. . .Ah, yes, those invading, inconvenient Americans probably using their, urr, "bigger hand somewhere".
. . ."The Americans are actually running the security operation in London as well... I'm getting a bit alarmed about the degree of invasion of our capital by the Americans.
"The idea of closing off large parts of London to ensure that President Bush is taken well away from any protests or demonstrators seems a little insensitive and an enormous inconvenience to an awful lot of people.". . .
Anyway, all this is no surprise. Both "Stop The War" and Mayor Ken manifestly hate President Bush and make no apologies for that.
Actually, they don't realize that having Bush as president makes life much easier for protest organizers in at least one respect. Had they had to deal with an American president who had lots of vowels, no convenient "S" to convert into a "$" (oh, how smart are they!), and ten or so letters in his/her surname, the placard makers would have had a difficult time getting the name to fit on your standard, easy to carry and wave overhead, protest poster.
Mine and tens of millions of others would have taken at least two and a half cards for each. Some probably three! A bit cumbersome, that.
But President Bush's name takes only one card.
And yet they claim Bush has never done anything for them? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
ON MORALIZING, "EURO-PASSIVISM"
Mark Steyn has had it with "Euro-passivism". He's even annoyed at British conservatives, who should know a great deal better -- and don't:
. . . even the British, according to Max Hastings in The Spectator, are "furious" with America. "British soldiers and diplomats anticipated almost every misfortune that has occurred," Sir Max assures us, and proceeds to recite a long list of things the shrewd Brits told their cocky Yank cousins: the Americans don't have enough troops on the ground, and they're the wrong kind of troops anyway, ill-suited to peacekeeping, lacking the cultural sensitivity of the wise old British, etc.
If "British soldiers and diplomats" really said all this to the Americans, the answer would seem to be obvious - You don't think there are enough troops? Send some more yourself. You think Americans are lousy at peacekeeping? Fine, we'll do the dirty work, you guys can do all the community-liaison foot patrols.
Usually on Veterans' Day in the US, serving troops at local bases fan out to small towns in the area and participate in their parades. Not this year. There's nobody around. By contrast, between April and August the strength of the British contingent in Iraq was reduced by 75 per cent.
The UK is one of the few credible military powers left in the developed world, yet it can't sustain a proportionate share of the burden of even a small war. And, in all his indestructible condescension, it never occurs to Sir Max to wonder how it must sound to American ears to be told you're doing it all wrong by folks who can barely do it at all. . .
As they say, read the whole thing. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Mark Steyn has had it with "Euro-passivism". He's even annoyed at British conservatives, who should know a great deal better -- and don't:
. . . even the British, according to Max Hastings in The Spectator, are "furious" with America. "British soldiers and diplomats anticipated almost every misfortune that has occurred," Sir Max assures us, and proceeds to recite a long list of things the shrewd Brits told their cocky Yank cousins: the Americans don't have enough troops on the ground, and they're the wrong kind of troops anyway, ill-suited to peacekeeping, lacking the cultural sensitivity of the wise old British, etc.
If "British soldiers and diplomats" really said all this to the Americans, the answer would seem to be obvious - You don't think there are enough troops? Send some more yourself. You think Americans are lousy at peacekeeping? Fine, we'll do the dirty work, you guys can do all the community-liaison foot patrols.
Usually on Veterans' Day in the US, serving troops at local bases fan out to small towns in the area and participate in their parades. Not this year. There's nobody around. By contrast, between April and August the strength of the British contingent in Iraq was reduced by 75 per cent.
The UK is one of the few credible military powers left in the developed world, yet it can't sustain a proportionate share of the burden of even a small war. And, in all his indestructible condescension, it never occurs to Sir Max to wonder how it must sound to American ears to be told you're doing it all wrong by folks who can barely do it at all. . .
As they say, read the whole thing. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
AL AND INCOHERENCY
I hesitate to write this at all, because I know that if we talk about him, he won't go away. But this is too much. FOX News reports:
Former Vice President Al Gore accused President Bush on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11 attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power. . .
Thus the man who was ALMOST in office on September 11, 2001.
So let's see if we understand this: Gore is claiming Bush has not been doing enough to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat, while simultaneously claiming that Bush is actually coming down so hard that his policies are a threat to Americans' liberties.
. . . Someone upstairs was indeed looking out for America, in November 2000. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
I hesitate to write this at all, because I know that if we talk about him, he won't go away. But this is too much. FOX News reports:
Former Vice President Al Gore accused President Bush on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11 attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power. . .
Thus the man who was ALMOST in office on September 11, 2001.
So let's see if we understand this: Gore is claiming Bush has not been doing enough to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat, while simultaneously claiming that Bush is actually coming down so hard that his policies are a threat to Americans' liberties.
. . . Someone upstairs was indeed looking out for America, in November 2000. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
ANDREW EXPLAINS MAUREEN
As is well-known by now, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd is one of the sillier columnists appearing in a major, American newspaper. In the context of Saddam and Iraq, Andrew Sullivan has a post ("BONUS MODO-BASHING ITEM!") in which he tries to come to grips with why she is so maddening. It boils down, Andrew feels, to this:
. . .She'll write anything that comes into her head at the moment. There's no argument, no thread of consistency that I can glean from one moment to the next. If the Clintonites are in power, they're wimps in the face of Saddam's threat; if the Bushies are in power, they're testosterone-crazed imperialists, hyping Saddam's threat. We should confront/appease Saddam right now/never, because the threat is real/bogus, imminent/non-existent and we have to do something/hang loose before all hell lets loose/or I get off deadline. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
As is well-known by now, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd is one of the sillier columnists appearing in a major, American newspaper. In the context of Saddam and Iraq, Andrew Sullivan has a post ("BONUS MODO-BASHING ITEM!") in which he tries to come to grips with why she is so maddening. It boils down, Andrew feels, to this:
. . .She'll write anything that comes into her head at the moment. There's no argument, no thread of consistency that I can glean from one moment to the next. If the Clintonites are in power, they're wimps in the face of Saddam's threat; if the Bushies are in power, they're testosterone-crazed imperialists, hyping Saddam's threat. We should confront/appease Saddam right now/never, because the threat is real/bogus, imminent/non-existent and we have to do something/hang loose before all hell lets loose/or I get off deadline. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
THE END OF "THE GREAT WAR"
Today In History tells us:
The Allied powers a signed a cease-fire agreement with Germany at Rethondes, France on November 11, 1918, bringing World War I to a close. Between the wars, November 11 was commemorated as Armistice Day in the United States, Great Britain, and France. After World War II, the holiday was recognized as a day of tribute to veterans of both world wars. Beginning in 1954, the United States designated November 11 as Veterans Day to honor veterans of all U.S. wars. . .
Britain today observed 2 minutes of silence beginning at 11 AM -- on the 11th day, of the 11th month. . .
Never forget. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Today In History tells us:
The Allied powers a signed a cease-fire agreement with Germany at Rethondes, France on November 11, 1918, bringing World War I to a close. Between the wars, November 11 was commemorated as Armistice Day in the United States, Great Britain, and France. After World War II, the holiday was recognized as a day of tribute to veterans of both world wars. Beginning in 1954, the United States designated November 11 as Veterans Day to honor veterans of all U.S. wars. . .
Britain today observed 2 minutes of silence beginning at 11 AM -- on the 11th day, of the 11th month. . .
Never forget. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
OH, WHAT GEMS NOT FOUND WITHIN
In its October newsletter, Democrats Abroad U.K. stays away from major discussion of Iraq and the "war on terror".
However, it does zoom in on the Bush economic policy, and manages to do so while omitting any discussion of the impact of the battle of Iraq and the wider "war on terror."
Let the madness commence:
. . .During Clinton's first three years such spending decreased by 0.7 percent, whereas under Bush it has increased by an incredible 21 percent. Commenting on this, conservative columnist and Bush supporter Andrew Sullivan writes, "If a Democrat had this record, do you think Republicans would let him off the hook? Here's Tom DeLay in 1995: 'By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.' If Clintonomics was a 'fiscal catastrophe,' what would an intellectually honest DeLay say about Bush?". . .
First, always be suspicious when in order to bolster an argument, one party quotes a supporter of the other.
Secondly, September 11, 2001 sorta changed outlooks and predictions in more ways than any of us can possibly imagine -- except for these Democrats. They spout away as if "the events" never happened.
When they mention the war, they offer mostly wrongheaded views. And when they don't, they also manage to be wrong.
Winning strategy, guys.
And in attempting to get Americans in the U.K. to vote against Bush, with the eyes of the world upon us, as we attempt to protect democracy and freedom, these people remain haunted by the campaign of 2000:
This summer saw some record temperatures, but those were nothing on the atmosphere in the room during three DAUK video screenings. The first debate between the 9 declared Democratic presidential candidates was screened in late May followed by Alexandra Pelosi's Journeys with George in June and concluding in July with Unprecedented, a lively documentary about the Florida election in 2000. Each provoked strong emotions among members and assisted in our conviction that Bush must go next year. . .
And they still can't get over the close result:
. . .With your help and the help of others like you around the world, we can defeat Bush's attempt to get elected-for the first time.
I wrote back in May:
For the umpteenth time, the 2000 American presidential election, which was the closest ever, was decided in the courts -- because it was the closest ever! Courts ruled on the situation, and Bush was eventually certified the winner. Like him or not, W is the legal -- and fully legitimate -- President of the United States.
Law is an amazing thing. It is usually the difference between good government and what the Iraqi regime was -- rule by psychos and sociopaths.
Will this bunch EVER learn that? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
In its October newsletter, Democrats Abroad U.K. stays away from major discussion of Iraq and the "war on terror".
However, it does zoom in on the Bush economic policy, and manages to do so while omitting any discussion of the impact of the battle of Iraq and the wider "war on terror."
Let the madness commence:
. . .During Clinton's first three years such spending decreased by 0.7 percent, whereas under Bush it has increased by an incredible 21 percent. Commenting on this, conservative columnist and Bush supporter Andrew Sullivan writes, "If a Democrat had this record, do you think Republicans would let him off the hook? Here's Tom DeLay in 1995: 'By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.' If Clintonomics was a 'fiscal catastrophe,' what would an intellectually honest DeLay say about Bush?". . .
First, always be suspicious when in order to bolster an argument, one party quotes a supporter of the other.
Secondly, September 11, 2001 sorta changed outlooks and predictions in more ways than any of us can possibly imagine -- except for these Democrats. They spout away as if "the events" never happened.
When they mention the war, they offer mostly wrongheaded views. And when they don't, they also manage to be wrong.
Winning strategy, guys.
And in attempting to get Americans in the U.K. to vote against Bush, with the eyes of the world upon us, as we attempt to protect democracy and freedom, these people remain haunted by the campaign of 2000:
This summer saw some record temperatures, but those were nothing on the atmosphere in the room during three DAUK video screenings. The first debate between the 9 declared Democratic presidential candidates was screened in late May followed by Alexandra Pelosi's Journeys with George in June and concluding in July with Unprecedented, a lively documentary about the Florida election in 2000. Each provoked strong emotions among members and assisted in our conviction that Bush must go next year. . .
And they still can't get over the close result:
. . .With your help and the help of others like you around the world, we can defeat Bush's attempt to get elected-for the first time.
I wrote back in May:
For the umpteenth time, the 2000 American presidential election, which was the closest ever, was decided in the courts -- because it was the closest ever! Courts ruled on the situation, and Bush was eventually certified the winner. Like him or not, W is the legal -- and fully legitimate -- President of the United States.
Law is an amazing thing. It is usually the difference between good government and what the Iraqi regime was -- rule by psychos and sociopaths.
Will this bunch EVER learn that? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Monday, November 10, 2003
BACK TO GUANTANAMO . . . YET AGAIN
The BBC reports:
The US Supreme Court is to hear appeals by Afghan war detainees at the US military's Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba.
For the first time the court will assess whether US courts have the jurisdiction to consider appeals made on behalf of inmates held at the camp.
The appeals have been lodged by lawyers for 16 detainees, claiming that they are being held illegally. . .
And, of course, lawyers for two "Britons" are thrilled. Time for the smile for the press, we're "delighted", lawyer comment:
. . .Lawyers appealing on behalf of two Britons - Shafiq Rasool and Asif Iqbal - held at the camp welcomed the Supreme Court's move.
"This is without a doubt the most encouraging news they will have had - if they can ever be privy to it - since their detention began nearly two years ago," said lawyer Steven Watt.
"We're absolutely delighted," he said. . .
They may be "delighted", but this group will probably LOSE in the Court -- just as another bunch did earlier this year.
And this is a false issue anyway. Once again, if the Blair government wants those British passport holders, in all likelihood Washington would be happy to hand them over. Their continuing confinement in Guantanamo is evidence that, apparently, Blair doesn't want them in Britain.
That's all incidental and familiar. What really caused me to compose this post are the photos. The BBC does so love those by now well-known photos from inside Guantanamo:
Whenever I see such, I ask myself: Do the BBC and their fellow travellers expect photos like those to upset us?
Are they supposed to lead our born free, liberal democratic consciences, to have attacks of unfathomable guilt?
Are they supposed to tug at our heart strings, and cause us cry out, "Stop! No! How evil are we!"?
I don't know about you, but they don't bother me; my conscience is clear; and I am thrilled those detainees are there -- because that means some are probably missing their U.S. flight school training . . .
. . . but mostly I am unmoved because I remember why those geniuses find themselves there in the first place:
So I am sorry that those, urr, gentlemen are a bit uncomfortable for the time being. . .
They will get cut loose eventually.
But the people lost in the WTC and Pentagon rubble, and wiped out on those airplanes, will NEVER get U.S. Supreme Court appeals, NEVER find themselves displayed in photos that so infuriate so-called "human rights campaigners", and have NOT the slightest prospect of being freed to return to their loved ones.
So spare us the "Oh, the poor Guantanamo detainees" rubbish.
Most stupidly of all, those who work themselves up into a rabid frenzy over Guantanamo forget that if the U.S. were even half as terrible as such "activists" claim it to be, there would be NO photos (and NO appeals on behalf) of any detainees. . .
. . .because they would all be dead. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 10, 2003
The BBC reports:
The US Supreme Court is to hear appeals by Afghan war detainees at the US military's Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba.
For the first time the court will assess whether US courts have the jurisdiction to consider appeals made on behalf of inmates held at the camp.
The appeals have been lodged by lawyers for 16 detainees, claiming that they are being held illegally. . .
And, of course, lawyers for two "Britons" are thrilled. Time for the smile for the press, we're "delighted", lawyer comment:
. . .Lawyers appealing on behalf of two Britons - Shafiq Rasool and Asif Iqbal - held at the camp welcomed the Supreme Court's move.
"This is without a doubt the most encouraging news they will have had - if they can ever be privy to it - since their detention began nearly two years ago," said lawyer Steven Watt.
"We're absolutely delighted," he said. . .
They may be "delighted", but this group will probably LOSE in the Court -- just as another bunch did earlier this year.
And this is a false issue anyway. Once again, if the Blair government wants those British passport holders, in all likelihood Washington would be happy to hand them over. Their continuing confinement in Guantanamo is evidence that, apparently, Blair doesn't want them in Britain.
That's all incidental and familiar. What really caused me to compose this post are the photos. The BBC does so love those by now well-known photos from inside Guantanamo:
Whenever I see such, I ask myself: Do the BBC and their fellow travellers expect photos like those to upset us?
Are they supposed to lead our born free, liberal democratic consciences, to have attacks of unfathomable guilt?
Are they supposed to tug at our heart strings, and cause us cry out, "Stop! No! How evil are we!"?
I don't know about you, but they don't bother me; my conscience is clear; and I am thrilled those detainees are there -- because that means some are probably missing their U.S. flight school training . . .
. . . but mostly I am unmoved because I remember why those geniuses find themselves there in the first place:
So I am sorry that those, urr, gentlemen are a bit uncomfortable for the time being. . .
They will get cut loose eventually.
But the people lost in the WTC and Pentagon rubble, and wiped out on those airplanes, will NEVER get U.S. Supreme Court appeals, NEVER find themselves displayed in photos that so infuriate so-called "human rights campaigners", and have NOT the slightest prospect of being freed to return to their loved ones.
So spare us the "Oh, the poor Guantanamo detainees" rubbish.
Most stupidly of all, those who work themselves up into a rabid frenzy over Guantanamo forget that if the U.S. were even half as terrible as such "activists" claim it to be, there would be NO photos (and NO appeals on behalf) of any detainees. . .
. . .because they would all be dead. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 10, 2003
Sunday, November 09, 2003
MORE ON THE BUSH DEMOCRACY SPEECH
Former Belgian nicely sums up Bush strong points:
. . .Until 9/11, I mistook Bush Jr. for an amiable if unimpressive doofus --- at least he didn't claim to have invented the Internet. Since then, I had to revise my view to that of a competent CEO who combines a gift for delegating with a knack for cutting through the bullsh*t. With this speech, he moved up onto another category altogether.
Agreed. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
Former Belgian nicely sums up Bush strong points:
. . .Until 9/11, I mistook Bush Jr. for an amiable if unimpressive doofus --- at least he didn't claim to have invented the Internet. Since then, I had to revise my view to that of a competent CEO who combines a gift for delegating with a knack for cutting through the bullsh*t. With this speech, he moved up onto another category altogether.
Agreed. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY
For the young men and women who have died defending freedom:
They shall not grow old as we grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning
we will remember them. . .
. . .we will remember them.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
For the young men and women who have died defending freedom:
They shall not grow old as we grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning
we will remember them. . .
. . .we will remember them.
¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
THE "WAR ON CAR BOMBS" CONTINUES. . .
MSNBC reports:
Three explosions rocked a residential compound in the Saudi capital Saturday night in what a government official said was a suicide car bombing. Although there were widely conflicting reports of the death toll immediately after the explosion, a Western diplomat told Reuters between 20 and 30 people were estimated to have been killed and up to 100 injured. . .
. . .Diplomats and officials said most of the residents of the compound’s 200 villas were Lebanese. Some Saudis also live there, plus a few German, French and Italian families. . .
Once again, in their desperate attempts to slaughter the infidels, as in Iraq the Islamists are instead slaughtering mostly other Arabs and Muslims. Even people who might support such attacks against the infidels don't seem quite as keen on the tactic when the killed and maimed are other followers of the Prophet.
And the shock value of such attacks is wearing thinner. We know now that this is how this enemy operates. Even the U.S. Embassy was ready for this set.
So, with each such attack, they lose a little bit more. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
MSNBC reports:
Three explosions rocked a residential compound in the Saudi capital Saturday night in what a government official said was a suicide car bombing. Although there were widely conflicting reports of the death toll immediately after the explosion, a Western diplomat told Reuters between 20 and 30 people were estimated to have been killed and up to 100 injured. . .
. . .Diplomats and officials said most of the residents of the compound’s 200 villas were Lebanese. Some Saudis also live there, plus a few German, French and Italian families. . .
Once again, in their desperate attempts to slaughter the infidels, as in Iraq the Islamists are instead slaughtering mostly other Arabs and Muslims. Even people who might support such attacks against the infidels don't seem quite as keen on the tactic when the killed and maimed are other followers of the Prophet.
And the shock value of such attacks is wearing thinner. We know now that this is how this enemy operates. Even the U.S. Embassy was ready for this set.
So, with each such attack, they lose a little bit more. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 09, 2003
Saturday, November 08, 2003
THIS IS AMAZING
In the wider scheme of things, whatever happened (or didn't happen) here is unimportant. However, that this BBC report is representative of all that has really been said for the last 24-48 hours in major English-speaking media (including from what I've seen coming from the U.S.) about the "Prince Charles story" is telling for another reason:
Prince Charles is continuing his tour of Oman against a background of growing media interest after his denial of unspecified allegations against him.
Clarence House said in a statement on Thursday the claims were "ludicrous" and "untrue".
The allegations have already appeared in an Italian newspaper and on at least two websites, but cannot be published in the UK for legal reasons. . .
Amazing how media can indeed be made think twice about what they print and report. Obviously, the threat of a lawsuit and a court sanction of a type that would probably kill just about any media business will make any editor stop publication.
So we have proof at last: the scariest people on earth to media types are not "Dr Evil" (George W. Bush) and "Number 2" (Dick Cheney), but the British royal family. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 08, 2003
In the wider scheme of things, whatever happened (or didn't happen) here is unimportant. However, that this BBC report is representative of all that has really been said for the last 24-48 hours in major English-speaking media (including from what I've seen coming from the U.S.) about the "Prince Charles story" is telling for another reason:
Prince Charles is continuing his tour of Oman against a background of growing media interest after his denial of unspecified allegations against him.
Clarence House said in a statement on Thursday the claims were "ludicrous" and "untrue".
The allegations have already appeared in an Italian newspaper and on at least two websites, but cannot be published in the UK for legal reasons. . .
Amazing how media can indeed be made think twice about what they print and report. Obviously, the threat of a lawsuit and a court sanction of a type that would probably kill just about any media business will make any editor stop publication.
So we have proof at last: the scariest people on earth to media types are not "Dr Evil" (George W. Bush) and "Number 2" (Dick Cheney), but the British royal family. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 08, 2003
Friday, November 07, 2003
THE TRUE PROGRESSIVE LEADER
Click over to Andrew Sullivan right now! ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
Click over to Andrew Sullivan right now! ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
TIKRIT HELICOPTER CRASH
CNN reports:
All six soldiers aboard a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter were killed Friday when the aircraft crashed near Saddam Hussein's ancestral homeland of Tikrit, according to a U.S. military spokeswoman. . .
. . .Traveling with the copter, a second Black Hawk did not notice any hostile fire beforehand. . .
So this may just be an accident.
But it still stinks, regardless. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
CNN reports:
All six soldiers aboard a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter were killed Friday when the aircraft crashed near Saddam Hussein's ancestral homeland of Tikrit, according to a U.S. military spokeswoman. . .
. . .Traveling with the copter, a second Black Hawk did not notice any hostile fire beforehand. . .
So this may just be an accident.
But it still stinks, regardless. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
BECAUSE THE BEEB BELIEVES IN THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, YOU KNOW
The BBC reports:
Jessica Lynch 'raped' in Iraq
Based on the headline, the BBC believes that enemy soldiers who take captive our soldiers deserve our grant of a "presumption of innocence" for any actions, as if those enemy soldiers were facing charges of, say, jaywalking.
Keep an eye out, to see if the BBC sneakily alter that headline. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
The BBC reports:
Jessica Lynch 'raped' in Iraq
Based on the headline, the BBC believes that enemy soldiers who take captive our soldiers deserve our grant of a "presumption of innocence" for any actions, as if those enemy soldiers were facing charges of, say, jaywalking.
Keep an eye out, to see if the BBC sneakily alter that headline. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
BUSH ON FREEDOM
Read President Bush's speech on freedom at what might be termed the best source, Whitehouse.gov:
. . .The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.). . .
. . .Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.). . .
Of course it is a near certainty that the "mainstream media" and various "sophisticates" of our present day will scoff at Bush as they did at Reagan. . .
. . . And as their predecessors often scoffed at a president named Lincoln.
¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
Read President Bush's speech on freedom at what might be termed the best source, Whitehouse.gov:
. . .The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.). . .
. . .Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.). . .
Of course it is a near certainty that the "mainstream media" and various "sophisticates" of our present day will scoff at Bush as they did at Reagan. . .
. . . And as their predecessors often scoffed at a president named Lincoln.
¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
LET'S HOPE THAT FOR ONCE MARK'S WRONG
As you probably know, syndicated Canadian scribe Mark Steyn (who lives in New Hampshire, and does lots of writing for Britain's Daily Telegraph and Britain's Spectator) is usually remarkably sharp. However, in this Spectator article on the decline of Europe, he manages to be even SHARPER than usual.
Simply, he contends that it is Europe and not America that faces the scariest future: "Europeans are worse than cockroaches."
Oh, my.
It is worth citing his opening at length:
Here’s a round-up of recent items from the world’s press you may have missed: Item 1: In the last two weeks, two Toronto-bound El Al flights had to be diverted to other airports after credible terrorist threats were made about using surface-to-air missiles against them. The Canadian transport minister, David Collenette, responded by suggesting that the Israeli airline’s service to Pearson International Airport might be ended.
Item 2: The Baghdad hotel in which Paul Wolfowitz was staying was blown up. Several people were killed, though the US deputy defence secretary emerged unscathed. Much of the death and destruction was caused by French 68mm missiles ‘in pristine condition’, according to one US officer who inspected the rocket tubes and assembly. In other words, they’re not rusty leftovers Saddam had lying around from the 1980s. The Baathist dictatorship had acquired these missiles from the French rather more recently.
Item 3: According to Le Nouvel Observateur, ‘D’après un questionnaire de la Commission Européenne, 59% des Européens pensent qu’Israël est le pays le plus menaçant pour la paix dans le monde.’
Item 4: In the Guardian, Tariq Ali ended this week’s column on the mounting American (and NGO) death toll in Iraq thus: ‘Iraqis have one thing of which they can be proud and of which British and US citizens should be envious: an opposition’.
On 11 September 2001, I wrote that one of the casualties of the day’s events would be the Western alliance: ‘The US taxpayer’s willingness to pay for the defence of Canada and Europe has contributed to the decay of America’s so-called “allies”, freeing them to disband their armed forces, flirt with dictators and gangster states, and essentially convert themselves to semi-non-aligned.’ ‘The West’ was an obsolete concept, because, as I put it later that month, for everyone but America ‘the free world is mostly a free ride’.
Two years on, most governments, at least officially, and most commentators, at least in the mainstream press, still don’t believe the relationship between America and its ‘allies’ is in a terminal state. But the above quartet of stories — and you can find equivalent items any week — illustrates why it can’t be put back together. . .
And do go on -- as they say -- to read the rest. It is well worth your time. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
As you probably know, syndicated Canadian scribe Mark Steyn (who lives in New Hampshire, and does lots of writing for Britain's Daily Telegraph and Britain's Spectator) is usually remarkably sharp. However, in this Spectator article on the decline of Europe, he manages to be even SHARPER than usual.
Simply, he contends that it is Europe and not America that faces the scariest future: "Europeans are worse than cockroaches."
Oh, my.
It is worth citing his opening at length:
Here’s a round-up of recent items from the world’s press you may have missed: Item 1: In the last two weeks, two Toronto-bound El Al flights had to be diverted to other airports after credible terrorist threats were made about using surface-to-air missiles against them. The Canadian transport minister, David Collenette, responded by suggesting that the Israeli airline’s service to Pearson International Airport might be ended.
Item 2: The Baghdad hotel in which Paul Wolfowitz was staying was blown up. Several people were killed, though the US deputy defence secretary emerged unscathed. Much of the death and destruction was caused by French 68mm missiles ‘in pristine condition’, according to one US officer who inspected the rocket tubes and assembly. In other words, they’re not rusty leftovers Saddam had lying around from the 1980s. The Baathist dictatorship had acquired these missiles from the French rather more recently.
Item 3: According to Le Nouvel Observateur, ‘D’après un questionnaire de la Commission Européenne, 59% des Européens pensent qu’Israël est le pays le plus menaçant pour la paix dans le monde.’
Item 4: In the Guardian, Tariq Ali ended this week’s column on the mounting American (and NGO) death toll in Iraq thus: ‘Iraqis have one thing of which they can be proud and of which British and US citizens should be envious: an opposition’.
On 11 September 2001, I wrote that one of the casualties of the day’s events would be the Western alliance: ‘The US taxpayer’s willingness to pay for the defence of Canada and Europe has contributed to the decay of America’s so-called “allies”, freeing them to disband their armed forces, flirt with dictators and gangster states, and essentially convert themselves to semi-non-aligned.’ ‘The West’ was an obsolete concept, because, as I put it later that month, for everyone but America ‘the free world is mostly a free ride’.
Two years on, most governments, at least officially, and most commentators, at least in the mainstream press, still don’t believe the relationship between America and its ‘allies’ is in a terminal state. But the above quartet of stories — and you can find equivalent items any week — illustrates why it can’t be put back together. . .
And do go on -- as they say -- to read the rest. It is well worth your time. ¶ by Robert, Friday, November 07, 2003
Thursday, November 06, 2003
CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?
Pinch yourself. That's right, you aren't dreaming. Have a look at this, in the Arab News (through Instapundit):
. . .Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution.
. . .the US may, just may, end up doing in Iraq what it did in war-ravaged European countries under the Marshall Plan. And if it doesn’t, well, what would Iraqis have lost other than the ritual terror of life under a dictator who had splintered their society into raw fragments of fear, hysteria and self-denial — a man who insisted that third graders learn songs whose lyrics lauded him with lines such as “when he passes near, the roses celebrate.”
No, I don’t believe that by going to war, America had dark designs on Iraq’s oil or pursued an equally dark conspiracy to “help Israel.” I believe that the US, perhaps willy-nilly, will end up helping Iraqis regain their human sanity, their social composure and the national will to rebuild their devastated nation. . .
The writer also takes a potshot at U.S. Iraq policy pre-1990. But that is not unreasonable to do. And that is the key: What matters most is that this article is more rational, cogent and optimistic than the pessimistic hysteria that is spewed out by far too many Democratic activists and others labelling themselves "anti-war."
Even more important perhaps is this. Democrats and others complain bitterly that the war in Iraq is meaningless. Yet when a Saudi-based newspaper allows opinion like that to appear on its web site (did it appear in its print edition also?), one is presented with startling proof that in at least one major respect the war definitely isn't meaningless. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
Pinch yourself. That's right, you aren't dreaming. Have a look at this, in the Arab News (through Instapundit):
. . .Washington may not succeed in turning Iraq into a “beacon of democracy” but it will succeed, after all is said and done, in turning it into a society of laws and institutions where citizens, along with high-school kids, are protected against arbitrary arrest, incarceration, torture and execution.
. . .the US may, just may, end up doing in Iraq what it did in war-ravaged European countries under the Marshall Plan. And if it doesn’t, well, what would Iraqis have lost other than the ritual terror of life under a dictator who had splintered their society into raw fragments of fear, hysteria and self-denial — a man who insisted that third graders learn songs whose lyrics lauded him with lines such as “when he passes near, the roses celebrate.”
No, I don’t believe that by going to war, America had dark designs on Iraq’s oil or pursued an equally dark conspiracy to “help Israel.” I believe that the US, perhaps willy-nilly, will end up helping Iraqis regain their human sanity, their social composure and the national will to rebuild their devastated nation. . .
The writer also takes a potshot at U.S. Iraq policy pre-1990. But that is not unreasonable to do. And that is the key: What matters most is that this article is more rational, cogent and optimistic than the pessimistic hysteria that is spewed out by far too many Democratic activists and others labelling themselves "anti-war."
Even more important perhaps is this. Democrats and others complain bitterly that the war in Iraq is meaningless. Yet when a Saudi-based newspaper allows opinion like that to appear on its web site (did it appear in its print edition also?), one is presented with startling proof that in at least one major respect the war definitely isn't meaningless. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
WHY DO AMERICAN SOLDIERS WEAR THE FLAG BACKWARDS?
Have you ever wondered why American Soldiers wear the flag patch backwards on just the right side of their arm?
The basic answer is: they are brave!
This flag is symbolic of the men who used to march into battle with an actual flag. So steady and strong that the flag would blow behind them. On the arms of our soldiers, the flag faces as if being carried into battle, blowing behind them.
(Tip from my wife.) ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
Have you ever wondered why American Soldiers wear the flag patch backwards on just the right side of their arm?
The basic answer is: they are brave!
This flag is symbolic of the men who used to march into battle with an actual flag. So steady and strong that the flag would blow behind them. On the arms of our soldiers, the flag faces as if being carried into battle, blowing behind them.
(Tip from my wife.) ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
WRIGGLE, RANGEL
In contrast to Pete King (see previous post), to show the "diversity of opinion" that emanates from New York's congressional delegation, there is also long-time House member Charlie Rangel, a Democrat representing north Manhattan, part of Queens, and a bit of the Bronx.
Rangel has gotten the art of the argument tag line down to a science. In an interview, he spouts in quick succession a series of often unrelated and very questionable contentions, allowing the interviewer no time to contradict the previous point before Rangel has long since dashed forward to the next.
On FOX'S "Your World" yesterday, while being interviewed in general over his assertion that Donald Rumsfeld should resign, Rangel blurted out -- among a spate of other extremely debatable points -- to Neil Cavuto something particularly naive and/or dumb, which even Cavuto wasn't quick enough to be able to answer.
I haven't found a transcript, so I am paraphrasing. There was Rangel asking -- in his accusatory, everyone knows this why don't you, frustrated, hands tossed in the air style -- why our friends in the Middle East, like the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians, don't do more to help fight the terrorists?
Somehow, Charlie has served in government since September 11, 2001 and missed a crucial point: Aside from a few, in general Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians seem either to SUPPORT the terrorists or actually ARE the terrorists.
Sigh. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
In contrast to Pete King (see previous post), to show the "diversity of opinion" that emanates from New York's congressional delegation, there is also long-time House member Charlie Rangel, a Democrat representing north Manhattan, part of Queens, and a bit of the Bronx.
Rangel has gotten the art of the argument tag line down to a science. In an interview, he spouts in quick succession a series of often unrelated and very questionable contentions, allowing the interviewer no time to contradict the previous point before Rangel has long since dashed forward to the next.
On FOX'S "Your World" yesterday, while being interviewed in general over his assertion that Donald Rumsfeld should resign, Rangel blurted out -- among a spate of other extremely debatable points -- to Neil Cavuto something particularly naive and/or dumb, which even Cavuto wasn't quick enough to be able to answer.
I haven't found a transcript, so I am paraphrasing. There was Rangel asking -- in his accusatory, everyone knows this why don't you, frustrated, hands tossed in the air style -- why our friends in the Middle East, like the Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians, don't do more to help fight the terrorists?
Somehow, Charlie has served in government since September 11, 2001 and missed a crucial point: Aside from a few, in general Egyptians, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians seem either to SUPPORT the terrorists or actually ARE the terrorists.
Sigh. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, November 06, 2003
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
YOU DON'T BEAT UP ON THE KING
The Daily Telegraph's "Beeb Watch" is worthwhile reading. It tracks BBC truth troubles.
Today, it notes what the BBC "Today" programme's Sarah Montague ran into when she thought she could steamroller Pete King, a U.S. representative from New York's Long Island:
. . .Sarah Montague seemed exasperated by King's claim that the American people still had confidence in Bush, and that the situation in Iraq was slowly improving. She told him: "What you are saying flies in the face of all the information that we are getting from Iraq."
But is that really the case? According to Montague, support for Bush is "clearly ebbing away", and the morale of US troops "as we were hearing in that clip [from Dymond], is sinking". In fact, the soldiers in the report had insisted that, although they were looking forward to going home, their morale was not low; and, in a later bulletin for News 24, Dymond stressed that they were still in good spirits. . .
On some issues, King is puzzling. However, whenever I have heard him on the BBC (especially since September 11, 2001) -- this was far from his first interview -- King has always taken the same rational, politely combative and staunchly pro-freedom stance on that foreign radio broadcaster that he takes at home in New York.
In short, King knows that there are sides in this conflict. . .
. . .and King knows which side he is on.
On the other hand, the BBC doesn't. . .
. . .Or, even worse, the BBC is on the other (and wrong) side. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 05, 2003
The Daily Telegraph's "Beeb Watch" is worthwhile reading. It tracks BBC truth troubles.
Today, it notes what the BBC "Today" programme's Sarah Montague ran into when she thought she could steamroller Pete King, a U.S. representative from New York's Long Island:
. . .Sarah Montague seemed exasperated by King's claim that the American people still had confidence in Bush, and that the situation in Iraq was slowly improving. She told him: "What you are saying flies in the face of all the information that we are getting from Iraq."
But is that really the case? According to Montague, support for Bush is "clearly ebbing away", and the morale of US troops "as we were hearing in that clip [from Dymond], is sinking". In fact, the soldiers in the report had insisted that, although they were looking forward to going home, their morale was not low; and, in a later bulletin for News 24, Dymond stressed that they were still in good spirits. . .
On some issues, King is puzzling. However, whenever I have heard him on the BBC (especially since September 11, 2001) -- this was far from his first interview -- King has always taken the same rational, politely combative and staunchly pro-freedom stance on that foreign radio broadcaster that he takes at home in New York.
In short, King knows that there are sides in this conflict. . .
. . .and King knows which side he is on.
On the other hand, the BBC doesn't. . .
. . .Or, even worse, the BBC is on the other (and wrong) side. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 05, 2003
THE GHOST OF ELECTIONS YET TO COME
CNN reports:
The Democratic Party's electoral woes in the South continued Tuesday, as Republicans captured Kentucky's governorship for the first time in more than three decades and Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove became the fifth Democratic incumbent to fall in the past year. . .
There appears to be a trend here. Even with the uncertain economy and the war, this is the second straight year that the Republicans have done markedly well nationwide.
This was all that the Democrats could point to:
. . .In other races Tuesday, voters in three states -- Mississippi, Virginia and New Jersey -- were electing state legislators. But the only state where control of legislative chambers changed was in New Jersey, where the Senate had been evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and just three seats separated the parties in the House. . .
And that's it. All the yelling, marching, fist waving and assorted idiocy (such as that spouted at "Rock The Vote") appears to have gotten Democrats, urrr, the New Jersey state legislature.
Specifically troubling for Democratic presidential hopefuls: From California to the South, the country is ejecting Democratic governors. That would seem to call into serious question if the administration's policies are as distasteful to the public nationally as Democrats claim they are.
All things considered, it would seem unlikely that, given the current situation, the country will suddenly spin 'round twelve months from now and place a Democrat in the highest executive post of them all. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 05, 2003
CNN reports:
The Democratic Party's electoral woes in the South continued Tuesday, as Republicans captured Kentucky's governorship for the first time in more than three decades and Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove became the fifth Democratic incumbent to fall in the past year. . .
There appears to be a trend here. Even with the uncertain economy and the war, this is the second straight year that the Republicans have done markedly well nationwide.
This was all that the Democrats could point to:
. . .In other races Tuesday, voters in three states -- Mississippi, Virginia and New Jersey -- were electing state legislators. But the only state where control of legislative chambers changed was in New Jersey, where the Senate had been evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and just three seats separated the parties in the House. . .
And that's it. All the yelling, marching, fist waving and assorted idiocy (such as that spouted at "Rock The Vote") appears to have gotten Democrats, urrr, the New Jersey state legislature.
Specifically troubling for Democratic presidential hopefuls: From California to the South, the country is ejecting Democratic governors. That would seem to call into serious question if the administration's policies are as distasteful to the public nationally as Democrats claim they are.
All things considered, it would seem unlikely that, given the current situation, the country will suddenly spin 'round twelve months from now and place a Democrat in the highest executive post of them all. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
ANDREW NOTICED
Yesterday, I (along with probably anywhere from a few thousand to a few million other people!) emailed Andrew Sullivan to let him know of the Beeb's quick (and not noted) revision of this article. (See previous post.)
As an example of how fast things are turned around on blogs, Andrew wrote later on November 3:
THE BBC FIXES: Yep, they went in and changed the text which had said that "peace" had been declared in Iraq last April. It's not my error. The Beeb is one of the few news organizations which simply rewrites posted copy without any indication that they have done so. Sometimes with simple typos etc. this makes sense. But in factual errors, it's a form of deception, a rewriting of the record, with no accountability. It's a sign, I think, of the general level of integrity at today's BBC - i.e. frayed.
Yep, that about sums it up. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Yesterday, I (along with probably anywhere from a few thousand to a few million other people!) emailed Andrew Sullivan to let him know of the Beeb's quick (and not noted) revision of this article. (See previous post.)
As an example of how fast things are turned around on blogs, Andrew wrote later on November 3:
THE BBC FIXES: Yep, they went in and changed the text which had said that "peace" had been declared in Iraq last April. It's not my error. The Beeb is one of the few news organizations which simply rewrites posted copy without any indication that they have done so. Sometimes with simple typos etc. this makes sense. But in factual errors, it's a form of deception, a rewriting of the record, with no accountability. It's a sign, I think, of the general level of integrity at today's BBC - i.e. frayed.
Yep, that about sums it up. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Monday, November 03, 2003
THOSE BBC EDITORS
This morning, under "TWO IRAQ FIBS", Andrew Sullivan writes about:
. . .this classic from the BBC:
More US troops have been killed since "peace" was declared than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself.
Who exactly declared "peace"? Er, no one. But it gives the guy a nice mock-the-Yanks sneer line.
But this is the BBC, remember. Surprise, surprise, but it doesn't read that way -- now. The word "peace" has vanished. This is how the paragraph now reads:
"More US troops have been killed since President George W Bush declared an end to major combat operations than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself."
Presumably, those sneaky BBC web editors at work again. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
This morning, under "TWO IRAQ FIBS", Andrew Sullivan writes about:
. . .this classic from the BBC:
More US troops have been killed since "peace" was declared than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself.
Who exactly declared "peace"? Er, no one. But it gives the guy a nice mock-the-Yanks sneer line.
But this is the BBC, remember. Surprise, surprise, but it doesn't read that way -- now. The word "peace" has vanished. This is how the paragraph now reads:
"More US troops have been killed since President George W Bush declared an end to major combat operations than died in hostilities during the invasion of Iraq itself."
Presumably, those sneaky BBC web editors at work again. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
YOU'RE KIDDING
Only a year to go. . .
Come on! Is this really a shock?
Dave Barry must have this someplace! ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
Only a year to go. . .
Come on! Is this really a shock?
Dave Barry must have this someplace! ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
NOW THEY START PLAYING!
Continuing on the family theme (see previous post below), my Dad said the Jets looked good -- even though they lost to the Giants in O/T.
And thankfully, Chad Pennington is back!
At 2-6, they may actually start playing now. . .
. . . After all, they normally don't start taking the season seriously until week 9 or 10 anyway. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
Continuing on the family theme (see previous post below), my Dad said the Jets looked good -- even though they lost to the Giants in O/T.
And thankfully, Chad Pennington is back!
At 2-6, they may actually start playing now. . .
. . . After all, they normally don't start taking the season seriously until week 9 or 10 anyway. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
HE WILL WIN
Howard Dean is no threat.
John Kerry has no chance.
Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party. (And where is a sane Democrat supposed to call home, nowadays? Well, on far too many vital issues it is looking as if that home is with Republicans.)
But just in case the president's re-election team is still worried, they can relax a bit: the president will win re-election.
. . . How can I be so sure?
"Mom-pundit" told me that last night.
. . . And Mom is never wrong about these things. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
Howard Dean is no threat.
John Kerry has no chance.
Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party. (And where is a sane Democrat supposed to call home, nowadays? Well, on far too many vital issues it is looking as if that home is with Republicans.)
But just in case the president's re-election team is still worried, they can relax a bit: the president will win re-election.
. . . How can I be so sure?
"Mom-pundit" told me that last night.
. . . And Mom is never wrong about these things. ¶ by Robert, Monday, November 03, 2003
Sunday, November 02, 2003
SOMALIA THIS AIN'T
"Don't attack us during Ramadan, our holiest month!. . .
. . .Oh, but we are free to smite the infidel whenever Allah wishes!"
How is it that we even LISTEN to such nonsense?
However, "Black Hawk Down", this isn't -- despite what some might may think and hope. Times, and the Manhattan skyline, are dramatically different. Given such, our experience of this enemy tells us that once we have him by the throat, we do not let him go, despite the likes of this, which MSNBC reports:
Insurgents shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter in central Iraq on Sunday as it carried troops headed for R&R, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 21 in the deadliest single strike against American troops since the start of war.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mourned the soldiers and declared, “We can win this war. We will win this war.”
“The work in Iraq is difficult. It is tough. It is going to take time. But progress is being made,” the defense secretary said.
Rumsfeld made the comments in an interview Sunday with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Your heart goes out to their families,” Rumsfeld said. “But what they are doing is important ... They are taking the war to the terrorists.”. . .
And, as this gentleman would probably counsel us:
"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the [Islamist enemy] begs for mercy; indeed, I know, and you know, that the end would be reacher quicker by such a course than by any seeming yielding on our part. I don't want our Government to be bothered by patching up local governments, or by trying to reconcile any class of men. The [Islamist enemy] has done her worst, and now is the time for us to pile on our blows thick and fast."
. . .With modernized variations, by William Tecumseh Sherman, 1863 -- and 2003, if he were here. (My apologies to friends from and in the American South, who probably don't much like old Sherman. But in this instance, one has gotta admit, he's right.)
And like many of you, I too would like not just a tally of America's sad, daily losses. . .
. . .but would also like to see a daily run down of just how many potential U.S., uh, "flying school students" have been dispatched to their maker. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 02, 2003
"Don't attack us during Ramadan, our holiest month!. . .
. . .Oh, but we are free to smite the infidel whenever Allah wishes!"
How is it that we even LISTEN to such nonsense?
However, "Black Hawk Down", this isn't -- despite what some might may think and hope. Times, and the Manhattan skyline, are dramatically different. Given such, our experience of this enemy tells us that once we have him by the throat, we do not let him go, despite the likes of this, which MSNBC reports:
Insurgents shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter in central Iraq on Sunday as it carried troops headed for R&R, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 21 in the deadliest single strike against American troops since the start of war.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mourned the soldiers and declared, “We can win this war. We will win this war.”
“The work in Iraq is difficult. It is tough. It is going to take time. But progress is being made,” the defense secretary said.
Rumsfeld made the comments in an interview Sunday with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Your heart goes out to their families,” Rumsfeld said. “But what they are doing is important ... They are taking the war to the terrorists.”. . .
And, as this gentleman would probably counsel us:
"I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the [Islamist enemy] begs for mercy; indeed, I know, and you know, that the end would be reacher quicker by such a course than by any seeming yielding on our part. I don't want our Government to be bothered by patching up local governments, or by trying to reconcile any class of men. The [Islamist enemy] has done her worst, and now is the time for us to pile on our blows thick and fast."
. . .With modernized variations, by William Tecumseh Sherman, 1863 -- and 2003, if he were here. (My apologies to friends from and in the American South, who probably don't much like old Sherman. But in this instance, one has gotta admit, he's right.)
And like many of you, I too would like not just a tally of America's sad, daily losses. . .
. . .but would also like to see a daily run down of just how many potential U.S., uh, "flying school students" have been dispatched to their maker. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, November 02, 2003
Saturday, November 01, 2003
WAR AGAINST CAR BOMBS
If you're like me, you've probably never been completely comfortable with the term "war on terror." As was said by someone else, it is as if after Pearl Harbor the U.S. had declared war on "surprise attacks." You can't fight an action; you fight a particular enemy.
Regardless, most do seem to appreciate that the term "war on terror" is a necessary euphemism, to try to head off misunderstanding. Although, when dealing with so many who live for misunderstanding, the term is STILL rejected as not acceptable. The term is rooted in the policy of defending ourselves from the lslamist (meaning Islam when interpreted as a fascist ideology; NOT Islam as a faith) onslaught, a primary main goal of which is to wipe out as many Americans as possible, and to destroy pluralist, free society.
Yesterday, the brilliant Charles Krauthammer noted that now, in Iraq, the "war on terror" is now a "war on car bombs":
. . .The car bomb is the nuclear weapon of guerrilla warfare. The 1983 car bomb attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, drove the U.S. out of Lebanon. . .
. . .In 1982, a car bomb blew up Phalange Party headquarters, killing Bashir Gemayel, the newly elected pro-Western, pro-American, pro-Israeli president.
Syria was deeply unhappy with him. The car bomb soon took care of business, wiping out an entire office building housing not just Gemayel but many top aides and government officials. It was the perfect political decapitation. With Gemayel gone, and a year later the Americans too, Lebanon inexorably fell into Syria's lap. It remains a Syrian colony to this day.
. . .The car bomb of Oct. 12 was aimed at the Baghdad Hotel, housing not just large numbers of Americans but much of the provisional Iraqi government. It would have been the equivalent of the two Beirut bombings in one: a psychologically crushing massacre of Americans -- which would have sparked immediate debate at home about withdrawal -- and the instantaneous destruction of much of the pro-American government, a political decapitation that would have left very few Iraqis courageous enough to fill the vacuum.
. . .The war in Iraq now consists of a race: the U.S. is racing to build up Iraqi police and armed forces capable of taking over the country's security -- before the Saddam loyalists and their jihadist allies can produce that single, Beirut-like car bomb that so discourages Americans (and Iraqis) that we withdraw in disarray.
Who wins the race? If this president remains in power, the likelihood is that we do.
Call it what one will -- "war on terror", "war on car bombs", or "war on demented, angry, flaming morons" -- but if this fight is not brought to some reasonable conclusion, following the boxing of that enemy safely in, the world will be nothing less than an ever more dangerous and distasteful place, dominated by the warped concerns of demented, angry, flaming morons. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 01, 2003
If you're like me, you've probably never been completely comfortable with the term "war on terror." As was said by someone else, it is as if after Pearl Harbor the U.S. had declared war on "surprise attacks." You can't fight an action; you fight a particular enemy.
Regardless, most do seem to appreciate that the term "war on terror" is a necessary euphemism, to try to head off misunderstanding. Although, when dealing with so many who live for misunderstanding, the term is STILL rejected as not acceptable. The term is rooted in the policy of defending ourselves from the lslamist (meaning Islam when interpreted as a fascist ideology; NOT Islam as a faith) onslaught, a primary main goal of which is to wipe out as many Americans as possible, and to destroy pluralist, free society.
Yesterday, the brilliant Charles Krauthammer noted that now, in Iraq, the "war on terror" is now a "war on car bombs":
. . .The car bomb is the nuclear weapon of guerrilla warfare. The 1983 car bomb attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, drove the U.S. out of Lebanon. . .
. . .In 1982, a car bomb blew up Phalange Party headquarters, killing Bashir Gemayel, the newly elected pro-Western, pro-American, pro-Israeli president.
Syria was deeply unhappy with him. The car bomb soon took care of business, wiping out an entire office building housing not just Gemayel but many top aides and government officials. It was the perfect political decapitation. With Gemayel gone, and a year later the Americans too, Lebanon inexorably fell into Syria's lap. It remains a Syrian colony to this day.
. . .The car bomb of Oct. 12 was aimed at the Baghdad Hotel, housing not just large numbers of Americans but much of the provisional Iraqi government. It would have been the equivalent of the two Beirut bombings in one: a psychologically crushing massacre of Americans -- which would have sparked immediate debate at home about withdrawal -- and the instantaneous destruction of much of the pro-American government, a political decapitation that would have left very few Iraqis courageous enough to fill the vacuum.
. . .The war in Iraq now consists of a race: the U.S. is racing to build up Iraqi police and armed forces capable of taking over the country's security -- before the Saddam loyalists and their jihadist allies can produce that single, Beirut-like car bomb that so discourages Americans (and Iraqis) that we withdraw in disarray.
Who wins the race? If this president remains in power, the likelihood is that we do.
Call it what one will -- "war on terror", "war on car bombs", or "war on demented, angry, flaming morons" -- but if this fight is not brought to some reasonable conclusion, following the boxing of that enemy safely in, the world will be nothing less than an ever more dangerous and distasteful place, dominated by the warped concerns of demented, angry, flaming morons. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, November 01, 2003
