Friday, April 30, 2004
THE INVASION
Murdoc has photos which seem to have been taken during the first month or so of the campaign in Iraq.
Warning: Some are graphic.
UPDATE: And, no, I am not linking because, as you will see at the top, I get a mention in his previous post. I just noticed that. By the way, if you don't read Murdoc regularly -- you should. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Murdoc has photos which seem to have been taken during the first month or so of the campaign in Iraq.
Warning: Some are graphic.
UPDATE: And, no, I am not linking because, as you will see at the top, I get a mention in his previous post. I just noticed that. By the way, if you don't read Murdoc regularly -- you should. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
ZAPATERO AND CHIRAC
Euro News (short lived link) reports:
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has made his first official visit to Paris where he was warmly welcomed by the French president Jacques Chirac.
It was quite a change from last year when France openly disagreed with Zapatero's predecessor Jose Maria Aznar over his backing for the war in Iraq.
I sure bet it was.
"We are determined to go hand in hand along the European road of tomorrow," said Chirac. "France and Spain will work together but we will also work hand in hand with our German friends."
Notice which country Chirac left out of that sentence (and which also did not have a leader of government present)?
Two words: United Kingdom.
That speaks volumes. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Euro News (short lived link) reports:
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has made his first official visit to Paris where he was warmly welcomed by the French president Jacques Chirac.
It was quite a change from last year when France openly disagreed with Zapatero's predecessor Jose Maria Aznar over his backing for the war in Iraq.
I sure bet it was.
"We are determined to go hand in hand along the European road of tomorrow," said Chirac. "France and Spain will work together but we will also work hand in hand with our German friends."
Notice which country Chirac left out of that sentence (and which also did not have a leader of government present)?
Two words: United Kingdom.
That speaks volumes. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
There is no way to justify the abuse of prisoners. After having the ability to kill the enemy outright on a battlefield, when they are still fighting, once that enemy throws up their hands and surrenders, they are supposed to be treated reasonably. That does not seem to be the case in this situation, which today is getting lots of screentime in Britain -- but naturally without much context.
1) ITV reports:
Pictures showing Iraqi prisoners being tortured and abused by US soldiers are "regrettable to say the least" Downing Street has said.
Tony Blair's official spokesman also confirmed eight cases of alleged mistreatment of Iraqis by British personnel are being investigated by the army's Special Investigations Branch.
"Where allegations are made, they will be investigated by the SIB and that's what every soldier who wears the British uniform knows," he said. . .
2) Similarly, Sky reports:
Tony Blair is "appalled" by photographs apparently showing US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners in a Baghdad jail. . .
3) And, typically, worst of all, the BBC:
Images of US soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqi prisoners at a notorious jail near Baghdad have sparked shock and anger.
Politicians in the US, Britain and the Middle East expressed disgust at the images, broadcast on US television, and called for those responsible to face justice. . .
In any event, only the release of the photos is really new. The military knew about this problem for months. Well, we might as well go to the source. CBS's "60 Minutes II" reports:
Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.
It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.
Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time. . .
Read the whole CBS article. Regardless of what has gone on, while reading the CBS piece, I could not fail to remember the underlying and vital difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime: A democracy punishes misbehavior; totalitarians thrive on it.
I will leave the last word here to a couple of those who should know, which were sent to the CBS web site:
First:
As a U.S. Marine who served our nation for more than 24 years, including multiple tours in Vietnam, I am appalled, ashamed and angry about U.S. servicemen and women torturing Iraqi prisoners. I totally reject any claim that those accused failed to receive adequate training in the handling of POWs or the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Such training would have only reinforced the rules of common decency that should govern the behavior, one human being toward another.
These soldiers, including their commanding officer, a brigadier general, are disgrace to this nation. They, too, should stand before the bar of justice at a war crimes tribunal. They are no better than the evil regime which honorable Americans have fought and died to oust.
--Master Gunnery Sgt. Donald M. O'Neal
And him:
I just wanted to echo what Gen. Kimmitt emphasized on your show. We are a value-based organization and those who participated in this sick turn of events should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are a small minority that do not represent what positive things that we do in Iraq. They did not think of the consequences of what could happen to their fellow soldiers if captured themselves. They blame this on the lack of leadership and training. What about human morals? We are American soldiers and believe in standards higher that what they displayed.
--SFC Manuel J. Shaw ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
There is no way to justify the abuse of prisoners. After having the ability to kill the enemy outright on a battlefield, when they are still fighting, once that enemy throws up their hands and surrenders, they are supposed to be treated reasonably. That does not seem to be the case in this situation, which today is getting lots of screentime in Britain -- but naturally without much context.
1) ITV reports:
Pictures showing Iraqi prisoners being tortured and abused by US soldiers are "regrettable to say the least" Downing Street has said.
Tony Blair's official spokesman also confirmed eight cases of alleged mistreatment of Iraqis by British personnel are being investigated by the army's Special Investigations Branch.
"Where allegations are made, they will be investigated by the SIB and that's what every soldier who wears the British uniform knows," he said. . .
2) Similarly, Sky reports:
Tony Blair is "appalled" by photographs apparently showing US soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners in a Baghdad jail. . .
3) And, typically, worst of all, the BBC:
Images of US soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqi prisoners at a notorious jail near Baghdad have sparked shock and anger.
Politicians in the US, Britain and the Middle East expressed disgust at the images, broadcast on US television, and called for those responsible to face justice. . .
In any event, only the release of the photos is really new. The military knew about this problem for months. Well, we might as well go to the source. CBS's "60 Minutes II" reports:
Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.
It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.
Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time. . .
Read the whole CBS article. Regardless of what has gone on, while reading the CBS piece, I could not fail to remember the underlying and vital difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime: A democracy punishes misbehavior; totalitarians thrive on it.
I will leave the last word here to a couple of those who should know, which were sent to the CBS web site:
First:
As a U.S. Marine who served our nation for more than 24 years, including multiple tours in Vietnam, I am appalled, ashamed and angry about U.S. servicemen and women torturing Iraqi prisoners. I totally reject any claim that those accused failed to receive adequate training in the handling of POWs or the requirements of the Geneva Convention. Such training would have only reinforced the rules of common decency that should govern the behavior, one human being toward another.
These soldiers, including their commanding officer, a brigadier general, are disgrace to this nation. They, too, should stand before the bar of justice at a war crimes tribunal. They are no better than the evil regime which honorable Americans have fought and died to oust.
--Master Gunnery Sgt. Donald M. O'Neal
And him:
I just wanted to echo what Gen. Kimmitt emphasized on your show. We are a value-based organization and those who participated in this sick turn of events should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They are a small minority that do not represent what positive things that we do in Iraq. They did not think of the consequences of what could happen to their fellow soldiers if captured themselves. They blame this on the lack of leadership and training. What about human morals? We are American soldiers and believe in standards higher that what they displayed.
--SFC Manuel J. Shaw ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
IF ONE STILL ISN'T SURE
The A.P. reports:
The purported voice of al-Qaida operative Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi said Friday his group did plan to blow up a Jordanian intelligence building, but not with chemical weapons as the authorities have alleged. . .
So, they were just trying to use a typical bomb.
Oh, well that makes it all better then . . .
. . ."The (allegation) that there was a chemical bomb to kill thousands of people is a mere lie," the reported voice of al-Zarqawi says on a tape broadcast via an Islamic site on the Internet.
Is that called being nuanced?
"God knows, if we did possess (a chemical bomb), we wouldn't hesitate one second to use it to hit Israeli cities such as Eilat and Tel Aviv," the voice said. . .
Now, that seems pretty clear, doesn't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
The A.P. reports:
The purported voice of al-Qaida operative Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi said Friday his group did plan to blow up a Jordanian intelligence building, but not with chemical weapons as the authorities have alleged. . .
So, they were just trying to use a typical bomb.
Oh, well that makes it all better then . . .
. . ."The (allegation) that there was a chemical bomb to kill thousands of people is a mere lie," the reported voice of al-Zarqawi says on a tape broadcast via an Islamic site on the Internet.
Is that called being nuanced?
"God knows, if we did possess (a chemical bomb), we wouldn't hesitate one second to use it to hit Israeli cities such as Eilat and Tel Aviv," the voice said. . .
Now, that seems pretty clear, doesn't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
WELL, THEN THE WAR WAS ALL WRONG
CNN reports:
Asked how many American troops have died in Iraq, the Defense Department's No. 2 civilian estimated Thursday the total was about 500 -- more than 200 soldiers short.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was asked about the toll at a hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee. "It's approximately 500, of which -- I can get the exact numbers _ approximately 350 are combat deaths," he responded.
"He misspoke," spokesman Charley Cooper said later. "That's all."
American deaths Thursday were at 722 -- 521 of them from combat _ since the start of military operations in Iraq last year, according to the Department of Defense.
Wolfowitz, an architect of the military campaign in Iraq, was responding to questions on the costs of the war. . .
Well, that's it then. It's over. Close up the shop. Withdraw the troops tomorrow. Give Hussein back his job and palaces. And, of course, send the "inspectors" back in. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
CNN reports:
Asked how many American troops have died in Iraq, the Defense Department's No. 2 civilian estimated Thursday the total was about 500 -- more than 200 soldiers short.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was asked about the toll at a hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee. "It's approximately 500, of which -- I can get the exact numbers _ approximately 350 are combat deaths," he responded.
"He misspoke," spokesman Charley Cooper said later. "That's all."
American deaths Thursday were at 722 -- 521 of them from combat _ since the start of military operations in Iraq last year, according to the Department of Defense.
Wolfowitz, an architect of the military campaign in Iraq, was responding to questions on the costs of the war. . .
Well, that's it then. It's over. Close up the shop. Withdraw the troops tomorrow. Give Hussein back his job and palaces. And, of course, send the "inspectors" back in. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
'TIS NOT A SIEGE? (V)
The BBC reports:
American forces have begun withdrawing from the Iraqi city of Falluja after a month of bloody clashes with rebels.
Witnesses said US marines were leaving fortified positions in the south and west of the city early on Friday.
Hmm. Is the BBC is implying something with this?:
A new Iraqi force, led by one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, is expected to move into the city while the US keeps a presence outside Falluja. . .
Funny, does the Beeb remember this? It's on their own web site:
1955: West Germany accepted into Nato
West Germany has formally joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at a special ceremony in Paris.
The German delegates to NATO were greeted by British Foreign Secretary Harold Macmillan at the Conference Hall of the Palais de Chaillot. . .
. . . Professor Hans Spiedel, former general of the Third Reich and ex chief-of-staff to Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, witnessed the ceremony alongside United States General Alfred Gruenther and Major General Rene Lehr of France.
Herr Spiedel was implicated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler and spent the end of the war in a German prison. . .
Anti-Hitler plotter he might have been, but Hans Speidel (or Spiedel) was still a very ranking high Nazi officer, remember. Similarly, here's a stunner: Just because someone was a general in Hussein's army, that does not automatically make the man evil. He might even be reasonably professional and competent -- and perhaps anti-Hussein, somewhat like Speidel was anti-Hitler.
And in today's environment symbolism matters, too -- just as it mattered to NATO in 1955. Having a competent Iraqi general play a role is currently, in terms of symbolism, not unlike getting a prominent former German officer involved in NATO. Indeed, more dramatically, Speidel even went on to command NATO, from 1957-1963.
UPDATE: The A.P. names the general:
. . . The commander of the proposed force, Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh, a veteran of Saddam's Republican Guard, met with tribal leaders in a mosque on Friday morning. He wore his uniform from the former Iraqi military with his general's insignia.
Saleh later left the city in a convoy for a meeting with U.S. commanders. One member of his entourage could be seen waving an Iraqi flag from the car as it drove from the city.
"Fallujah residents have chosen Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh to form and lead a unit that will be in charge of protecting the city," said Iraqi Brig. Gen. Shakir al-Janabi, who expects to be part of the new force. "Our force will handle the security issue today in cooperation with Iraqi police.". . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
The BBC reports:
American forces have begun withdrawing from the Iraqi city of Falluja after a month of bloody clashes with rebels.
Witnesses said US marines were leaving fortified positions in the south and west of the city early on Friday.
Hmm. Is the BBC is implying something with this?:
A new Iraqi force, led by one of Saddam Hussein's former generals, is expected to move into the city while the US keeps a presence outside Falluja. . .
Funny, does the Beeb remember this? It's on their own web site:
1955: West Germany accepted into Nato
West Germany has formally joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at a special ceremony in Paris.
The German delegates to NATO were greeted by British Foreign Secretary Harold Macmillan at the Conference Hall of the Palais de Chaillot. . .
. . . Professor Hans Spiedel, former general of the Third Reich and ex chief-of-staff to Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, witnessed the ceremony alongside United States General Alfred Gruenther and Major General Rene Lehr of France.
Herr Spiedel was implicated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler and spent the end of the war in a German prison. . .
Anti-Hitler plotter he might have been, but Hans Speidel (or Spiedel) was still a very ranking high Nazi officer, remember. Similarly, here's a stunner: Just because someone was a general in Hussein's army, that does not automatically make the man evil. He might even be reasonably professional and competent -- and perhaps anti-Hussein, somewhat like Speidel was anti-Hitler.
And in today's environment symbolism matters, too -- just as it mattered to NATO in 1955. Having a competent Iraqi general play a role is currently, in terms of symbolism, not unlike getting a prominent former German officer involved in NATO. Indeed, more dramatically, Speidel even went on to command NATO, from 1957-1963.
UPDATE: The A.P. names the general:
. . . The commander of the proposed force, Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh, a veteran of Saddam's Republican Guard, met with tribal leaders in a mosque on Friday morning. He wore his uniform from the former Iraqi military with his general's insignia.
Saleh later left the city in a convoy for a meeting with U.S. commanders. One member of his entourage could be seen waving an Iraqi flag from the car as it drove from the city.
"Fallujah residents have chosen Maj. Gen. Jassim Mohammed Saleh to form and lead a unit that will be in charge of protecting the city," said Iraqi Brig. Gen. Shakir al-Janabi, who expects to be part of the new force. "Our force will handle the security issue today in cooperation with Iraqi police.". . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
THAT "GREAT MINDS" THING
Murdoc:
. . . Am I suggesting that we compare GW to Abraham Lincoln? Of course not. But go back 150 years for a moment and try to imagine what things must have looked like then to people who were in the MIDDLE OF EVENTS. . .
I made a similar point, separately.
Ooooh, scary. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Murdoc:
. . . Am I suggesting that we compare GW to Abraham Lincoln? Of course not. But go back 150 years for a moment and try to imagine what things must have looked like then to people who were in the MIDDLE OF EVENTS. . .
I made a similar point, separately.
Ooooh, scary. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
OKAY, STOP CLAMORING ALREADY!
Further to the previous post, I thought I'd relent. Okay, I'm not a gorgeous woman. But here I am, nevertheless, caught in a relaxed moment:
And if any of you find an Illudium Q36 explosive space modulator, let me know immediately!
(If we didn't laugh a little, well, we'd all go nuts, right?) ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Further to the previous post, I thought I'd relent. Okay, I'm not a gorgeous woman. But here I am, nevertheless, caught in a relaxed moment:
And if any of you find an Illudium Q36 explosive space modulator, let me know immediately!
(If we didn't laugh a little, well, we'd all go nuts, right?) ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
TERROR ATTACKS ACTUALLY ARE DOWN
Being American in T.O. (also known as blogging's Rita Hayworth) notes:
The "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003" report shows that terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since 1969 (US Dept of State - Washington File Featured Item,). . .
. . . Yes, I realize that it doesn't seem that way. But honestly, how much attention did we pay to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11?
Not nearly enough, we now realize. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Being American in T.O. (also known as blogging's Rita Hayworth) notes:
The "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003" report shows that terrorist attacks are at their lowest level since 1969 (US Dept of State - Washington File Featured Item,). . .
. . . Yes, I realize that it doesn't seem that way. But honestly, how much attention did we pay to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11?
Not nearly enough, we now realize. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
DON'T BE SHOCKED
Yesterday, BoTW commented:
. . . one Rene Gonzalez, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, weighed in on the combat death of Pat Tillman, the football star turned Army Ranger, in Afghanistan:
For people in the United States, who seem to be unable to admit the stupidity of both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, such a trade-off in life standards (if not expectancy) is nothing short of heroic. Obviously, the man must be made of "stronger stuff" to have had decided to "serve" his country rather than take from it. It's the old JFK exhortation to citizen service to the nation, and it seems to strike an emotional chord. So, it's understandable why Americans automatically knee-jerk into hero worship.
However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him.
Cheers to UMass president Jack Wilson, who, the Boston Globe reports, issued a statement calling Gonzalez's remarks "a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country.". . .
This morning, the link BoTW cites appears to be getting such high traffic, one can't get to the original. (At least that's what the "error" message says.)
In any event, what Gonzalez writes about Tillman is not important, nor worth "deconstructing".
What is more important is what the piece demonstrates: If any of you reading this attended, or are attending graduate school, especially in the humanities and the social sciences, you know that such views are standard fare. You know as well that Gonzalez is not just speaking for Gonzalez. In seminars, as well as over lunches and dinners, "that" is the "common sense" and the "everybody knows" view of the war on Islamist terror, among students and the faculty.
So there is no arguing with "that". The only other way "that" can be dealt with is to cut off its money. "That" has to be made to get a real job and support itself, without recourse to state funding.
It's scary stuff. Indeed, if "stupid" Americans really knew what was taught and what went on, especially in the humanities and in the social sciences, and all heavily subsidized by the hard earned tax dollars of "stupid" people -- who have to go to work every day, worry about their families, and don't have time to explore graduate course offerings in the nearby state university -- those "stupid" people would probably vomit.
So, on what Gonzalez wrote? Don't get excited. Believe me, Gonzalez actually sounds rather moderate. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Yesterday, BoTW commented:
. . . one Rene Gonzalez, a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, weighed in on the combat death of Pat Tillman, the football star turned Army Ranger, in Afghanistan:
For people in the United States, who seem to be unable to admit the stupidity of both the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, such a trade-off in life standards (if not expectancy) is nothing short of heroic. Obviously, the man must be made of "stronger stuff" to have had decided to "serve" his country rather than take from it. It's the old JFK exhortation to citizen service to the nation, and it seems to strike an emotional chord. So, it's understandable why Americans automatically knee-jerk into hero worship.
However, in my neighborhood in Puerto Rico, Tillman would have been called a "pendejo," an idiot. Tillman, in the absurd belief that he was defending or serving his all-powerful country from a seventh-rate, Third World nation devastated by the previous conflicts it had endured, decided to give up a comfortable life to place himself in a combat situation that cost him his life. This was not "Ramon or Tyrone," who joined the military out of financial necessity, or to have a chance at education. This was a "G.I. Joe" guy who got what was coming to him.
Cheers to UMass president Jack Wilson, who, the Boston Globe reports, issued a statement calling Gonzalez's remarks "a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country.". . .
This morning, the link BoTW cites appears to be getting such high traffic, one can't get to the original. (At least that's what the "error" message says.)
In any event, what Gonzalez writes about Tillman is not important, nor worth "deconstructing".
What is more important is what the piece demonstrates: If any of you reading this attended, or are attending graduate school, especially in the humanities and the social sciences, you know that such views are standard fare. You know as well that Gonzalez is not just speaking for Gonzalez. In seminars, as well as over lunches and dinners, "that" is the "common sense" and the "everybody knows" view of the war on Islamist terror, among students and the faculty.
So there is no arguing with "that". The only other way "that" can be dealt with is to cut off its money. "That" has to be made to get a real job and support itself, without recourse to state funding.
It's scary stuff. Indeed, if "stupid" Americans really knew what was taught and what went on, especially in the humanities and in the social sciences, and all heavily subsidized by the hard earned tax dollars of "stupid" people -- who have to go to work every day, worry about their families, and don't have time to explore graduate course offerings in the nearby state university -- those "stupid" people would probably vomit.
So, on what Gonzalez wrote? Don't get excited. Believe me, Gonzalez actually sounds rather moderate. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 29, 2004
A REQUEST FOR HELP
On Frontpage. (Via Tom Devine):
. . . There is nothing more powerful than the truth. So, when you watch the news and see doomsday predictions and spiteful opinions on our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the everyday lives of Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world than the American Armed Forces. By making this a place where liberty can finally grow, we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception. So I'm asking you as a fellow fighting man: Do your duty. Stop the attempts of the enemy wherever you are. You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will win this fight and ensure a better world for the future.
God Bless and Semper Fidelis, 1st Lt. Robert L. Nofsinger USMC Ramadi, Iraq
Read his whole piece. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
On Frontpage. (Via Tom Devine):
. . . There is nothing more powerful than the truth. So, when you watch the news and see doomsday predictions and spiteful opinions on our efforts over here, you can refute them by knowing that we are doing a tremendous amount of good. Spread the word. No one is poised to make such an amazing contribution to the everyday lives of Iraqis and the rest of the Arab world than the American Armed Forces. By making this a place where liberty can finally grow, we are making the whole world safer. Your efforts at home are directly tied to our success. You are the soldiers at home fighting the war of perception. So I'm asking you as a fellow fighting man: Do your duty. Stop the attempts of the enemy wherever you are. You are a mighty force for good, because truth is on your side. Together we will win this fight and ensure a better world for the future.
God Bless and Semper Fidelis, 1st Lt. Robert L. Nofsinger USMC Ramadi, Iraq
Read his whole piece. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
THEY KEEP POLLING
There seems to be about a poll a week coming out of Iraq. Here's the latest one. CNN reports:
Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships. . .
This is what is meant by "bias". They use the passive voice, as they open the report with the minority downside of the poll, not with the large majority -- 61 percent is a LARGE majority -- view.
. . . Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.
Again, "nearly half". That's right, "nearly half." Oh, but the following is supposed to be really bad, apparently:
Thirty-three percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm, while 46 percent said it had done more harm than good . . .
That doesn't really jibe with the first paragraph. In any event, probably both lower and higher percentages for that question would have been gotten if it had been asked in most U.S. newsrooms and in faculty get togethers at most U.S. universities.
They will undoubtedly keep polling until they can manage to find "90 percent" of Iraqis oppose the war. . .
Nevertheless, for all their hardships, Iraqis still seem to have a higher opinion of the U.S. than the "French" do. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
There seems to be about a poll a week coming out of Iraq. Here's the latest one. CNN reports:
Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships. . .
This is what is meant by "bias". They use the passive voice, as they open the report with the minority downside of the poll, not with the large majority -- 61 percent is a LARGE majority -- view.
. . . Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.
Again, "nearly half". That's right, "nearly half." Oh, but the following is supposed to be really bad, apparently:
Thirty-three percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm, while 46 percent said it had done more harm than good . . .
That doesn't really jibe with the first paragraph. In any event, probably both lower and higher percentages for that question would have been gotten if it had been asked in most U.S. newsrooms and in faculty get togethers at most U.S. universities.
They will undoubtedly keep polling until they can manage to find "90 percent" of Iraqis oppose the war. . .
Nevertheless, for all their hardships, Iraqis still seem to have a higher opinion of the U.S. than the "French" do. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
HUGHES AS "FRENCH"
No Pasaran! links to this:
. . . Presumably tired of months of horrendously ridiculous and borderline racist attacks on his French “connections” and “French” appearance, Kerry has taken it upon himself to point something out that nobody else would.
Karen Hughes, one of George W. Bush’s chief propagandists, was herself born in France.
"I understand that Karen Hughes was born in Paris”, Kerry stated, on the 27 March 2004 broadcast of MSNBC’s Hardball. The host, Chris Matthews, a Democrat with Republican leanings (or is it the other way around?), found the comment funny—as most likely did every non-Bushist watching.
That’s right! Bush's fierce attack dog, sent out with her new book (which oddly enough wasn’t denounced by Bush fans for its political nature while everything critical about Bush is) to pounce on Kerry while consistently flattering her friend George to extremes, is a cheese-eating surrender monkey . . .
Is this supposed to be serious? ABC News had the following, February 23, 2001:
From Paris to Texas
Hughes, the daughter of a major general in the U.S. Army, was born in France. Her father, H.R. Parfitt, had a military career that eventually led to him being the last governor of the Panama Canal Zone, before the United States relinquished control of the canal in the late 1970s.
So, what's the secret Kerry's supposedly revealing? Hughes is the daughter of a Forces man. But Hughes isn't running for president. Kerry is.
Now, regardless whether the above about Kerry revealing what "nobody else would" is meant as a joke or not, there is a real issue here.
The "French" comments about Kerry may be taken by some to be snide or nasty. But they are no worse than those regularly and casually tossed from France at Americans. Indeed, the recent American carryings on about the "French" have usually been downright tame, when compared to the torrents of abuse hurled by many French at the U.S., Americans and American presidents for decades.
The key is the following. In American gripes about "the French", to their credit Americans never take aim at the French as a nationality. Nor are any jibes meant to be "borderline racist". Currently, Americans know there are brave French soldiers right now in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, participating in the war on terror. And a famous blogger is French -- and he always has lots to say about the "French."
The term "French", in the sense it is most often used as a dig in our current situation, is meant to denote a particular attitude -- one which John Kerry unfortunately possesses by the, shall we say, "metric" ton.
A major example is, of course, found in his views on the war on Islamist terror. Despite the perpetual, reflexive anti-Americanism within the French body politic, I still like and greatly admire France -- and, yes, the French. Yet it greatly irritates me, as it does many other Americans who similarly like and respect France, that there are such serious and at times fundamental disagreements between Washington and Paris about how the war should be conducted -- or even if it is a war at all.
And when one cuts to the chase, candidate Kerry comes much closer to the view of the war as it is seen from Paris than he does to the Bush view. That's fine. It's just a fact. So, why get all defensive about the Kerry's being, well, "French-like"? After all, Kerry essentially agrees with Paris on the war, as well as on a host of issues.
And one might also think about it this way: What do French critics of U.S. policies mean when they dismiss and denounce Bush as -- and this when they are being charitable -- a "Texan" or a "cowboy"? Are they being "borderline racist", too?
. . . I haven’t read Karen’s new book, as I’m not yet interested in reading (and to an even lesser extent, buying) something that would make Goebbels blush. . .
And, of course, we get the Bush as another Hitler nonsense, yet again.
Yawn. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
No Pasaran! links to this:
. . . Presumably tired of months of horrendously ridiculous and borderline racist attacks on his French “connections” and “French” appearance, Kerry has taken it upon himself to point something out that nobody else would.
Karen Hughes, one of George W. Bush’s chief propagandists, was herself born in France.
"I understand that Karen Hughes was born in Paris”, Kerry stated, on the 27 March 2004 broadcast of MSNBC’s Hardball. The host, Chris Matthews, a Democrat with Republican leanings (or is it the other way around?), found the comment funny—as most likely did every non-Bushist watching.
That’s right! Bush's fierce attack dog, sent out with her new book (which oddly enough wasn’t denounced by Bush fans for its political nature while everything critical about Bush is) to pounce on Kerry while consistently flattering her friend George to extremes, is a cheese-eating surrender monkey . . .
Is this supposed to be serious? ABC News had the following, February 23, 2001:
From Paris to Texas
Hughes, the daughter of a major general in the U.S. Army, was born in France. Her father, H.R. Parfitt, had a military career that eventually led to him being the last governor of the Panama Canal Zone, before the United States relinquished control of the canal in the late 1970s.
So, what's the secret Kerry's supposedly revealing? Hughes is the daughter of a Forces man. But Hughes isn't running for president. Kerry is.
Now, regardless whether the above about Kerry revealing what "nobody else would" is meant as a joke or not, there is a real issue here.
The "French" comments about Kerry may be taken by some to be snide or nasty. But they are no worse than those regularly and casually tossed from France at Americans. Indeed, the recent American carryings on about the "French" have usually been downright tame, when compared to the torrents of abuse hurled by many French at the U.S., Americans and American presidents for decades.
The key is the following. In American gripes about "the French", to their credit Americans never take aim at the French as a nationality. Nor are any jibes meant to be "borderline racist". Currently, Americans know there are brave French soldiers right now in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, participating in the war on terror. And a famous blogger is French -- and he always has lots to say about the "French."
The term "French", in the sense it is most often used as a dig in our current situation, is meant to denote a particular attitude -- one which John Kerry unfortunately possesses by the, shall we say, "metric" ton.
A major example is, of course, found in his views on the war on Islamist terror. Despite the perpetual, reflexive anti-Americanism within the French body politic, I still like and greatly admire France -- and, yes, the French. Yet it greatly irritates me, as it does many other Americans who similarly like and respect France, that there are such serious and at times fundamental disagreements between Washington and Paris about how the war should be conducted -- or even if it is a war at all.
And when one cuts to the chase, candidate Kerry comes much closer to the view of the war as it is seen from Paris than he does to the Bush view. That's fine. It's just a fact. So, why get all defensive about the Kerry's being, well, "French-like"? After all, Kerry essentially agrees with Paris on the war, as well as on a host of issues.
And one might also think about it this way: What do French critics of U.S. policies mean when they dismiss and denounce Bush as -- and this when they are being charitable -- a "Texan" or a "cowboy"? Are they being "borderline racist", too?
. . . I haven’t read Karen’s new book, as I’m not yet interested in reading (and to an even lesser extent, buying) something that would make Goebbels blush. . .
And, of course, we get the Bush as another Hitler nonsense, yet again.
Yawn. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
A LIST OF THOSE KILLED
The BBC reports:
A US TV news programme will dedicate an entire broadcast to a reading of the names of more than 500 American service personnel killed in action in Iraq.
Presenter Ted Koppel will read the names of those who have died since the start of the war last year on Friday's edition of Nightline on ABC News.
The reading will be accompanied by a photograph of each person named.
ABC says the 30-minute programme, entitled The Fallen, is a way of illustrating the human cost of the war. . .
ABC'S "Nightline" had shown the names of those killed on September 11, 2001, in the same way. So, this is not really new. Just the circumstances are different: Most of the dead of September 11 didn't even know they were in a war that morning; the brave men and women are essentially in Iraq now, because of that morning. (UPDATE: Just as they are, too, in Afghanistan, remember; and they are dying there also.)
During the Vietnam War, the names of those killed were regularly run on television newscasts. So this seems pretty much some attempt to harken back to that -- for whatever reason.
"Nightline" was once cutting edge. It came into existence relatively spontaneously, in 1979-1980, before there was 24 hour TV news, to give viewers nightly updates on the hostage crisis in Iran. (When those "students" had taken over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.)
But in one major respect, "Nightline" is showing its age. If one wants a daily summary of those killed, it is not difficult to find one. Now, nearly 25 years after "Nightline" was first broadcast, not only do we now have 24 hour TV news, but as we all know, 24 hour internet. And a good majority of Americans have such internet access.
What "Nightline" wants and needs these days, is extra attention -- and that is harder and harder to get in the 24 hour, all news channels everywhere environment. (UPDATE: The "name reading" does appear to be aimed at grabbing higher ratings -- and attention. I mean when was the last time we have all thought to mention "Nightline"? Heck, even the BBC is mentioning Koppel by name. Most Brits wouldn't know him from Kobe. Actually, wait, I'm wrong: come to think of it, a lot of Brits would recognize Kobe.) Ted Koppel should probably retire; it's been a good quarter century. But he's getting stale.
If one wants a list of all the fallen from the entire coalition? Well, CNN has one. Indeed, do look at all those faces -- so different and from so many varied backgrounds. Remember them, and let us vow that this war must help Iraq to become better than it was before, for the Iraqi people and for Americans and for those from countries who have participated in the coalition. Anything less will truly make the sacrifice of those men and women an appalling waste.
Not "CNN"! "Nightline's" nightmare.
UPDATE: Instapundit has this:
Reader David Whidden asks: "Did Ted Koppel ever read the names of the 3,000 people who died on September 11? Just wondering."
Not to my knowledge.
My point above about "Nightline" having shown the names of those killed on September 11 is based on a comment by Mort Kondracke on "Brit Hume", April 28. As "Nightline" is not broadcast in Britain, and I therefore did not see it right after September 11, 2001, I have to presume that Kondracke knows what he's talking about.
It would also seem unlikely that Koppel ever read out nearly 3,000 names. Reading roughly 500 is a lot easier. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
The BBC reports:
A US TV news programme will dedicate an entire broadcast to a reading of the names of more than 500 American service personnel killed in action in Iraq.
Presenter Ted Koppel will read the names of those who have died since the start of the war last year on Friday's edition of Nightline on ABC News.
The reading will be accompanied by a photograph of each person named.
ABC says the 30-minute programme, entitled The Fallen, is a way of illustrating the human cost of the war. . .
ABC'S "Nightline" had shown the names of those killed on September 11, 2001, in the same way. So, this is not really new. Just the circumstances are different: Most of the dead of September 11 didn't even know they were in a war that morning; the brave men and women are essentially in Iraq now, because of that morning. (UPDATE: Just as they are, too, in Afghanistan, remember; and they are dying there also.)
During the Vietnam War, the names of those killed were regularly run on television newscasts. So this seems pretty much some attempt to harken back to that -- for whatever reason.
"Nightline" was once cutting edge. It came into existence relatively spontaneously, in 1979-1980, before there was 24 hour TV news, to give viewers nightly updates on the hostage crisis in Iran. (When those "students" had taken over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.)
But in one major respect, "Nightline" is showing its age. If one wants a daily summary of those killed, it is not difficult to find one. Now, nearly 25 years after "Nightline" was first broadcast, not only do we now have 24 hour TV news, but as we all know, 24 hour internet. And a good majority of Americans have such internet access.
What "Nightline" wants and needs these days, is extra attention -- and that is harder and harder to get in the 24 hour, all news channels everywhere environment. (UPDATE: The "name reading" does appear to be aimed at grabbing higher ratings -- and attention. I mean when was the last time we have all thought to mention "Nightline"? Heck, even the BBC is mentioning Koppel by name. Most Brits wouldn't know him from Kobe. Actually, wait, I'm wrong: come to think of it, a lot of Brits would recognize Kobe.) Ted Koppel should probably retire; it's been a good quarter century. But he's getting stale.
If one wants a list of all the fallen from the entire coalition? Well, CNN has one. Indeed, do look at all those faces -- so different and from so many varied backgrounds. Remember them, and let us vow that this war must help Iraq to become better than it was before, for the Iraqi people and for Americans and for those from countries who have participated in the coalition. Anything less will truly make the sacrifice of those men and women an appalling waste.
Not "CNN"! "Nightline's" nightmare.
UPDATE: Instapundit has this:
Reader David Whidden asks: "Did Ted Koppel ever read the names of the 3,000 people who died on September 11? Just wondering."
Not to my knowledge.
My point above about "Nightline" having shown the names of those killed on September 11 is based on a comment by Mort Kondracke on "Brit Hume", April 28. As "Nightline" is not broadcast in Britain, and I therefore did not see it right after September 11, 2001, I have to presume that Kondracke knows what he's talking about.
It would also seem unlikely that Koppel ever read out nearly 3,000 names. Reading roughly 500 is a lot easier. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
'TIS A SIEGE (IV)
The BBC reports:
US troops in Iraq have launched new air raids against insurgents in Falluja as President George W Bush vowed to do everything to "secure" the city.
For a second night an AC-130 gunship bombarded rebel positions in the city.
Mr Bush said military commanders would take whatever action was necessary to eliminate "pockets of resistance". . .
Ah, and now that voice from Manhattan's East Side:
But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged restraint. Mr Annan said if civilians were harmed, the anti-coalition resistance would grow. . .
In a BBC sidebar his exact quote is:
"Violent military action by an occupying power against the inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse"
Thank you for that Mr. Annan. I'm sure the administration had no freakin' idea.
That the U.S. could blow Fallujah off the face of the earth without so much as breaking a sweat, never enters into such discussions. The U.S. is putting its own troops lives on the line in order NOT to unduly harm non-combatants -- even though it would be so much easier, and sparing of valuable U.S. Marines' lives, simply to level the place.
But the U.S. is not a "leveller". The U.S. wants to kill the enemy. It is there to liberate, not to kill those who are not the enemy. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
The BBC reports:
US troops in Iraq have launched new air raids against insurgents in Falluja as President George W Bush vowed to do everything to "secure" the city.
For a second night an AC-130 gunship bombarded rebel positions in the city.
Mr Bush said military commanders would take whatever action was necessary to eliminate "pockets of resistance". . .
Ah, and now that voice from Manhattan's East Side:
But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged restraint. Mr Annan said if civilians were harmed, the anti-coalition resistance would grow. . .
In a BBC sidebar his exact quote is:
"Violent military action by an occupying power against the inhabitants of an occupied country will only make matters worse"
Thank you for that Mr. Annan. I'm sure the administration had no freakin' idea.
That the U.S. could blow Fallujah off the face of the earth without so much as breaking a sweat, never enters into such discussions. The U.S. is putting its own troops lives on the line in order NOT to unduly harm non-combatants -- even though it would be so much easier, and sparing of valuable U.S. Marines' lives, simply to level the place.
But the U.S. is not a "leveller". The U.S. wants to kill the enemy. It is there to liberate, not to kill those who are not the enemy. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 29, 2004
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
HOW DID HE?
Scott Burgess kindly emailed to address my essentially rhetorical, throw one's hands in the air, look up, roll one's eyes in abject disgust while mumbling to oneself, "Why? How?" question on how the charming Abu Hamza ever became a U.K. citizen:
He married a Brit in the early 80's . . . His wife divorced him when he became increasingly radical.
There you have it. Great info.
Many thanks as always, Scott! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Scott Burgess kindly emailed to address my essentially rhetorical, throw one's hands in the air, look up, roll one's eyes in abject disgust while mumbling to oneself, "Why? How?" question on how the charming Abu Hamza ever became a U.K. citizen:
He married a Brit in the early 80's . . . His wife divorced him when he became increasingly radical.
There you have it. Great info.
Many thanks as always, Scott! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
'TIS A SIEGE (III)
ITV News reports:
US air strikes have rained down on the besieged Iraqi town of Fallujah.
The Sunni Muslim city has been under siege for three weeks and the surge in violence comes after a US deadline for insurgents to hand over their weapons. . .
ITV finished by noting what really should sadden us, apparently, throughout all this:
Saddam Hussein was spending his 67th birthday in a secret jail, his first since his capture in December.
The heart bleeds. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
ITV News reports:
US air strikes have rained down on the besieged Iraqi town of Fallujah.
The Sunni Muslim city has been under siege for three weeks and the surge in violence comes after a US deadline for insurgents to hand over their weapons. . .
ITV finished by noting what really should sadden us, apparently, throughout all this:
Saddam Hussein was spending his 67th birthday in a secret jail, his first since his capture in December.
The heart bleeds. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
OUR FRIEND, PRESIDENT MODERATE
Mark Steyn:
. . . Returning from a visit to America, Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, dropped in on Jacques Chirac in Paris. "Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before," he told Le Monde. And, in what sounded suspiciously like a threat, Mubarak added: "American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region, but anywhere in the world." Did he mention that when he was back at the ranch with Bush?
And that's a guy American taxpayers give $2 billion a year to. In return for which, they get Mohammed Atta flying through the office window and vile state-funded Egyptian media that license anti-Americanism as a safety valve for disaffection that might otherwise be targeted more locally. Thanks a bunch, Hosni. The Guardian reported this as a "damaging rebuff to President George Bush's policies", though it's difficult to conceive of anything less "damaging" to Bush than being insulted by some third-rate Arab strongman dependent on US aid . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Mark Steyn:
. . . Returning from a visit to America, Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, dropped in on Jacques Chirac in Paris. "Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before," he told Le Monde. And, in what sounded suspiciously like a threat, Mubarak added: "American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region, but anywhere in the world." Did he mention that when he was back at the ranch with Bush?
And that's a guy American taxpayers give $2 billion a year to. In return for which, they get Mohammed Atta flying through the office window and vile state-funded Egyptian media that license anti-Americanism as a safety valve for disaffection that might otherwise be targeted more locally. Thanks a bunch, Hosni. The Guardian reported this as a "damaging rebuff to President George Bush's policies", though it's difficult to conceive of anything less "damaging" to Bush than being insulted by some third-rate Arab strongman dependent on US aid . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
AND IF YOU "PEEL AWAY" THIS?
The Captain's Quarters notes this exchange between "Hardball's" Chris Matthews and Kerry:
Matthews: "If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the 'why?' Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideolouges around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?"
Kerry: "It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and --we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, two months from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren't found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with."
Now, what could be clearer!
And yet many claim President Bush is inarticulate.
Come to think of it, Kerry was simply speaking in the wrong tongue. Such ramblings sound decidedly better in French.
Kerry's equivocating on the WMD issue is particularly telling, since it seems that, perhaps, they had (and have) indeed found THEM. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The Captain's Quarters notes this exchange between "Hardball's" Chris Matthews and Kerry:
Matthews: "If there was an exaggeration of WMD, exaggeration of the danger, exaggeration implicitly of the connection to al Qaeda and 9/11, what's the motive for this, what's the 'why?' Why did Bush and Cheney and the ideolouges around take us to war? Why do you think they did it?"
Kerry: "It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and --we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, two months from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren't found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with."
Now, what could be clearer!
And yet many claim President Bush is inarticulate.
Come to think of it, Kerry was simply speaking in the wrong tongue. Such ramblings sound decidedly better in French.
Kerry's equivocating on the WMD issue is particularly telling, since it seems that, perhaps, they had (and have) indeed found THEM. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
THE REQUIREMENTS OF A "STANDOFF"
Sometimes " 'tis a siege". At other times, it's a "standoff." Sky reports:
. . . In New York, UN senior adviser Lakhdar Brahimi warned Iraq's US-led administration that an armed confrontation with insurgents in Fallujah would lead to major bloodshed and long-lasting consequences.
"The Coalition Provisional Authority is well aware that, unless this standoff is brought to a resolution through peaceful means, there is great risk of a very bloody confrontation," Brahimi told the UN Security Council. . .
Oh, that's just brilliant.
Interestingly, the CPA is one side. And about the other? The last time the rest of us looked, it takes at least two sides to have a "standoff" -- in case the U.N. doesn't, perchance, know that.
UPDATE: Actually, the U.N. really has little time for such "standoffs." It's far too busy trying to urge the remaking of Iraq into another Middle Eastern success like, umm, Egypt . . . while at the same time not actually being too involved in Iraq. Very nuanced of the world body. Mark Steyn:
. . . Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s special envoy to Iraq, has told French radio listeners that "the great poison in the region" is Israeli "domination" and told American television viewers that the Israelis "are not interested in peace, no matter what you seem to believe in America". Well, he certainly hit the ground running. A week in town and he is already sounding like any decades-old Arab despot. In The Spectator a year ago, I warned against handing over Iraq to the UN: it would simply "install as high commissioner a non-Iraqi Arab bureaucrat" who’d "effectively wind up as an Arab League minder, there to ensure that the Iraqis didn’t get any funny ideas (rule of law, representative government) which might unduly discombobulate the Egyptians, Saudis et al." But even I didn’t think they’d ship over such a walking, talking cliché of Arab League man as Mr Brahimi. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Sometimes " 'tis a siege". At other times, it's a "standoff." Sky reports:
. . . In New York, UN senior adviser Lakhdar Brahimi warned Iraq's US-led administration that an armed confrontation with insurgents in Fallujah would lead to major bloodshed and long-lasting consequences.
"The Coalition Provisional Authority is well aware that, unless this standoff is brought to a resolution through peaceful means, there is great risk of a very bloody confrontation," Brahimi told the UN Security Council. . .
Oh, that's just brilliant.
Interestingly, the CPA is one side. And about the other? The last time the rest of us looked, it takes at least two sides to have a "standoff" -- in case the U.N. doesn't, perchance, know that.
UPDATE: Actually, the U.N. really has little time for such "standoffs." It's far too busy trying to urge the remaking of Iraq into another Middle Eastern success like, umm, Egypt . . . while at the same time not actually being too involved in Iraq. Very nuanced of the world body. Mark Steyn:
. . . Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s special envoy to Iraq, has told French radio listeners that "the great poison in the region" is Israeli "domination" and told American television viewers that the Israelis "are not interested in peace, no matter what you seem to believe in America". Well, he certainly hit the ground running. A week in town and he is already sounding like any decades-old Arab despot. In The Spectator a year ago, I warned against handing over Iraq to the UN: it would simply "install as high commissioner a non-Iraqi Arab bureaucrat" who’d "effectively wind up as an Arab League minder, there to ensure that the Iraqis didn’t get any funny ideas (rule of law, representative government) which might unduly discombobulate the Egyptians, Saudis et al." But even I didn’t think they’d ship over such a walking, talking cliché of Arab League man as Mr Brahimi. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
THOSE BENEFITING -- LITERALLY
We all know there are many benefits to living in places like Britain and America. But in Britain they also apparently include not just the right to get state "benefits" -- those are roughly the U.K. equivalent of what is known as "welfare" in the U.S. -- but the right to be state supported WHILE advocating the likes of the killing of the leader of that state. (At least America's supposed "welfare queens" of an earlier era weren't hoping to knock off a president.) Scott Burgess does a nice round-up on Britain's "Benefit Sheikhs":
Mohammed al-Gerbouzi
North London cleric - Wanted in Morocco for terrorist attacks
Benefit Status: > £1000/mo
Omar Bakri
Leader, UK al-Muhajiroun
Benefit Status: at least £1200/mo
Abu Hamza
North London Imam
Benefit Status: >£4,000/mo in rent and payments
Ramee Abdul Rahman Muhammad
Manchester Imam
Benefit Status: £1400/mo + rent
Sayful Islam
Leader of Luton al-Muhajiroun
Benefit Status: £1,000/mo.
Wali Khan Ahmadzai
Taliban fighter granted asylum in the UK
Benefit Status: Amount unknown - eligible for benefits as a successful asylum seeker.
Read the whole thing. Scott also includes a helpful listing of the varied "benefits" their presences here have brought to British society. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
We all know there are many benefits to living in places like Britain and America. But in Britain they also apparently include not just the right to get state "benefits" -- those are roughly the U.K. equivalent of what is known as "welfare" in the U.S. -- but the right to be state supported WHILE advocating the likes of the killing of the leader of that state. (At least America's supposed "welfare queens" of an earlier era weren't hoping to knock off a president.) Scott Burgess does a nice round-up on Britain's "Benefit Sheikhs":
Mohammed al-Gerbouzi
North London cleric - Wanted in Morocco for terrorist attacks
Benefit Status: > £1000/mo
Omar Bakri
Leader, UK al-Muhajiroun
Benefit Status: at least £1200/mo
Abu Hamza
North London Imam
Benefit Status: >£4,000/mo in rent and payments
Ramee Abdul Rahman Muhammad
Manchester Imam
Benefit Status: £1400/mo + rent
Sayful Islam
Leader of Luton al-Muhajiroun
Benefit Status: £1,000/mo.
Wali Khan Ahmadzai
Taliban fighter granted asylum in the UK
Benefit Status: Amount unknown - eligible for benefits as a successful asylum seeker.
Read the whole thing. Scott also includes a helpful listing of the varied "benefits" their presences here have brought to British society. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT HIM?
It was once famously said of current Conservative leader Michael Howard that he had "something of the night" about him. Well, at least Howard had "something" about him. What gives with John Kerry? Tom Devine asks, from Switzerland:
. . .There's something unlikeable about John Kerry that I can't put my finger on. Is it his penchant for marrying rich women? Is it medal-gate? Is it his French looking mug accompanied by his eloquent spoken French? Is it the "my family owns an SUV, I don't," statement? Is it the botox scare? Is it his flip flop on so many issues spanning his government career? Is it because he comes from the People's Republic of Massachusetts? Is it because he shares a bed with Ted Kennedy?
What is it about this guy?. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
It was once famously said of current Conservative leader Michael Howard that he had "something of the night" about him. Well, at least Howard had "something" about him. What gives with John Kerry? Tom Devine asks, from Switzerland:
. . .There's something unlikeable about John Kerry that I can't put my finger on. Is it his penchant for marrying rich women? Is it medal-gate? Is it his French looking mug accompanied by his eloquent spoken French? Is it the "my family owns an SUV, I don't," statement? Is it the botox scare? Is it his flip flop on so many issues spanning his government career? Is it because he comes from the People's Republic of Massachusetts? Is it because he shares a bed with Ted Kennedy?
What is it about this guy?. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
THE ONLY WAY THEY WIN
The "siege" of Fallujah, and to a lesser extent the battle with the, as the BBC terms them, Shia "militiamen" in Najaf are typical of an enemy fighting a political war. Even everyone's currently favorite "cleric" picked up on the "Vietnam" theme, demonstrating that the enemy knows full-well that since they cannot defeat the coalition militarily, they must at least demoralize and discourage Americans -- in order to achieve a very specific result.
George W. Bush would probably be the first to state he is no Lincoln. (Although the Washington Post's Richard Cohen does think Bush is another Woodrow Wilson.) But in terms of tactics and strategy, the enemy's only hope today is similar to that which had been the Confederacy's: Northerners had to be encouraged to vote out Lincoln in November 1864.
Is this now our generation's Union summer of 1864, when things seemed stalemated and the war endless, when actually within months it was to become crystal clear that neither was to be the case?
Today's enemy needs Americans to vote out Bush and replace him with the "war hero" McClellan -- sorry, "war hero" Kerry. That is their only slim chance for some sort of victory. The question is: Will Americans give them that chance come November? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The "siege" of Fallujah, and to a lesser extent the battle with the, as the BBC terms them, Shia "militiamen" in Najaf are typical of an enemy fighting a political war. Even everyone's currently favorite "cleric" picked up on the "Vietnam" theme, demonstrating that the enemy knows full-well that since they cannot defeat the coalition militarily, they must at least demoralize and discourage Americans -- in order to achieve a very specific result.
George W. Bush would probably be the first to state he is no Lincoln. (Although the Washington Post's Richard Cohen does think Bush is another Woodrow Wilson.) But in terms of tactics and strategy, the enemy's only hope today is similar to that which had been the Confederacy's: Northerners had to be encouraged to vote out Lincoln in November 1864.
Is this now our generation's Union summer of 1864, when things seemed stalemated and the war endless, when actually within months it was to become crystal clear that neither was to be the case?
Today's enemy needs Americans to vote out Bush and replace him with the "war hero" McClellan -- sorry, "war hero" Kerry. That is their only slim chance for some sort of victory. The question is: Will Americans give them that chance come November? ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
ISLAMISTS IN . . . THAILAND
This is appalling. What will the U.N. say?! (That it must be Israel's, and of course, America's fault, one supposes.) CNN reports:
At least 97 people have been killed in co-ordinated attacks on security posts in Thailand in the deadliest fighting this year in the country's predominantly Muslim south.
Black-clad bandits attacked 15 police stations in three southern provinces -- Yala, Pattani and Songkhla -- killing three policemen and one army officer.
More than 150 people have died since unrest began in early January in Thailand's restive Muslim-dominated southern provinces, but Wednesday's violence is the worst single incident to date. . .
Another "restive Muslim-dominated" area. Terrific.
The BBC reports:
More than 95 people are said to have been killed in a spate of gun battles in southern Thailand.
Suspected Islamic militants armed with guns and machetes carried out a series of co-ordinated attacks on police bases in the region, security forces said. . .
"Suspected Islamic militants": Take that! -- those who believe investigative journalism is dead at the BBC. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
This is appalling. What will the U.N. say?! (That it must be Israel's, and of course, America's fault, one supposes.) CNN reports:
At least 97 people have been killed in co-ordinated attacks on security posts in Thailand in the deadliest fighting this year in the country's predominantly Muslim south.
Black-clad bandits attacked 15 police stations in three southern provinces -- Yala, Pattani and Songkhla -- killing three policemen and one army officer.
More than 150 people have died since unrest began in early January in Thailand's restive Muslim-dominated southern provinces, but Wednesday's violence is the worst single incident to date. . .
Another "restive Muslim-dominated" area. Terrific.
The BBC reports:
More than 95 people are said to have been killed in a spate of gun battles in southern Thailand.
Suspected Islamic militants armed with guns and machetes carried out a series of co-ordinated attacks on police bases in the region, security forces said. . .
"Suspected Islamic militants": Take that! -- those who believe investigative journalism is dead at the BBC. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
THE WMD? THEY PROBABLY FOUND THEM AFTER ALL
This from "Insight" being on Instapundit, should therefore shortly be all over the place. And it seems to be common sense. I like these bits in particular:
. . . what are "stockpiles" of CW agents supposed to look like? Was anyone seriously expecting Saddam to have left behind freshly painted warehouses packed with chemical munitions, all neatly laid out in serried rows, with labels written in English? Or did they think that a captured Saddam would guide U.S. troops to smoking vats full of nerve gas in an abandoned factory? In fact, as recent evidence made public by a former operations officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA's) intelligence unit in Iraq shows, some of those stockpiles have been found - not all at once, and not all in nice working order - but found all the same.
Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists. . .
. . . [a] reason for the media silence may stem from the seemingly undramatic nature of the "finds" Hanson and others have described. The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble. "Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents.". . .
. . . Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'". . .
The big question on WMD is: If they have found "THEM", when might it safely be said that they have found "THEM"? Indeed, can that ever be said, given the nature of the search and the way in which the media has presented that search -- Ah, ha! No WMD after all! Bush is evil! Cheney just wants the oil! Blah, blah, blah. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
This from "Insight" being on Instapundit, should therefore shortly be all over the place. And it seems to be common sense. I like these bits in particular:
. . . what are "stockpiles" of CW agents supposed to look like? Was anyone seriously expecting Saddam to have left behind freshly painted warehouses packed with chemical munitions, all neatly laid out in serried rows, with labels written in English? Or did they think that a captured Saddam would guide U.S. troops to smoking vats full of nerve gas in an abandoned factory? In fact, as recent evidence made public by a former operations officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority's (CPA's) intelligence unit in Iraq shows, some of those stockpiles have been found - not all at once, and not all in nice working order - but found all the same.
Douglas Hanson was a U.S. Army cavalry reconnaissance officer for 20 years, and a veteran of Gulf War I. He was an atomic demolitions munitions security officer and a nuclear, biological and chemical defense officer. As a civilian analyst in Iraq last summer, he worked for an operations intelligence unit of the CPA in Iraq, and later, with the newly formed Ministry of Science and Technology, which was responsible for finding new, nonlethal employment for Iraqi WMD scientists. . .
. . . [a] reason for the media silence may stem from the seemingly undramatic nature of the "finds" Hanson and others have described. The materials that constitute Saddam's chemical-weapons "stockpiles" look an awful lot like pesticides, which they indeed resemble. "Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents.". . .
. . . Near the northern Iraqi town of Bai'ji, where Saddam had built a chemical-weapons plant known to the United States from nearly 12 years of inspections, elements of the 4th Infantry Division found 55-gallon drums containing a substance identified through mass spectrometry analysis as cyclosarin - a nerve agent. Nearby were surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, gas masks and a mobile laboratory that could have been used to mix chemicals at the site. "Of course, later tests by the experts revealed that these were only the ubiquitous pesticides that everybody was turning up," Hanson says. "It seems Iraqi soldiers were obsessed with keeping ammo dumps insect-free, according to the reading of the evidence now enshrined by the conventional wisdom that 'no WMD stockpiles have been discovered.'". . .
The big question on WMD is: If they have found "THEM", when might it safely be said that they have found "THEM"? Indeed, can that ever be said, given the nature of the search and the way in which the media has presented that search -- Ah, ha! No WMD after all! Bush is evil! Cheney just wants the oil! Blah, blah, blah. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
VIKINGS WATCH THEIR DOLLARS
Viking Pundit, who might be termed our man in Strasbourg (which is not yet, at least as far as we know, under "siege"), reports:
Everything over here is wicked expensive because the Europeans tack on a 19.6% VAT (value added tax) onto anything organic or inorganic. Plus the service is automatically added onto any restaurant bill so a Coke is about $3. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Viking Pundit, who might be termed our man in Strasbourg (which is not yet, at least as far as we know, under "siege"), reports:
Everything over here is wicked expensive because the Europeans tack on a 19.6% VAT (value added tax) onto anything organic or inorganic. Plus the service is automatically added onto any restaurant bill so a Coke is about $3. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
'TIS A SIEGE (II)
The BBC reports:
A US flying gunship has pumped shells into suspected militant positions in the Iraqi city of Falluja in one of the heaviest attacks since the siege began.
One witness said the earth had shaken beneath his feet as detonations succeeded at a rate of 10 a minute during the night.
US forces say their positions in the north of the city had come under fire.
Thus yesterday, during "the siege" of Fallujah.
Gee, since media and reporters are using the word "siege" more that at any time since their predecessors did, probably, in the 19th century, it is worth asking: Did they do this in Mississippi in 1863?:
Loudspeakers in some of the city's reputed 70 mosques broadcast verses of the Koran during the shelling. . .
Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The BBC reports:
A US flying gunship has pumped shells into suspected militant positions in the Iraqi city of Falluja in one of the heaviest attacks since the siege began.
One witness said the earth had shaken beneath his feet as detonations succeeded at a rate of 10 a minute during the night.
US forces say their positions in the north of the city had come under fire.
Thus yesterday, during "the siege" of Fallujah.
Gee, since media and reporters are using the word "siege" more that at any time since their predecessors did, probably, in the 19th century, it is worth asking: Did they do this in Mississippi in 1863?:
Loudspeakers in some of the city's reputed 70 mosques broadcast verses of the Koran during the shelling. . .
Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
EXPLOSIONS IN DAMASCUS
Sky is reporting at 2130, U.K. time:
There have been a series of explosions in the Syrian capital Damascus, near to the Iranian ambassador's residence.
The blasts, accompanied by heavy gunfire, came from the Mazzeh district where many embassies are located, though the Foreign Office said the British embassy was not involved. . .
. . .The explosions rang out at around 8 pm local time.
A British Foreign Office spokeswoman in London said the explosion was "closer to the Iranian ambassador's residence than it is to our ambassador's residence... (There were no) injuries to UK embassy staff but our staff are in the process of assessing the situation," he said.
"There was no damage to the British embassy."
Kuwait's state news agency KUNA quoted Syrian officials as saying in Damascus that police were now in control of the situation. . .
UPDATE: And AOL news here in Britain has this vital story, on its main page:
Pop princess Britney Spears has shocked fans by miming as she kicked off her UK tour.
Britney, 22, looked sensational in a skin-tight PVC catsuit as she kicked off her tour at Wembley Arena.
However, the 12,000-strong crowd, who had paid at least £30 each for tickets, were startled when Britney started lip-synching to a backing track.
"If I wanted to see somebody mime to music, I would have gone to Top Of The Pops. I've saved up to see Britney - and I'm extremely disappointed," one angry fan was quoted as saying. . .
Explosions in Damascus, and Britney not actually singing . . .
What, oh what, is going on out there?! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Sky is reporting at 2130, U.K. time:
There have been a series of explosions in the Syrian capital Damascus, near to the Iranian ambassador's residence.
The blasts, accompanied by heavy gunfire, came from the Mazzeh district where many embassies are located, though the Foreign Office said the British embassy was not involved. . .
. . .The explosions rang out at around 8 pm local time.
A British Foreign Office spokeswoman in London said the explosion was "closer to the Iranian ambassador's residence than it is to our ambassador's residence... (There were no) injuries to UK embassy staff but our staff are in the process of assessing the situation," he said.
"There was no damage to the British embassy."
Kuwait's state news agency KUNA quoted Syrian officials as saying in Damascus that police were now in control of the situation. . .
UPDATE: And AOL news here in Britain has this vital story, on its main page:
Pop princess Britney Spears has shocked fans by miming as she kicked off her UK tour.
Britney, 22, looked sensational in a skin-tight PVC catsuit as she kicked off her tour at Wembley Arena.
However, the 12,000-strong crowd, who had paid at least £30 each for tickets, were startled when Britney started lip-synching to a backing track.
"If I wanted to see somebody mime to music, I would have gone to Top Of The Pops. I've saved up to see Britney - and I'm extremely disappointed," one angry fan was quoted as saying. . .
Explosions in Damascus, and Britney not actually singing . . .
What, oh what, is going on out there?! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
ORGANIZE DEMONSTRATIONS OR THEY'LL BE KILLED
CNN reports:
A militant group has threatened to kill three Italian hostages unless their countrymen demonstrate against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq, according to a video aired on an Arabic news channel. . .
. . . In a written statement the group released with the tape, it demanded Italian citizens organize demonstrations against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq.
The group gave Italians five days to organize the demonstrations. Otherwise, the statement said, the hostages would be killed. . .
The ludicrous "protest" demand aside, the rights of these hostages are what, exactly?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
Italian politicians have condemned a threat by Iraqi militants to kill three hostages unless Italians protest over the presence of their country's troops in Iraq.
Understandably, if they are one's relatives:
. . . relatives of the hostages on Tuesday urged Italians to help set the men free and take part in rallies on Wednesday and Thursday -- not to denounce the government but to call for the release of the three Italian security workers. . .
And, interestingly, is this:
. . ."We, who were against the war, are completely opposed to any negotiation with kidnappers and terrorists. The government is continuing to work with seriousness and discretion for the release of the hostages," Francesco Rutelli, leader of the center-left Daisy party, told Reuters. . .
When a leader of the "make nice to Islamists" European left talks like that, that is hardly good news for Islamists. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
CNN reports:
A militant group has threatened to kill three Italian hostages unless their countrymen demonstrate against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq, according to a video aired on an Arabic news channel. . .
. . . In a written statement the group released with the tape, it demanded Italian citizens organize demonstrations against the presence of Italian troops in Iraq.
The group gave Italians five days to organize the demonstrations. Otherwise, the statement said, the hostages would be killed. . .
The ludicrous "protest" demand aside, the rights of these hostages are what, exactly?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
Italian politicians have condemned a threat by Iraqi militants to kill three hostages unless Italians protest over the presence of their country's troops in Iraq.
Understandably, if they are one's relatives:
. . . relatives of the hostages on Tuesday urged Italians to help set the men free and take part in rallies on Wednesday and Thursday -- not to denounce the government but to call for the release of the three Italian security workers. . .
And, interestingly, is this:
. . ."We, who were against the war, are completely opposed to any negotiation with kidnappers and terrorists. The government is continuing to work with seriousness and discretion for the release of the hostages," Francesco Rutelli, leader of the center-left Daisy party, told Reuters. . .
When a leader of the "make nice to Islamists" European left talks like that, that is hardly good news for Islamists. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
U.S. KILLED "MILITIAMEN"
The BBC reports:
US forces in Iraq say they have killed 43 Shia Muslim militiamen in clashes near the holy city of Najaf.
Did the U.S. really use the word "militiamen"? Or is that the BBC's word? CNN doesn't use it.
The BBC continues:
They also say that an anti-aircraft weapon in the area was destroyed by an AC-130 gunship.
U.S. forces "say". They also "say".
One tends to write "say" like that, when one doesn't believe what is, umm, being "said."
The clash took place on Monday night, hours after US troops had moved into a base in Najaf being vacated by Spanish troops withdrawing from Iraq. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The BBC reports:
US forces in Iraq say they have killed 43 Shia Muslim militiamen in clashes near the holy city of Najaf.
Did the U.S. really use the word "militiamen"? Or is that the BBC's word? CNN doesn't use it.
The BBC continues:
They also say that an anti-aircraft weapon in the area was destroyed by an AC-130 gunship.
U.S. forces "say". They also "say".
One tends to write "say" like that, when one doesn't believe what is, umm, being "said."
The clash took place on Monday night, hours after US troops had moved into a base in Najaf being vacated by Spanish troops withdrawing from Iraq. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
THE END OF FRENCH COAL MINING
"Germinal" is now history. Douglas at No Pasaran! writes:
France's last functioning coal mine closed for good last Friday in Lorraine. Long the mainstay of France's Communist Party, the mining industry had been suffering a steep decline for decades. . .
. . . the long goodbye started with the arrival of cheap foreign coal and then nuclear power in the 1970s. Recruitment was frozen as early as 1984 and by 2001 there were only 6,823 miners left in France. In 2002, there were just three mines, producing only 1.6 million metric tons at a cost of production far greater than the price of imported coal. . .
Back on April 23, the BBC reported on the end of France's coal mining industry, and noted:
. . . The 400 miners of La Houve will lose their jobs, but under a special deal, those who have served more than 20 years in the mine will have their salaries and housing paid by the state until they reach the age of retirement.
In Britain, some mines survive still. But how much longer they might, of course, is the real issue. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
"Germinal" is now history. Douglas at No Pasaran! writes:
France's last functioning coal mine closed for good last Friday in Lorraine. Long the mainstay of France's Communist Party, the mining industry had been suffering a steep decline for decades. . .
. . . the long goodbye started with the arrival of cheap foreign coal and then nuclear power in the 1970s. Recruitment was frozen as early as 1984 and by 2001 there were only 6,823 miners left in France. In 2002, there were just three mines, producing only 1.6 million metric tons at a cost of production far greater than the price of imported coal. . .
Back on April 23, the BBC reported on the end of France's coal mining industry, and noted:
. . . The 400 miners of La Houve will lose their jobs, but under a special deal, those who have served more than 20 years in the mine will have their salaries and housing paid by the state until they reach the age of retirement.
In Britain, some mines survive still. But how much longer they might, of course, is the real issue. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
GADDAFI WITH PRODI
Sky reports:
Cheered on by African drummers and dancing supporters, Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi took another step towards his international rehabilitation when he visited EU headquarters today.
European Commission President Romano Prodi broke with protocol to welcome Gaddafi personally to Brussels.
Gaddafi arrived flanked by a team of female bodyguards and will stay the night in a black Bedouin tent compete with satellite dish, pitched in the grounds of a Belgian state residence. . .
The housing issue aside, Gaddafi is in Brussels not because he likes Prodi, but because Bush and Blair "suggested" to him that behaving rationally has its benefits. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Sky reports:
Cheered on by African drummers and dancing supporters, Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi took another step towards his international rehabilitation when he visited EU headquarters today.
European Commission President Romano Prodi broke with protocol to welcome Gaddafi personally to Brussels.
Gaddafi arrived flanked by a team of female bodyguards and will stay the night in a black Bedouin tent compete with satellite dish, pitched in the grounds of a Belgian state residence. . .
The housing issue aside, Gaddafi is in Brussels not because he likes Prodi, but because Bush and Blair "suggested" to him that behaving rationally has its benefits. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
THE NEW PRESIDENT OF IRAQ?
Iraq The Model offers job specification requirements for Iraq's future leader. (Sounds like they need an Iraqi version of Adenauer.):
. . .The requirements are:
1-He should not be a cleric.
2-He should be at least 84 years old with life expectancy of no more than 90 for his family.
3-Should have no criminal record.
4-He should have at least 2 chronic illnesses (organic) with no possible cure.
5-He should have NO sons.
6-He should not be able to make a speech longer than 15 minutes.
7-He should have an IQ that can be measured
8-His birthday should not be known.
9-He should not have been seen wearing a military uniform.
10-He should have no interest in nerve gas, mustard gas, abdominal gas…etc.
11-He should have no experience whatever with guns.
12-He should NOT be a war hero.
13-He should not have a history in using words like conspiracy, historical, mother of all …., the day of days…..etc.
14-He should speak at least 6 languages beside Arabic AND English (French, German, Russian and Chinese are NOT needed)
15-He should feel comfortable with living in one house for a long time.
16-The applicant should show documents that prove that he’s hated by the majority of Palestinians, Saudis, Egyptians and ARABS in general.
17-He should have been criticized severely by Arab media, especially Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Iraq The Model offers job specification requirements for Iraq's future leader. (Sounds like they need an Iraqi version of Adenauer.):
. . .The requirements are:
1-He should not be a cleric.
2-He should be at least 84 years old with life expectancy of no more than 90 for his family.
3-Should have no criminal record.
4-He should have at least 2 chronic illnesses (organic) with no possible cure.
5-He should have NO sons.
6-He should not be able to make a speech longer than 15 minutes.
7-He should have an IQ that can be measured
8-His birthday should not be known.
9-He should not have been seen wearing a military uniform.
10-He should have no interest in nerve gas, mustard gas, abdominal gas…etc.
11-He should have no experience whatever with guns.
12-He should NOT be a war hero.
13-He should not have a history in using words like conspiracy, historical, mother of all …., the day of days…..etc.
14-He should speak at least 6 languages beside Arabic AND English (French, German, Russian and Chinese are NOT needed)
15-He should feel comfortable with living in one house for a long time.
16-The applicant should show documents that prove that he’s hated by the majority of Palestinians, Saudis, Egyptians and ARABS in general.
17-He should have been criticized severely by Arab media, especially Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
OUT OF SHAPE?
Victor Davis Hanson, in the New York Post:
. . . the Marines - some with dyed hair and Ray Bans - who drove to Baghdad in three weeks, and the Rangers who sleep out in the Hindu Kush, hardly seem the same sort of fellows as those who pour out into the streets of European cities to protest for a 35-hour work week and more government unemployment insurance.
Twenty-six days after 9/11, Americans were in Afghanistan; 40 hours after a similar al Qaeda attack, the Spanish electorate voted in Socialists on the promise that they would get out of Iraq pronto. Our population may seem soft and flabby on university campuses and think tanks, but the sort of Americans I see out here in rural central California like to fight, work to exhaustion and, for the most part, worry more about what we are going to do to our enemies in the Middle East, rather than they to us. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson, in the New York Post:
. . . the Marines - some with dyed hair and Ray Bans - who drove to Baghdad in three weeks, and the Rangers who sleep out in the Hindu Kush, hardly seem the same sort of fellows as those who pour out into the streets of European cities to protest for a 35-hour work week and more government unemployment insurance.
Twenty-six days after 9/11, Americans were in Afghanistan; 40 hours after a similar al Qaeda attack, the Spanish electorate voted in Socialists on the promise that they would get out of Iraq pronto. Our population may seem soft and flabby on university campuses and think tanks, but the sort of Americans I see out here in rural central California like to fight, work to exhaustion and, for the most part, worry more about what we are going to do to our enemies in the Middle East, rather than they to us. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
THIS SOUNDS FAMILIAR
Yankee From Mississippi directs us to this by My Stupid Dog, a former leftist, now a conservative:
. . . Now the cyclist went ballistic: You see, he was one of those people who believes the news isn't liberal enough. (If Chomsky's not doing commentary on the evening news, then they're not telling it like it is.) Still, I mentioned that it was easy to see how the media might get a reputation for being liberal. The nation's leading paper, the New York Times, has a by-now notorious record of left-wing bias. I didn't mention the Washington Post, the Associated Press, UPI, Reuters, CNN, or the "Big Three" news networks, though I think I could have brought up a few of them if the cyclist had let me complete one sentence. But he would have none of it, and promptly asked, "How can you say the media is liberal? Eighty percent of the stories in the newspapers are pro-Bush. All right, let's say that eighty percent of news stories are pro-Bush."
Like Athena from Zeus, the eighty percent figure had popped full-grown out of the guy's head, no rhyme or reason required. But if I was a bit frustrated at this point (how do you hold a discussion with someone who just makes things up?), the cyclist had grown livid. His ruddy face had turned noticeably redder over the past few minutes. He stated that I had "obviously" been "propagandized beyond belief" and that he simply didn't want to talk to me anymore. Leftists do this a lot, and not just to me -- which, again, is why I don't talk to them much. If you can't play nice ...
Make sure you read the whole thing.
Gee, I wonder if that cyclist is a relation of mine? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Yankee From Mississippi directs us to this by My Stupid Dog, a former leftist, now a conservative:
. . . Now the cyclist went ballistic: You see, he was one of those people who believes the news isn't liberal enough. (If Chomsky's not doing commentary on the evening news, then they're not telling it like it is.) Still, I mentioned that it was easy to see how the media might get a reputation for being liberal. The nation's leading paper, the New York Times, has a by-now notorious record of left-wing bias. I didn't mention the Washington Post, the Associated Press, UPI, Reuters, CNN, or the "Big Three" news networks, though I think I could have brought up a few of them if the cyclist had let me complete one sentence. But he would have none of it, and promptly asked, "How can you say the media is liberal? Eighty percent of the stories in the newspapers are pro-Bush. All right, let's say that eighty percent of news stories are pro-Bush."
Like Athena from Zeus, the eighty percent figure had popped full-grown out of the guy's head, no rhyme or reason required. But if I was a bit frustrated at this point (how do you hold a discussion with someone who just makes things up?), the cyclist had grown livid. His ruddy face had turned noticeably redder over the past few minutes. He stated that I had "obviously" been "propagandized beyond belief" and that he simply didn't want to talk to me anymore. Leftists do this a lot, and not just to me -- which, again, is why I don't talk to them much. If you can't play nice ...
Make sure you read the whole thing.
Gee, I wonder if that cyclist is a relation of mine? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE?
The BBC reports:
More than 50 former British diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy.
They urged the prime minister to start influencing America's "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing it.
They had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parliament, they said. . .
Who are these people? Well, we are told they are "professional diplomats", who have had YEARS of experience in the Middle East. So, they should know what they are talking about, right? After all, they include the likes of these people:
. . .The attack by the 52 diplomats, including former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, is being seen as unprecedented in scope and scale.
The document's co-ordinator, former British ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles, said: "A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public.". . .
And, the BBC also points out, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell tells us:
. . . the letter came from experts in their field.
"The prime minister would be well advised to read carefully what they have said and respond in a grown up fashion," he said. . .
Wow!
Hey, but wait a minute! Before one gets too excited about this "dramatic" condemnation, let's review a bit, shall we?
Since at least the early and middle of the 1800s, long before America had any substantial interest in the Middle East, Britain was there. Britain's long experience in the Middle East is too complicated for a blog post, of course. However, a couple of salient issues are worth noting here.
During the dark days of 1916-1918, during World War I, Britain was looking for help from everyone in sight. In the Middle East, acting on advice from "professional diplomats", the British government essentially promised the Ottoman Empire-ruled (the Ottomans -- meaning, essentially, today's Turkey -- were Germany's ally) Palestine to Jews as a "homeland". When Arabs got incensed, it was pointed out that that didn't necessarily mean a "state." Apparently, that's what's meant today when people talk of being "nuanced".
Having played the major part in breaking up the Ottoman Empire, after WWI Britain naturally filled the void. It ended up de facto colonial ruler (under League of Nations' mandates) of virtually the entire region, save for certain areas (Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, being the major examples) that were governed from Paris. British "professional diplomats" of their day counseled that most of conquered Ottoman domains be turned into more governable units, under local Arab rulers, and similar in size to western-style nation-states. And granting independence eventually was always in the cards. It sounded reasonable.
Now, this gets very confusing, and I hope I've got this right. The current ruling family in Jordan owes its very legitimacy to Britain. But that is because they were one of the "losers" in a 1920s local struggle for control of what is today Saudi Arabia, as the British had initially backed the losing horse in that contest. Another "loser" ended up on the throne of Iraq. (The Iraqi rulers were eventually overthrown, of course.) Britain was also involved -- less, um, shall we say, successfully -- with rulers of Persia/Iran. (The Americans got involved in Iran, beginning with the Second World War and especially afterwards, with the last shah.)
Whew. Made it.
Underlying those moves was an attitude -- as a group, such "professionals" had come to take the appallingly patronizing view that Arabs/Muslims were somehow "beguiling," "romantic," "unique" and "exceptional" in their cultures and outlooks. Worst of all, they believed that Arab/Muslim culture was incapable of "adaptation", "change" and "modernity".
Such was among the doings of British governments, guided by "professional diplomats' " advice of 60-90 years ago.
Thus through all that did those "professionals" help foster not better government and a better life for most people, but a Middle Eastern cesspool, which ultimately itself produced the unbelieveable stench that made us all gag on September 11, 2001.
Yet today it is Bush and Blair who, since the attacks of 32 months ago, have been attempting to try to sort out the mess. (UPDATE. Correction: This morning, I had wrongly written "20" months. Where I got that, I have no idea. I guess they still feel like they happened virtually yesterday.) It bears repeating: that very mess was in large part bequeathed to us due to a century's "advice" given to British governments by "professional diplomats" such as this current bunch of letter writers -- the successors of the true architects of "failure". And these few "professional diplomats" have the unmitigated gall to spout about Bush and Blair following "doomed" policies?
Disgraceful. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The BBC reports:
More than 50 former British diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy.
They urged the prime minister to start influencing America's "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing it.
They had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parliament, they said. . .
Who are these people? Well, we are told they are "professional diplomats", who have had YEARS of experience in the Middle East. So, they should know what they are talking about, right? After all, they include the likes of these people:
. . .The attack by the 52 diplomats, including former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, is being seen as unprecedented in scope and scale.
The document's co-ordinator, former British ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles, said: "A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public.". . .
And, the BBC also points out, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell tells us:
. . . the letter came from experts in their field.
"The prime minister would be well advised to read carefully what they have said and respond in a grown up fashion," he said. . .
Wow!
Hey, but wait a minute! Before one gets too excited about this "dramatic" condemnation, let's review a bit, shall we?
Since at least the early and middle of the 1800s, long before America had any substantial interest in the Middle East, Britain was there. Britain's long experience in the Middle East is too complicated for a blog post, of course. However, a couple of salient issues are worth noting here.
During the dark days of 1916-1918, during World War I, Britain was looking for help from everyone in sight. In the Middle East, acting on advice from "professional diplomats", the British government essentially promised the Ottoman Empire-ruled (the Ottomans -- meaning, essentially, today's Turkey -- were Germany's ally) Palestine to Jews as a "homeland". When Arabs got incensed, it was pointed out that that didn't necessarily mean a "state." Apparently, that's what's meant today when people talk of being "nuanced".
Having played the major part in breaking up the Ottoman Empire, after WWI Britain naturally filled the void. It ended up de facto colonial ruler (under League of Nations' mandates) of virtually the entire region, save for certain areas (Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, being the major examples) that were governed from Paris. British "professional diplomats" of their day counseled that most of conquered Ottoman domains be turned into more governable units, under local Arab rulers, and similar in size to western-style nation-states. And granting independence eventually was always in the cards. It sounded reasonable.
Now, this gets very confusing, and I hope I've got this right. The current ruling family in Jordan owes its very legitimacy to Britain. But that is because they were one of the "losers" in a 1920s local struggle for control of what is today Saudi Arabia, as the British had initially backed the losing horse in that contest. Another "loser" ended up on the throne of Iraq. (The Iraqi rulers were eventually overthrown, of course.) Britain was also involved -- less, um, shall we say, successfully -- with rulers of Persia/Iran. (The Americans got involved in Iran, beginning with the Second World War and especially afterwards, with the last shah.)
Whew. Made it.
Underlying those moves was an attitude -- as a group, such "professionals" had come to take the appallingly patronizing view that Arabs/Muslims were somehow "beguiling," "romantic," "unique" and "exceptional" in their cultures and outlooks. Worst of all, they believed that Arab/Muslim culture was incapable of "adaptation", "change" and "modernity".
Such was among the doings of British governments, guided by "professional diplomats' " advice of 60-90 years ago.
Thus through all that did those "professionals" help foster not better government and a better life for most people, but a Middle Eastern cesspool, which ultimately itself produced the unbelieveable stench that made us all gag on September 11, 2001.
Yet today it is Bush and Blair who, since the attacks of 32 months ago, have been attempting to try to sort out the mess. (UPDATE. Correction: This morning, I had wrongly written "20" months. Where I got that, I have no idea. I guess they still feel like they happened virtually yesterday.) It bears repeating: that very mess was in large part bequeathed to us due to a century's "advice" given to British governments by "professional diplomats" such as this current bunch of letter writers -- the successors of the true architects of "failure". And these few "professional diplomats" have the unmitigated gall to spout about Bush and Blair following "doomed" policies?
Disgraceful. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
PARKINSON OR PREMIERSHIP
ITV reports:
TV chatshow legend Michael Parkinson has been signed up in a two-year deal by ITV after 33 years with the BBC.
The veteran presenter made the move after BBC bosses tried to move his talk show into a different slot to make way for the return of Match Of The Day.
"I'm very sorry to leave the BBC, of course I am," he said.
"I have spent 20-odd years of my working life with the BBC and I don't turn my back on that lightly.
"But when the BBC brought back Match of the Day, effectively my spot had gone". . .
Is there no loyalty anymore?! Is nothing sacred?! It's as if Johnny Carson had moved from NBC to CBS!
BBC gets Match of the Day back from ITV. ITV gets Parkinson to fill former MoTD slot.
Eh, why not. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
ITV reports:
TV chatshow legend Michael Parkinson has been signed up in a two-year deal by ITV after 33 years with the BBC.
The veteran presenter made the move after BBC bosses tried to move his talk show into a different slot to make way for the return of Match Of The Day.
"I'm very sorry to leave the BBC, of course I am," he said.
"I have spent 20-odd years of my working life with the BBC and I don't turn my back on that lightly.
"But when the BBC brought back Match of the Day, effectively my spot had gone". . .
Is there no loyalty anymore?! Is nothing sacred?! It's as if Johnny Carson had moved from NBC to CBS!
BBC gets Match of the Day back from ITV. ITV gets Parkinson to fill former MoTD slot.
Eh, why not. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
THERE WILL BE NO CELEBRATING
. . . I have a suspicion that when this war does end, we shall not be in a very celebrating mood, a very celebrating frame of mind. I think that our main emotion will be one of grim determination that this shall not happen again. . .
President Franklin Roosevelt, radio address, September 8, 1943.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
. . . I have a suspicion that when this war does end, we shall not be in a very celebrating mood, a very celebrating frame of mind. I think that our main emotion will be one of grim determination that this shall not happen again. . .
President Franklin Roosevelt, radio address, September 8, 1943.
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
YOUR RIGHTS
The other day, Being American in Toronto, Ontario linked to a story on Muslims living in Canada being provided with a handy booklet, listing what they should do if confronted by the RCMP or CSIS. Having thought on that some, I have come to realize that doing so is a really great idea. And in this current, uncertain age, such information might helpfully be provided to other groups.
Indeed, what if as Americans we were given something similar, for how to deal with Islamists, should the latter unexpectedly come a-knocking?:
- Your right to be politically active and to hold different beliefs is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
AMERICAN: Choices are for infidel societies. Remember, you have absolutely no right to have any opinion even slightly different from that deemed appropriate by those taking you captive, given that they are the instruments of Allah's will . . .
- If you are visited by CSIS or the RCMP remember: You have no obligation to talk to CSIS or the RCMP, even if you are not a citizen.
AMERICAN: Your American citizenship automatically makes you a target. So if you are visited by Allah's warriors, whether you speak to them or not, you might be killed. (Citizenship is an infidel concept anyway. It is useful, however, for Allah's warriors, insofar as their possessing infidel citizenship makes it easier for them to get closer to the infidels, for the attack.)
- Never meet with them or answer any questions without a lawyer present. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you.
AMERICAN: Again, choices are for infidels. You must meet Allah's warriors whenever they deem such a meeting necessary. Remember, too, that lawyers are for infidels (although using infidel lawyers to try to deceive infidels into releasing Allah's warriors from Guantanamo is permissible), and regardless of whether or not you answer Allah's warriors' questions, you may be killed.
- You do not have to permit them to enter your home or office without a search warrant. If they say they have a warrant, demand to see it before allowing them to enter.
AMERICAN: Allah's warriors may go anywhere they want to, whenever they see fit, so they can do Allah's bidding. If, as an infidel, you demand anything of Allah's warriors as they attempt to do take you hostage, you might be killed.
- Even if they have a warrant, you are under no obligation to answer questions.
AMERICAN: Warrants, like lawyers, are for infidels. While you are under no obligation to answer Allah's warriors' questions, of course . . . you might be killed.
- Never lie or provide false information to CSIS or the RCMP. If you fear misunderstanding, it is better to refuse to answer questions.
AMERICAN: Remember that Allah always knows the Truth, and his will is enforced by his warriors waving that gun before your face. So there is never any chance of a misunderstanding: Whether you answer questions or not, you may be killed. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
The other day, Being American in Toronto, Ontario linked to a story on Muslims living in Canada being provided with a handy booklet, listing what they should do if confronted by the RCMP or CSIS. Having thought on that some, I have come to realize that doing so is a really great idea. And in this current, uncertain age, such information might helpfully be provided to other groups.
Indeed, what if as Americans we were given something similar, for how to deal with Islamists, should the latter unexpectedly come a-knocking?:
- Your right to be politically active and to hold different beliefs is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
AMERICAN: Choices are for infidel societies. Remember, you have absolutely no right to have any opinion even slightly different from that deemed appropriate by those taking you captive, given that they are the instruments of Allah's will . . .
- If you are visited by CSIS or the RCMP remember: You have no obligation to talk to CSIS or the RCMP, even if you are not a citizen.
AMERICAN: Your American citizenship automatically makes you a target. So if you are visited by Allah's warriors, whether you speak to them or not, you might be killed. (Citizenship is an infidel concept anyway. It is useful, however, for Allah's warriors, insofar as their possessing infidel citizenship makes it easier for them to get closer to the infidels, for the attack.)
- Never meet with them or answer any questions without a lawyer present. Refusing to answer questions cannot be held against you.
AMERICAN: Again, choices are for infidels. You must meet Allah's warriors whenever they deem such a meeting necessary. Remember, too, that lawyers are for infidels (although using infidel lawyers to try to deceive infidels into releasing Allah's warriors from Guantanamo is permissible), and regardless of whether or not you answer Allah's warriors' questions, you may be killed.
- You do not have to permit them to enter your home or office without a search warrant. If they say they have a warrant, demand to see it before allowing them to enter.
AMERICAN: Allah's warriors may go anywhere they want to, whenever they see fit, so they can do Allah's bidding. If, as an infidel, you demand anything of Allah's warriors as they attempt to do take you hostage, you might be killed.
- Even if they have a warrant, you are under no obligation to answer questions.
AMERICAN: Warrants, like lawyers, are for infidels. While you are under no obligation to answer Allah's warriors' questions, of course . . . you might be killed.
- Never lie or provide false information to CSIS or the RCMP. If you fear misunderstanding, it is better to refuse to answer questions.
AMERICAN: Remember that Allah always knows the Truth, and his will is enforced by his warriors waving that gun before your face. So there is never any chance of a misunderstanding: Whether you answer questions or not, you may be killed. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monday, April 26, 2004
LEAVING TO DO MORE EVIL
"Dr Evil" and "Number 2" move to synchronize watches, under the watchful gaze of Lincoln -- another Republican who was, for many of his own generation, also an evildoer. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
"Dr Evil" and "Number 2" move to synchronize watches, under the watchful gaze of Lincoln -- another Republican who was, for many of his own generation, also an evildoer. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
TALKING PAST EACH OTHER
From BBC Radio 4's "Prayer For the Day", April 26:
. . . Still shocked by the events of Sept. 11th 2001 and subsequent acts of terrorism around the world, Muslims and Christians have not only had to look closer at their own faith but explore what they share with each other. That is above all else, a common humanity. For both believe there is one human race, one human family in the world, and we are all members of it. . .
That depends, apparently. According to a MEMRI translation of a televised Friday sermon on March 12, in the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, which was delivered by Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris, an employee of the Awqaf (Religious Affairs) ministry of the Palestinian Authority:
. . .The Jews today – there is no doubt – are avenging their ancient forefathers, the sons of apes and pigs. Some of the extremist Jews are demanding today their property in Al-Madina. There are even those who have requested to be buried at the southern edge of Palestine. When the one-eyed Dayan was on his deathbed, he instructed that he be buried at the southern edge of Palestine. When asked why, he said, 'So that I will be close to Al-Madina.' This is the extremist tendency of the Jews. They are the extremists, they are the terrorists. They deserve death, and we deserve life, because we are the people of Truth. . .
Just pausing for a moment, to note the diversity of views found in our one human family. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
From BBC Radio 4's "Prayer For the Day", April 26:
. . . Still shocked by the events of Sept. 11th 2001 and subsequent acts of terrorism around the world, Muslims and Christians have not only had to look closer at their own faith but explore what they share with each other. That is above all else, a common humanity. For both believe there is one human race, one human family in the world, and we are all members of it. . .
That depends, apparently. According to a MEMRI translation of a televised Friday sermon on March 12, in the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza, which was delivered by Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris, an employee of the Awqaf (Religious Affairs) ministry of the Palestinian Authority:
. . .The Jews today – there is no doubt – are avenging their ancient forefathers, the sons of apes and pigs. Some of the extremist Jews are demanding today their property in Al-Madina. There are even those who have requested to be buried at the southern edge of Palestine. When the one-eyed Dayan was on his deathbed, he instructed that he be buried at the southern edge of Palestine. When asked why, he said, 'So that I will be close to Al-Madina.' This is the extremist tendency of the Jews. They are the extremists, they are the terrorists. They deserve death, and we deserve life, because we are the people of Truth. . .
Just pausing for a moment, to note the diversity of views found in our one human family. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
FALLUJAH FIREFIGHT
CNN reports:
U.S. Marines patrolling a section of northwest Fallujah on Monday engaged in a raging firefight with insurgents that left 10 Marines injured, four of them seriously, according to Marines on site.
After taking fire from a minaret, the Marines called in close air support, destroying the 60-foot tall structure, Marines said.
In addition, fire from helicopters set ablaze buildings in an industrial area of Fallujah, sending clouds of black smoke roiling into the sky. . .
According to "All About Turkey's" Burak Sansal, a minaret is a:
Tower near to, or built into, the structures of a mosque, which is used by the muezzin to call out, adhan (ezan), for people to come to prayers in Islam. . .
And, in the current climate, it is worth noting:
. . . Minarets are now very much symbols of Islam, but not theologically heavy symbols. . .
Actually, for some they apparently also provide an excellent high point, from which to open fire.
Best regular updates, as always, over at the Command Post.
Yesterday, Murdoc noted this from the Strategy Page:
The marines won’t release any numbers of sniper kills (except that the top scoring sniper in Fallujah has 24 kills so far), but it is known from emails coming back that the marines use snipers, and sniping tactics (for non-snipers), extensively. Part of this is to comply with the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that call for minimizing civilian casualties. Most often, the marines only use a lot of fire power when they are ambushed (there is no better way to deal with an ambush than to blast your way out of it). But most of the Iraqi gunmen are killed by single shots, usually by the trained snipers, after the snipers and their commanders had carefully set up sniper firing positions that covered areas they knew Iraqis liked to travel through. UAVs and lots of scouting, plus questioning of prisoners, reveals the Iraqi routes and makes them deadly to use. This has terrorized the Iraqis, which is exactly what it is intended to do. The army and marine snipers particularly like to work at night, when their night vision and thermal imaging equipment enables them to shoot accurately in the darkness. This further reduces the chance of civilian losses, and increases the terror. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
CNN reports:
U.S. Marines patrolling a section of northwest Fallujah on Monday engaged in a raging firefight with insurgents that left 10 Marines injured, four of them seriously, according to Marines on site.
After taking fire from a minaret, the Marines called in close air support, destroying the 60-foot tall structure, Marines said.
In addition, fire from helicopters set ablaze buildings in an industrial area of Fallujah, sending clouds of black smoke roiling into the sky. . .
According to "All About Turkey's" Burak Sansal, a minaret is a:
Tower near to, or built into, the structures of a mosque, which is used by the muezzin to call out, adhan (ezan), for people to come to prayers in Islam. . .
And, in the current climate, it is worth noting:
. . . Minarets are now very much symbols of Islam, but not theologically heavy symbols. . .
Actually, for some they apparently also provide an excellent high point, from which to open fire.
Best regular updates, as always, over at the Command Post.
Yesterday, Murdoc noted this from the Strategy Page:
The marines won’t release any numbers of sniper kills (except that the top scoring sniper in Fallujah has 24 kills so far), but it is known from emails coming back that the marines use snipers, and sniping tactics (for non-snipers), extensively. Part of this is to comply with the Rules of Engagement (ROE) that call for minimizing civilian casualties. Most often, the marines only use a lot of fire power when they are ambushed (there is no better way to deal with an ambush than to blast your way out of it). But most of the Iraqi gunmen are killed by single shots, usually by the trained snipers, after the snipers and their commanders had carefully set up sniper firing positions that covered areas they knew Iraqis liked to travel through. UAVs and lots of scouting, plus questioning of prisoners, reveals the Iraqi routes and makes them deadly to use. This has terrorized the Iraqis, which is exactly what it is intended to do. The army and marine snipers particularly like to work at night, when their night vision and thermal imaging equipment enables them to shoot accurately in the darkness. This further reduces the chance of civilian losses, and increases the terror. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
THE VIKING HAS LANDED
Viking Pundit is now in Strasbourg:
. . . The weather has been gorgeous. Last night, I saw the South Park episode where they stole Cartman's kidney, in French. "Ou est ma kidney!?!" There is so much American television dubbed into French and German: "Scrubs" "Friends" "Judging Amy" etc.
The only paper I read was the International Herald-Tribune, owned by the New York Times, so I was subjected to a Paul Krugman column. Sacre bleu. . .
This oughta be good. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
Viking Pundit is now in Strasbourg:
. . . The weather has been gorgeous. Last night, I saw the South Park episode where they stole Cartman's kidney, in French. "Ou est ma kidney!?!" There is so much American television dubbed into French and German: "Scrubs" "Friends" "Judging Amy" etc.
The only paper I read was the International Herald-Tribune, owned by the New York Times, so I was subjected to a Paul Krugman column. Sacre bleu. . .
This oughta be good. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
ANZAC DAY
On ANZAC Day, Australian PM John Howard made a surprise visit to Australian troops in Iraq.
I didn't watch much news yesterday, so can't speak authoritatively on yesterday's TV coverage. However, the visit to Iraq of Britain's staunch ally, and defender of keeping Australia a member of the Commonwealth with the Queen as head of state, got exactly ZERO coverage early this morning on BBC morning television. There was just too much to say about I.D. cards, I guess.
Although it is observed by Australians and New Zealanders, Being American in Toronto, Ontario shares this on the day, as well as on Canada's day of remembrance:
You never heard of Gallipoli? (Real question. Given the state of history courses these days, it is entirely possible people never heard of Gallipoli.) Still wonder why it matters?. . .
. . . In Canada, Remembrance Day is very solemn and teary. Although there are many words about how "they died to make us free" there are also determined government and media voices that vow "never again." There are gatherings at Cenotaphs which reinforces the death theme, but attendance has been larger these past two years than before Sept. 11 and it's pretty clear that the people of Canada are angry (and getting angrier) with the treatment of those in the Canadian Forces and are demanding better equipment and more funding. When the troops returned from Afghanistan in 2002, the people of Edmonton turned out to cheer them. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
On ANZAC Day, Australian PM John Howard made a surprise visit to Australian troops in Iraq.
I didn't watch much news yesterday, so can't speak authoritatively on yesterday's TV coverage. However, the visit to Iraq of Britain's staunch ally, and defender of keeping Australia a member of the Commonwealth with the Queen as head of state, got exactly ZERO coverage early this morning on BBC morning television. There was just too much to say about I.D. cards, I guess.
Although it is observed by Australians and New Zealanders, Being American in Toronto, Ontario shares this on the day, as well as on Canada's day of remembrance:
You never heard of Gallipoli? (Real question. Given the state of history courses these days, it is entirely possible people never heard of Gallipoli.) Still wonder why it matters?. . .
. . . In Canada, Remembrance Day is very solemn and teary. Although there are many words about how "they died to make us free" there are also determined government and media voices that vow "never again." There are gatherings at Cenotaphs which reinforces the death theme, but attendance has been larger these past two years than before Sept. 11 and it's pretty clear that the people of Canada are angry (and getting angrier) with the treatment of those in the Canadian Forces and are demanding better equipment and more funding. When the troops returned from Afghanistan in 2002, the people of Edmonton turned out to cheer them. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
MORE BRITISH TROOPS?
The BBC tells us:
Britain is holding talks with its coalition allies about the possibility of sending more soldiers to Iraq.
It follows an urgent review of troop numbers following Spain's decision to withdraw its 1,300-strong force. . .
. . .The Times newspaper said one option being considered in Whitehall was deploying up to 2,000 more troops in the country.
Another option was taking over command of a second multi-national division in central south Iraq, according to the paper.
It said this move would "significantly raise Britain's military and political stake in the country". . .
Don't you just love it when, for a story, a major news organization quotes another major news organization?
Britain already has about 7,500 troops in Iraq. . .
It is worth noting here that, at the beginning of the battle to unseat Hussein in March 2003, Britain had some 45,000 service people involved, including 26,000 land forces. (And see required "the Armed Forces will be overstretched" comment below.)
Actually, I'm surprised the BBC hasn't phrased it this way. As the Times reports this morning:
. . . Tony Blair is under pressure from Washington to plug the gap that will be left by Spain pulling out 1,300 troops from key central towns to the south of Baghdad. . .
Not those pressuring Americans again . . .
. . . A commitment by the Government to send more troops will leave it open to claims that the Armed Forces will be overstretched. There are also fears that the expansion will be sending British soldiers into hotspot cities like Najaf. In America public opinion is already turning against the war in Iraq as casualties continue to rise. . .
. . . oh, and not the "in America public opinion is already turning against the war" -- again . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
The BBC tells us:
Britain is holding talks with its coalition allies about the possibility of sending more soldiers to Iraq.
It follows an urgent review of troop numbers following Spain's decision to withdraw its 1,300-strong force. . .
. . .The Times newspaper said one option being considered in Whitehall was deploying up to 2,000 more troops in the country.
Another option was taking over command of a second multi-national division in central south Iraq, according to the paper.
It said this move would "significantly raise Britain's military and political stake in the country". . .
Don't you just love it when, for a story, a major news organization quotes another major news organization?
Britain already has about 7,500 troops in Iraq. . .
It is worth noting here that, at the beginning of the battle to unseat Hussein in March 2003, Britain had some 45,000 service people involved, including 26,000 land forces. (And see required "the Armed Forces will be overstretched" comment below.)
Actually, I'm surprised the BBC hasn't phrased it this way. As the Times reports this morning:
. . . Tony Blair is under pressure from Washington to plug the gap that will be left by Spain pulling out 1,300 troops from key central towns to the south of Baghdad. . .
Not those pressuring Americans again . . .
. . . A commitment by the Government to send more troops will leave it open to claims that the Armed Forces will be overstretched. There are also fears that the expansion will be sending British soldiers into hotspot cities like Najaf. In America public opinion is already turning against the war in Iraq as casualties continue to rise. . .
. . . oh, and not the "in America public opinion is already turning against the war" -- again . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
AH, TO BE A CITIZEN
Sky reports:
Firebrand Muslim cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza is beginning his legal campaign to stay in Britain.
The preacher is appealing against Home Secretary David Blunkett's attempt to strip him of UK citizenship and send him back to the Yemen.
But you'd think he'd WANT to go back to a "truly Muslim" society. I mean, after all, as Sky tells us:
Hamza has sparked outrage with his sermons castigating Britain and the invasion of Iraq as a "war against Islam".
He has claimed the September 11 attacks on the US were a Jewish plot and has called the space shuttle disaster a "punishment from Allah".
And, on top of that:
British Muslim leaders have roundly criticised him for his stance.
So, then, asking him to leave shouldn't be too much of a problem then.
Mr Blunkett wants to use new immigration powers to deport the Egyptian-born cleric on the grounds he has encouraged people to fight against Britain. . .
I'm sorry, this is a "new" power?
Of course, only the British decide who has a right to remain, and who should be a citizen. But what an attitude on this guy. It seems reasonable to ask: How did this "gentleman" get British citizenship in the first place? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
Sky reports:
Firebrand Muslim cleric Sheikh Abu Hamza is beginning his legal campaign to stay in Britain.
The preacher is appealing against Home Secretary David Blunkett's attempt to strip him of UK citizenship and send him back to the Yemen.
But you'd think he'd WANT to go back to a "truly Muslim" society. I mean, after all, as Sky tells us:
Hamza has sparked outrage with his sermons castigating Britain and the invasion of Iraq as a "war against Islam".
He has claimed the September 11 attacks on the US were a Jewish plot and has called the space shuttle disaster a "punishment from Allah".
And, on top of that:
British Muslim leaders have roundly criticised him for his stance.
So, then, asking him to leave shouldn't be too much of a problem then.
Mr Blunkett wants to use new immigration powers to deport the Egyptian-born cleric on the grounds he has encouraged people to fight against Britain. . .
I'm sorry, this is a "new" power?
Of course, only the British decide who has a right to remain, and who should be a citizen. But what an attitude on this guy. It seems reasonable to ask: How did this "gentleman" get British citizenship in the first place? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
I.D. IN U.K.
Sky reports:
Home Secretary David Blunkett will today reveal the Government's controversial blueprint for the introduction of a national identity card.
While opinion polls show support for the cards containing each person's "biometric" details, civil rights campaigners fear the scheme may be too intrusive.
Mr Blunkett wants them to be compulsory by 2013. . .
What is REALLY the point? If you have a U.K. passport, or a U.K. driving license, you have had to produce legal I.D. in order to get it. And the government WELL KNOWS who you are.
Interestingly, this:
. . .But Home Office minister Des Browne said: "These cards are not a danger to anybody - they are a boon to society.
"To live in the complex world of the 21st century a robust system of identification is very important."
On Friday it emerged that the Government is to make carrying false identity papers a specific offence for the first time.
Anyone found with forged passports, driving licences or other official ID will face up to 10 years imprisonment. . .
If their biggest concern is a proliferation of false I.D., why don't they simply say that? Apparently, they must have lots of information (given what they have probably uncovered, especially since September 11, 2001) that there are more than a few false U.K. passports, U.K. driving licenses and perhaps even U.K. birth certificates floating around out there.
Or is the government fearful of that letting that fact become too widely known? But why? After all, criminals and terrorists probably already know all that anyhow. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
Sky reports:
Home Secretary David Blunkett will today reveal the Government's controversial blueprint for the introduction of a national identity card.
While opinion polls show support for the cards containing each person's "biometric" details, civil rights campaigners fear the scheme may be too intrusive.
Mr Blunkett wants them to be compulsory by 2013. . .
What is REALLY the point? If you have a U.K. passport, or a U.K. driving license, you have had to produce legal I.D. in order to get it. And the government WELL KNOWS who you are.
Interestingly, this:
. . .But Home Office minister Des Browne said: "These cards are not a danger to anybody - they are a boon to society.
"To live in the complex world of the 21st century a robust system of identification is very important."
On Friday it emerged that the Government is to make carrying false identity papers a specific offence for the first time.
Anyone found with forged passports, driving licences or other official ID will face up to 10 years imprisonment. . .
If their biggest concern is a proliferation of false I.D., why don't they simply say that? Apparently, they must have lots of information (given what they have probably uncovered, especially since September 11, 2001) that there are more than a few false U.K. passports, U.K. driving licenses and perhaps even U.K. birth certificates floating around out there.
Or is the government fearful of that letting that fact become too widely known? But why? After all, criminals and terrorists probably already know all that anyhow. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 26, 2004
Sunday, April 25, 2004
ONCE "COLED", TWICE SMARTER
The BBC reports:
Three boats have exploded in apparently co-ordinated suicide attacks near two Iraqi oil terminals in the Gulf, off the southern city of Basra.
Two American sailors were killed and five were injured when their vessel tried to intercept one of the boats.
These are the first maritime attacks on Iraqi oil installations since the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. . .
True to form, the BBC fails to tell us the following until the tenth paragraph:
. . . However, no damage was done to either of the terminals, US and UK defence officials said - the apparent target of the attackers. . .
So, they didn't destroy or damage the terminals.
You know what that's called?: Failure on the part of the enemy to achieve the objective.
In other words, it is a victory for the coalition, for oil is still to be exported, and money will continue to flow into Iraq, for the rebuilding.
As June 30 approaches, al Qaeda's desperation grows. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
The BBC reports:
Three boats have exploded in apparently co-ordinated suicide attacks near two Iraqi oil terminals in the Gulf, off the southern city of Basra.
Two American sailors were killed and five were injured when their vessel tried to intercept one of the boats.
These are the first maritime attacks on Iraqi oil installations since the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. . .
True to form, the BBC fails to tell us the following until the tenth paragraph:
. . . However, no damage was done to either of the terminals, US and UK defence officials said - the apparent target of the attackers. . .
So, they didn't destroy or damage the terminals.
You know what that's called?: Failure on the part of the enemy to achieve the objective.
In other words, it is a victory for the coalition, for oil is still to be exported, and money will continue to flow into Iraq, for the rebuilding.
As June 30 approaches, al Qaeda's desperation grows. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
YET ANOTHER "EXTREMIST CLERIC"
Frank Johnson, in the Telegraph, on the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Iraqi radio's equivalent of the Today programme would presumably have had an interview with its London correspondent about this week's outburst attacking Tony Blair over Iraq, and implicitly condoning possible civil disobedience against the British Government, from the extremist cleric Rowan Williams.
"Tell us about this Ayatollah Williams. He seems to be inciting his followers to take the law into their hands against the Blairite Party. How much of a following does he have?" "Numerically, not much. He's only the head of a minority sect, the Church of England. Most of the British people are devout pagans. But his lecture was mainly aimed at a powerful sect called the middle-class liberals. They've turned against Blair over the war. They work in the media and the universities. That's why he carefully chose to deliver his lecture in the ancient university city of Cambridge, which is in a fen east of London. There, the people are easily incited by anti-Blair clerics.". . .
Superb. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
Frank Johnson, in the Telegraph, on the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Iraqi radio's equivalent of the Today programme would presumably have had an interview with its London correspondent about this week's outburst attacking Tony Blair over Iraq, and implicitly condoning possible civil disobedience against the British Government, from the extremist cleric Rowan Williams.
"Tell us about this Ayatollah Williams. He seems to be inciting his followers to take the law into their hands against the Blairite Party. How much of a following does he have?" "Numerically, not much. He's only the head of a minority sect, the Church of England. Most of the British people are devout pagans. But his lecture was mainly aimed at a powerful sect called the middle-class liberals. They've turned against Blair over the war. They work in the media and the universities. That's why he carefully chose to deliver his lecture in the ancient university city of Cambridge, which is in a fen east of London. There, the people are easily incited by anti-Blair clerics.". . .
Superb. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
THEY COVER IT ONLY IF. . .
Last Night's BBC News noted on April 21:
After ignoring Iraq for a couple of days, because of a lack of violence, which is the only thing the BBC is interested in when it comes to that country, the Ten O'Clock News reported on the multiple suicide car bombings in Basra that killed 68, including 17 children in a school mini-bus.
Although Jack Straw called the bombers "terrorists", the BBC's reporters did not -- something about "militants". Curious.
This got me thinking: where are the human shields? Would this not be a perfect time for Western peace activists to go to Iraq and make a statement against violence? Yet now, when they are truly needed, they seem to have disappeared. Strange. Maybe they weren't really interested in peace after all. Maybe they had a somewhat different agenda. . .
I think we all know the answer to that. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
Last Night's BBC News noted on April 21:
After ignoring Iraq for a couple of days, because of a lack of violence, which is the only thing the BBC is interested in when it comes to that country, the Ten O'Clock News reported on the multiple suicide car bombings in Basra that killed 68, including 17 children in a school mini-bus.
Although Jack Straw called the bombers "terrorists", the BBC's reporters did not -- something about "militants". Curious.
This got me thinking: where are the human shields? Would this not be a perfect time for Western peace activists to go to Iraq and make a statement against violence? Yet now, when they are truly needed, they seem to have disappeared. Strange. Maybe they weren't really interested in peace after all. Maybe they had a somewhat different agenda. . .
I think we all know the answer to that. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 25, 2004
Saturday, April 24, 2004
THE CRITIC NEEDS TO REMEMBER. . .
I have decided to keep an eye from time to time on the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, given his two -- not one, mind you, but TWO! -- boffo columns last week.
In this effort, again in the New York Daily News (on April 22), he apparently believes that a majority of Americans are, essentially, imbeciles:
. . . A majority of them [the American people] favor the President in the one area in which he has clearly failed them - national security. He has presided over two unprecedented intelligence failures - the surprise attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the fruitless hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and took the nation into a war in Iraq before the one in Afghanistan had been successfully concluded. . .
As one of those who favors the president in an area Cohen believes Bush "has clearly failed," I ask this: Just how dense is Richard Cohen, really?
First, saying that George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush (the Woodrow Wilson comparison to Bush was one Cohen made last week, and I kinda like it -- although not for reasons with which Cohen would agree, of course) "failed" Americans on national security over September 11, 2001 is like saying F.D.R. failed them December 7, 1941, or Woodrow Wilson failed them because he finally asked for a declaration of war on imperial Germany, on April 2, 1917.
Now, again. The fault for the September 11, 2001 attacks lies with the attackers -- not with George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush, not with Bill Clinton, not with Janet Reno, and, believe it or not, not even with Grover Cleveland.
Secondly, going into the WMD argument again is pointless. It is sufficient here to remind ourselves -- for the umpteenth time -- that every major intelligence service on the planet thought Saddam had them. And, indeed, considering that hiding chemical weaponry is a lot easier than hiding, say, jets, WMD may indeed, yes, turn up eventually.
But, in the end, though, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush made a call. And in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it was the right one. It would have been the height of irresponsibility for the Bush administration to have sat around hoping an enemy didn't do something; they had to presume an enemy might do just about anything.
Had there been no victory over Saddam, why, oh, why do we know Cohen, in the wake of a 2005 WMD attack on, say, Chicago, which had Iraqi fingerprints all over it, would have blasted Bush in a 2006 column, for Bush's having IGNORED every intelligence service on the planet's assessment of Hussein. After all, doing so was irresponsible after September 11, 2001!
Lastly, Cohen's point regarding Bush taking "the nation into a war in Iraq before the one in Afghanistan had been successfully concluded" is absurd. Wars are not clean things. You strike when you can, when you are able. You try to hit the enemy at your convenience, not his. You don't hold back and think, "Well, we have not yet turned Afghanistan into another Denmark, so we can't possibly do anything else before that time." Indeed, it is ludicrous to assert that the U.S. military is incapable of fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan simultaneously, considering that the Forces were built to fight essentially the Soviet Union and another strong enemy at the same time.
Richard Cohen has quite a style. Easy, smooth and confident. It must also be nice to be the perpetual critic, and believe oneself to be 100 percent correct.
I write that all above because, last night, after posting on the death of Pat Tillman, I stumbled across the following quote while reading a biography I got last week at Sagamore Hill (which we visited one afternoon, during our stay in New York) on Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. -- probably best known today as Henry Fonda's character in "The Longest Day". It was made by his father, the former president, in 1910:
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or whether the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs and comes up short again . . . who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at least knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 24, 2004
I have decided to keep an eye from time to time on the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, given his two -- not one, mind you, but TWO! -- boffo columns last week.
In this effort, again in the New York Daily News (on April 22), he apparently believes that a majority of Americans are, essentially, imbeciles:
. . . A majority of them [the American people] favor the President in the one area in which he has clearly failed them - national security. He has presided over two unprecedented intelligence failures - the surprise attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the fruitless hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - and took the nation into a war in Iraq before the one in Afghanistan had been successfully concluded. . .
As one of those who favors the president in an area Cohen believes Bush "has clearly failed," I ask this: Just how dense is Richard Cohen, really?
First, saying that George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush (the Woodrow Wilson comparison to Bush was one Cohen made last week, and I kinda like it -- although not for reasons with which Cohen would agree, of course) "failed" Americans on national security over September 11, 2001 is like saying F.D.R. failed them December 7, 1941, or Woodrow Wilson failed them because he finally asked for a declaration of war on imperial Germany, on April 2, 1917.
Now, again. The fault for the September 11, 2001 attacks lies with the attackers -- not with George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush, not with Bill Clinton, not with Janet Reno, and, believe it or not, not even with Grover Cleveland.
Secondly, going into the WMD argument again is pointless. It is sufficient here to remind ourselves -- for the umpteenth time -- that every major intelligence service on the planet thought Saddam had them. And, indeed, considering that hiding chemical weaponry is a lot easier than hiding, say, jets, WMD may indeed, yes, turn up eventually.
But, in the end, though, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush made a call. And in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, it was the right one. It would have been the height of irresponsibility for the Bush administration to have sat around hoping an enemy didn't do something; they had to presume an enemy might do just about anything.
Had there been no victory over Saddam, why, oh, why do we know Cohen, in the wake of a 2005 WMD attack on, say, Chicago, which had Iraqi fingerprints all over it, would have blasted Bush in a 2006 column, for Bush's having IGNORED every intelligence service on the planet's assessment of Hussein. After all, doing so was irresponsible after September 11, 2001!
Lastly, Cohen's point regarding Bush taking "the nation into a war in Iraq before the one in Afghanistan had been successfully concluded" is absurd. Wars are not clean things. You strike when you can, when you are able. You try to hit the enemy at your convenience, not his. You don't hold back and think, "Well, we have not yet turned Afghanistan into another Denmark, so we can't possibly do anything else before that time." Indeed, it is ludicrous to assert that the U.S. military is incapable of fighting in Iraq and in Afghanistan simultaneously, considering that the Forces were built to fight essentially the Soviet Union and another strong enemy at the same time.
Richard Cohen has quite a style. Easy, smooth and confident. It must also be nice to be the perpetual critic, and believe oneself to be 100 percent correct.
I write that all above because, last night, after posting on the death of Pat Tillman, I stumbled across the following quote while reading a biography I got last week at Sagamore Hill (which we visited one afternoon, during our stay in New York) on Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. -- probably best known today as Henry Fonda's character in "The Longest Day". It was made by his father, the former president, in 1910:
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or whether the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs and comes up short again . . . who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at least knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 24, 2004
Friday, April 23, 2004
PAT TILLMAN HAS BEEN KILLED
ABC News reports:
Pat Tillman, a former NFL player who swapped a lucrative football career to enlist in the U.S. Army, was killed in action in southeastern Afghanistan, U.S. military sources said today.
The 27-year-old former football player was killed in direct action during a firefight in eastern Afghanistan Thursday, Pentagon sources told ABCNEWS.
A former member of the Arizona Cardinals, Tillman, along with his brother Kevin, enrolled with the U.S. Army Rangers a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. . .
I can't think of anything I could possibly hope to add to that.
CBS quotes Cardinals VP Michael Bidwell:
In sports we have a tendency to overuse terms like courage and bravery and heroes and then someone like Pat Tillman comes along and reminds us what those terms really mean.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
ABC News reports:
Pat Tillman, a former NFL player who swapped a lucrative football career to enlist in the U.S. Army, was killed in action in southeastern Afghanistan, U.S. military sources said today.
The 27-year-old former football player was killed in direct action during a firefight in eastern Afghanistan Thursday, Pentagon sources told ABCNEWS.
A former member of the Arizona Cardinals, Tillman, along with his brother Kevin, enrolled with the U.S. Army Rangers a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. . .
I can't think of anything I could possibly hope to add to that.
CBS quotes Cardinals VP Michael Bidwell:
In sports we have a tendency to overuse terms like courage and bravery and heroes and then someone like Pat Tillman comes along and reminds us what those terms really mean.
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
A NOTEWORTHY COMPARISON
Andrew Sullivan received a reader email that is bound to be heavily quoted and linked:
In reading articles marking 10 years since the end of South Africa apartheid, I was struck by the similarities between that country’s struggle since liberation and the current struggle since the liberation of Iraq. Likewise, I was struck by the relative silence of the left on the real problems South Africa has faced in the past 10 years. . .
. . . very few people on any side of the political spectrum would argue that South Africa was "better off" under apartheid. Yet, those that oppose our war in Iraq often bitterly complain that the Iraqis are not better off. Both countries, when liberated, were coming from oppressive governments with people unaccustomed to the democratic process. It has taken ten years to get South Africa to the still troubled, but gradually improving, state it is currently in. Why is so much expected of Iraq so quickly? Apparently, the left's criterion for democratic progress is a double standard.
It sure looks that way. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
Andrew Sullivan received a reader email that is bound to be heavily quoted and linked:
In reading articles marking 10 years since the end of South Africa apartheid, I was struck by the similarities between that country’s struggle since liberation and the current struggle since the liberation of Iraq. Likewise, I was struck by the relative silence of the left on the real problems South Africa has faced in the past 10 years. . .
. . . very few people on any side of the political spectrum would argue that South Africa was "better off" under apartheid. Yet, those that oppose our war in Iraq often bitterly complain that the Iraqis are not better off. Both countries, when liberated, were coming from oppressive governments with people unaccustomed to the democratic process. It has taken ten years to get South Africa to the still troubled, but gradually improving, state it is currently in. Why is so much expected of Iraq so quickly? Apparently, the left's criterion for democratic progress is a double standard.
It sure looks that way. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
TERROR ROUND UP
As they themselves put it, this feature is not for the paranoid. Here are some choice bits from the Command Post's latest on the "Global War on Terror":
FBI Still Checking Crop-Dusters
MI5 Warns Of Terror Attack On House Of Commons
Nuclear Fuel Rods Missing In Vermont
Authorities Search for Weapons at Warehouse Near Oakland Airport
Tanker Truck Missing In New Jersey
The Terrorist Next Door
So, feel better now? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
As they themselves put it, this feature is not for the paranoid. Here are some choice bits from the Command Post's latest on the "Global War on Terror":
FBI Still Checking Crop-Dusters
MI5 Warns Of Terror Attack On House Of Commons
Nuclear Fuel Rods Missing In Vermont
Authorities Search for Weapons at Warehouse Near Oakland Airport
Tanker Truck Missing In New Jersey
The Terrorist Next Door
So, feel better now? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
TO GET WHAT YOU WANT
Need a laugh? Ah, it's Friday. How about some Dave Barry:
. . . you men know you need a bigger TV. And you know who is standing in your way: The same ''Negative Nelly'' who always tries to hold you back when you have a visionary household idea, such as washing underwear in the dishwasher, or installing a urinal in your bedroom: your wife. The instant you tell her you need a new TV, she's going to start coming up with nitpicky legalistic arguments like: ''But our current TV works fine!'' Or: ''But we bought a new TV yesterday!'' Or: ``But we're broke and we live in a homeless shelter!''
Women! Always ruled by their emotions. But you CAN overcome your wife's resistance, men, if you (a) take the time to listen -- really listen -- to her objections; then (b) respond patiently and sincerely, without resorting to browbeating; then (c) when she falls asleep, smash your current TV screen with a brick.
''I don't know how it happened!'' should be your explanation. ``I was tossing a brick around in the family room like I always do, and BOOM! Now if we don't get a new, larger, TV, we'll have no way to watch Oprah, or romantic movies starring Hugh Grant!''
That will get her. Women LOVE Hugh Grant, Mr. Charming with his floppy hair and his accent. I bet he has a tiny diagonal. Not that I think about it.
UPDATE: And what's with the Miami Herald's "create an account", member screen? It asks all the typical, annoying questions -- and seemingly more. On top of those, in the pull down menu asking for "country", the third country, after the U.S. and Canada, is Unknown Country.
And that would be where, exactly?
Oh, and one other thing. It accepts no birthdates prior to 1903. So, if you were born in 1902, and are trying to sign up for members access to all that the Miami Herald offers . . . well, that's just too bad. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
Need a laugh? Ah, it's Friday. How about some Dave Barry:
. . . you men know you need a bigger TV. And you know who is standing in your way: The same ''Negative Nelly'' who always tries to hold you back when you have a visionary household idea, such as washing underwear in the dishwasher, or installing a urinal in your bedroom: your wife. The instant you tell her you need a new TV, she's going to start coming up with nitpicky legalistic arguments like: ''But our current TV works fine!'' Or: ''But we bought a new TV yesterday!'' Or: ``But we're broke and we live in a homeless shelter!''
Women! Always ruled by their emotions. But you CAN overcome your wife's resistance, men, if you (a) take the time to listen -- really listen -- to her objections; then (b) respond patiently and sincerely, without resorting to browbeating; then (c) when she falls asleep, smash your current TV screen with a brick.
''I don't know how it happened!'' should be your explanation. ``I was tossing a brick around in the family room like I always do, and BOOM! Now if we don't get a new, larger, TV, we'll have no way to watch Oprah, or romantic movies starring Hugh Grant!''
That will get her. Women LOVE Hugh Grant, Mr. Charming with his floppy hair and his accent. I bet he has a tiny diagonal. Not that I think about it.
UPDATE: And what's with the Miami Herald's "create an account", member screen? It asks all the typical, annoying questions -- and seemingly more. On top of those, in the pull down menu asking for "country", the third country, after the U.S. and Canada, is Unknown Country.
And that would be where, exactly?
Oh, and one other thing. It accepts no birthdates prior to 1903. So, if you were born in 1902, and are trying to sign up for members access to all that the Miami Herald offers . . . well, that's just too bad. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
OH, BUT THESE ARE OKAY?
CNN reports:
A Web site published dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary, prompting the Pentagon to order an information clampdown Thursday.
The photographs were released last week to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images. . .
. . . The photos were taken at the Dover base -- home to the mortuary -- and most of the images are of flag-draped coffins. . .
. . . "We need to stop hiding the deaths of our young; we need to be open about their deaths;," said Jane Bright of West Hills, California, whose 24-year-old son, Evan Ashcraft, was killed in combat in July . . .
Absolutely. And, indeed, we should remember why those coffins are now where they are. But we are not encouraged to -- since, for example, major news organizations long ago decided not to show the horrific images of people jumping from the doomed WTC towers to certain death. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
CNN reports:
A Web site published dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary, prompting the Pentagon to order an information clampdown Thursday.
The photographs were released last week to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to receive the images. . .
. . . The photos were taken at the Dover base -- home to the mortuary -- and most of the images are of flag-draped coffins. . .
. . . "We need to stop hiding the deaths of our young; we need to be open about their deaths;," said Jane Bright of West Hills, California, whose 24-year-old son, Evan Ashcraft, was killed in combat in July . . .
Absolutely. And, indeed, we should remember why those coffins are now where they are. But we are not encouraged to -- since, for example, major news organizations long ago decided not to show the horrific images of people jumping from the doomed WTC towers to certain death. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
AH, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sky reports:
French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been warned by the Home Secretary he faces arrest if he stirs up racial tension during his visit to Britain. . .
. . . Monsieur Le Pen is coming to Britain at the invitation of BNP leader Nick Griffin, whose party is fielding candidates in the June European elections.
He is due to attend a number of BNP events being held in Manchester. . .
But why? After all, Le Pen's a foreigner. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
Sky reports:
French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has been warned by the Home Secretary he faces arrest if he stirs up racial tension during his visit to Britain. . .
. . . Monsieur Le Pen is coming to Britain at the invitation of BNP leader Nick Griffin, whose party is fielding candidates in the June European elections.
He is due to attend a number of BNP events being held in Manchester. . .
But why? After all, Le Pen's a foreigner. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
IT MUST POLLUTE IN A NUANCED MANNER
The New York Post reports:
On Earth Day, Democrat John Kerry reluctantly admitted to having a gas-guzzling SUV in the family - but blamed his wife.
"The family has it. I don't have it," Kerry said yesterday.
But at first, Kerry - quizzed by reporters on a conference call - tried to deny any links to a gas-guzzler on a day when he was touting his credentials as an environmentalist. . .
Why am I not surprised? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
The New York Post reports:
On Earth Day, Democrat John Kerry reluctantly admitted to having a gas-guzzling SUV in the family - but blamed his wife.
"The family has it. I don't have it," Kerry said yesterday.
But at first, Kerry - quizzed by reporters on a conference call - tried to deny any links to a gas-guzzler on a day when he was touting his credentials as an environmentalist. . .
Why am I not surprised? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
BYE RED BOX
The A.P. reports:
Britain's storied telephone booths — the classic red version and its drab glass cousin —are fighting for their lives in what looks like a losing battle with the cell phone.
Four out of five Britons now carry mobile phones and pay phones don't make as much money as they once did. The company responsible for them plans to remove 10,000 by the end of next year.
That includes some of the country's 15,000 red booths, which first appeared nearly 80 years ago and became a British icon. . .
If one thinks about where they remain most common, the most likely place to find a red phone booth now seems to be in tourist areas. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Britain's storied telephone booths — the classic red version and its drab glass cousin —are fighting for their lives in what looks like a losing battle with the cell phone.
Four out of five Britons now carry mobile phones and pay phones don't make as much money as they once did. The company responsible for them plans to remove 10,000 by the end of next year.
That includes some of the country's 15,000 red booths, which first appeared nearly 80 years ago and became a British icon. . .
If one thinks about where they remain most common, the most likely place to find a red phone booth now seems to be in tourist areas. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
"FRENCH ISLAM?"
CNN reports:
France must tackle the issue of training Muslim prayer leaders in a moderate "French Islam" that respects human rights and rejects terrorism, Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin says.
Speaking a day after he deported an Algerian imam for saying Islam let husbands beat adulterous wives, Villepin urged the country's prefects Thursday to expel any foreign preacher who advocated violence, hate, racism or abuses of human rights.
Only about 10 percent of imams in France are citizens and about half of all imams in the country speak French, experts say. . .
Well, now, this oughta be good. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
CNN reports:
France must tackle the issue of training Muslim prayer leaders in a moderate "French Islam" that respects human rights and rejects terrorism, Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin says.
Speaking a day after he deported an Algerian imam for saying Islam let husbands beat adulterous wives, Villepin urged the country's prefects Thursday to expel any foreign preacher who advocated violence, hate, racism or abuses of human rights.
Only about 10 percent of imams in France are citizens and about half of all imams in the country speak French, experts say. . .
Well, now, this oughta be good. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
SO MERCILESS ARE WE
While Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are killing hostages and threatening to burn other hostages alive (and even eat them?), the BBC reports:
The Home Office has expressed astonishment at the decision by judges to release on bail an Algerian man suspected of terrorist links.
The detainee, known only as "G", said his detention without trial for more than two years had made him psychotic.
The Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) decided the 35-year-old should be freed on bail and held under house arrest conditions. . .
So, a judge has ordered the "house arrest" release of a terrorist suspect who himself has asserted that detention has caused him to become "psychotic."
And WE are the unreasonable side, in this war, eh? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
While Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are killing hostages and threatening to burn other hostages alive (and even eat them?), the BBC reports:
The Home Office has expressed astonishment at the decision by judges to release on bail an Algerian man suspected of terrorist links.
The detainee, known only as "G", said his detention without trial for more than two years had made him psychotic.
The Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) decided the 35-year-old should be freed on bail and held under house arrest conditions. . .
So, a judge has ordered the "house arrest" release of a terrorist suspect who himself has asserted that detention has caused him to become "psychotic."
And WE are the unreasonable side, in this war, eh? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
NORTH KOREAN TRAIN DISASTER
The BBC reports:
Overseas officials have confirmed a massive blast in North Korea feared to have left thousands dead and wounded.
But authorities in the secretive state have not acknowledged any disaster, more than 24 hours after two fuel trains were reported to have collided.
South Korean media reports talk of up to 3,000 people killed or injured in Ryongchon, 50km from China's border.
Given the nature of the North Korean regime, we may never REALLY know what truly happened there -- or at least, we probably won't know for some years, perhaps even decades. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
The BBC reports:
Overseas officials have confirmed a massive blast in North Korea feared to have left thousands dead and wounded.
But authorities in the secretive state have not acknowledged any disaster, more than 24 hours after two fuel trains were reported to have collided.
South Korean media reports talk of up to 3,000 people killed or injured in Ryongchon, 50km from China's border.
Given the nature of the North Korean regime, we may never REALLY know what truly happened there -- or at least, we probably won't know for some years, perhaps even decades. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
IRAQ V. POSTWAR GERMANY AND JAPAN
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has been a firm defender of the war on Islamist terror, but seems to feel the battle of Iraq is a mistake.
What he wrote on April 13 is certainly worth thinking about. They are thoughtful points, and are quite possibly disturbingly valid. And I have been spending some time considering them:
Two factors in particular made me expect Iraqi resistance. First, the quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the post-war overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.
That the speed of the defeat of the Saddamite regime shocked "Iraqis" into causing "them" to believe that, in fact, "they" had not been defeated, begs a question: Who are we talking about by "they": Baathists? Islamists? Both? 26 million angry Iraqis? And that Iraqis would want to shape their future is perfectly reasonable. Despite their defeat, so did Germans and Japanese.
As we know, Iraq has endured decades of war and devastation on various levels. Millions of Iraqis had fled abroad, or were killed or imprisoned by the "supreme leader." Iraq was hardly a prosperous society, which was disfigured merely by an oppressive supreme leader and his regime, whom the coalition wanted to overthrow -- and did so after only 3 weeks' full battle.
Essentially, to state that Germany and Japan had been "destroyed", while relying on the claim that Iraq had not been, brings up various interesting issues.
German tank production peaked in 1944, and German industry was producing far more of most everything war-related in that year than it did in 1940, although by 1944 Germany was clearly going to be defeated within months. And to the very end, Germany functioned. While shells and bombs flattened German cities, mostly the trains still ran and people struggled to get to work. Indeed, some U.S. soldiers were stunned by the sight of German homeowners immediately clearing their gardens of rubble and working to patch up damaged houses almost immediately after Allied ground forces had passed through a town or village.
The most obvious difference between Germany and Japan is this: unlike in Germany, which was overrun by the enemy, the Allies never fought in the streets of Japan. To most Japanese, in a society where news was tightly controlled by the state, the collapse happened suddenly. That is why (although the comparison of course doesn't hold in all ways), given Pipes' point on the quickness of the Iraqi defeat, rather than Germany, it is Japan, in fact, which might be better compared to current Iraq.
In Japan, which did see its industry largely laid waste more so than Germany did, the fabric of society also mostly held together. Many in the Japanese military wanted to fight to the death -- even AFTER the country had been hit by two atomic bombs. To the very end, despite all their sufferings, the people backed the army and the emperor.
Japan had never been ruled by outsiders, but had always been independent, and proudly so. The "home islands" were considered a world unto themselves; the Japanese were, in their own minds, the chosen people. In fact, many were utterly shocked at hearing Emperor Hirohito's voice for the first time, on radio, announcing the surrender. Suddenly, they were the vanquished. Far more than the Germans, many Japanese didn't feel "destroyed".
A major reason the Americans didn't try to hang Hirohito (as they hanged General Tojo) for war crimes was because the U.S. realized that going after him as a war criminal might have led to post-war violence within Japan, directed at the U.S. So, they confined their response to cutting his powers. They had him declare himself non-divine, and the Shinto religion, of which he was head, was separated from the state.
While they had been badly beaten, the rebuilding done after the war by the defeated Germans and Japanese with the help of the conquerers did not start at the "Year 0" by any means. And, despite all that has happened to Iraqis, they are in a similar situation, rebuilding a country with possibilities, but one which has suffered terribly from war and decades of totalitarianism.
Second, as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions. . .
This is Pipes' particular expertise, so this is serious stuff.
From what most of us can see, however, the coalition has no desire to "rule" Iraqi Muslims "indefinitely". Nor does the coalition want to do so. It is actually doing its best to lay the groundwork for a reasonable, Iraqi democratic government, much in the manner of what Pipes is asking for (although, hopefully better than what he expects -- see further down).
Any "troubles" the coalition may be having finding the "right leaders" in post-Saddamite Iraq is probably due to the same factors the Allies encountered when trying to do the same thing in postwar Germany and Japan: the most prominent, anti-government people were either killed by the totalitarian regime, been utterly compromised, or had fled abroad and had not been home for years, possibly decades.
The Japanese war dictatorship was never "supreme leader centered" in the manner of Hitler's Nazi Germany. While it was ostensibly based on "emperor worship," it was really a collective military dictatorship. (General Tojo being the most prominent.) And with the emperor rehabilitated -- more or less -- after the war, there was always a Japanese leader of prominence as chief of state, and democracy could be fostered in due course. So, in this sense, it is Germany that is the better example of the problems faced when dealing with the vacuum created by the "supreme leader's" demise.
Think Konrad Adenauer. Most Germans knew little about him, when he became West Germany's first chancellor. Adenauer had spent World War II keeping a VERY low profile within Nazi Germany, and even ended up imprisoned by the Nazis.
The most "interesting" wartime experiences had by a postwar chancellor have to be those of Willy Brandt. Thirty-seven years Adenauer's junior, Brandt spent most of 1933-1945 on the run in Spain, France, Norway and Sweden. The Nazis stripped him of his German citizenship. Technically "stateless" for a time, he was eventually granted Norwegian citizenship, but chose to return to Germany after the war, and regained his German citizenship.
In short, when your best minds are dead, abroad or have been in hiding, it is naturally much harder to find leaders "at home", after the dictator is deposed. After all, compared to the former "great ruler," a democratic successor looks like a "small fry." The aging Adenauer -- in 1949, he was 73 -- did. But in the end, Konrad Adenauer was perhaps the best thing that could have happened to postwar West Germany.
Pipes continues:
. . .To live a fully Muslim life requires living in accord with the many laws of Islam, called the Sharia. The Sharia includes difficult-to-implement precepts pertaining to taxation, the judicial system, and warfare. Its complete implementation can occur only when the ruler himself is a pious Muslim (though an impious Muslim is much preferable to a non-Muslim ). For Muslims, rule by non-Muslims is an abomination, a blasphemous inversion of God's dispensation.
This explains why one finds a consistently strong resistance to rule by non-Muslims through 14 centuries of Muslim history. Europeans recognized this resistance and in their post-crusades global expansion stayed largely away from majority-Muslim territories, knowing these would awesomely resist their control. . .
After citing several examples of the historical difficulty of Muslims being governed by non-Muslims, Pipes notes:
. . .This history suggests that the coalition's grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending $18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.
I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system. . .
If all we are going to get out of Iraq is another "Mubarak", then the liberation must be considered only, at best, a half success -- and perhaps, even a failure.
What will "failure" mean in the longer term? Well, the war on Islamist terror must also be in serious trouble. For if pluralist democracy cannot succeed in Muslim lands, then Muslim extremism will grow and flourish, and its adherents in the "non-Muslim world" will continue to target pluralist societies.
Indeed, if Pipes' argument is that Muslims will never be comfortable in a pluralist, democratic, open society, that lifts a lid off a horrible can of worms: How can pluralist, democratic, open societies hope to assimilate Muslim immigrants in large numbers, when those immigrants will, in the long term, aim at nothing short of the destruction of those societies, because they are not Islamic societies?
So, we had better hope Pipes is wrong on that.
When most people use historical examples to illustrate arguments, it is not because they consider two events utterly alike. Mostly, they are just trying to sort out in their heads how the present might be better understood, based on the experiences of the past. Clearly, everyone knows there are differences between World War II and the war on Islamist terror.
Underneath it all, most of us believe we now find ourselves in a struggle that will last a lifetime or more. There will be successes and failures. But what Pipes writes is particularly chilling stuff: He seems to believe we are in for at least another version of the Hundred Years War.
UPDATE: Tim Blair reminds us that there remain those always eager to be impressed at how "safe" and "secure" the national jail cell happened to be. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has been a firm defender of the war on Islamist terror, but seems to feel the battle of Iraq is a mistake.
What he wrote on April 13 is certainly worth thinking about. They are thoughtful points, and are quite possibly disturbingly valid. And I have been spending some time considering them:
Two factors in particular made me expect Iraqi resistance. First, the quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the post-war overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.
That the speed of the defeat of the Saddamite regime shocked "Iraqis" into causing "them" to believe that, in fact, "they" had not been defeated, begs a question: Who are we talking about by "they": Baathists? Islamists? Both? 26 million angry Iraqis? And that Iraqis would want to shape their future is perfectly reasonable. Despite their defeat, so did Germans and Japanese.
As we know, Iraq has endured decades of war and devastation on various levels. Millions of Iraqis had fled abroad, or were killed or imprisoned by the "supreme leader." Iraq was hardly a prosperous society, which was disfigured merely by an oppressive supreme leader and his regime, whom the coalition wanted to overthrow -- and did so after only 3 weeks' full battle.
Essentially, to state that Germany and Japan had been "destroyed", while relying on the claim that Iraq had not been, brings up various interesting issues.
German tank production peaked in 1944, and German industry was producing far more of most everything war-related in that year than it did in 1940, although by 1944 Germany was clearly going to be defeated within months. And to the very end, Germany functioned. While shells and bombs flattened German cities, mostly the trains still ran and people struggled to get to work. Indeed, some U.S. soldiers were stunned by the sight of German homeowners immediately clearing their gardens of rubble and working to patch up damaged houses almost immediately after Allied ground forces had passed through a town or village.
The most obvious difference between Germany and Japan is this: unlike in Germany, which was overrun by the enemy, the Allies never fought in the streets of Japan. To most Japanese, in a society where news was tightly controlled by the state, the collapse happened suddenly. That is why (although the comparison of course doesn't hold in all ways), given Pipes' point on the quickness of the Iraqi defeat, rather than Germany, it is Japan, in fact, which might be better compared to current Iraq.
In Japan, which did see its industry largely laid waste more so than Germany did, the fabric of society also mostly held together. Many in the Japanese military wanted to fight to the death -- even AFTER the country had been hit by two atomic bombs. To the very end, despite all their sufferings, the people backed the army and the emperor.
Japan had never been ruled by outsiders, but had always been independent, and proudly so. The "home islands" were considered a world unto themselves; the Japanese were, in their own minds, the chosen people. In fact, many were utterly shocked at hearing Emperor Hirohito's voice for the first time, on radio, announcing the surrender. Suddenly, they were the vanquished. Far more than the Germans, many Japanese didn't feel "destroyed".
A major reason the Americans didn't try to hang Hirohito (as they hanged General Tojo) for war crimes was because the U.S. realized that going after him as a war criminal might have led to post-war violence within Japan, directed at the U.S. So, they confined their response to cutting his powers. They had him declare himself non-divine, and the Shinto religion, of which he was head, was separated from the state.
While they had been badly beaten, the rebuilding done after the war by the defeated Germans and Japanese with the help of the conquerers did not start at the "Year 0" by any means. And, despite all that has happened to Iraqis, they are in a similar situation, rebuilding a country with possibilities, but one which has suffered terribly from war and decades of totalitarianism.
Second, as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions. . .
This is Pipes' particular expertise, so this is serious stuff.
From what most of us can see, however, the coalition has no desire to "rule" Iraqi Muslims "indefinitely". Nor does the coalition want to do so. It is actually doing its best to lay the groundwork for a reasonable, Iraqi democratic government, much in the manner of what Pipes is asking for (although, hopefully better than what he expects -- see further down).
Any "troubles" the coalition may be having finding the "right leaders" in post-Saddamite Iraq is probably due to the same factors the Allies encountered when trying to do the same thing in postwar Germany and Japan: the most prominent, anti-government people were either killed by the totalitarian regime, been utterly compromised, or had fled abroad and had not been home for years, possibly decades.
The Japanese war dictatorship was never "supreme leader centered" in the manner of Hitler's Nazi Germany. While it was ostensibly based on "emperor worship," it was really a collective military dictatorship. (General Tojo being the most prominent.) And with the emperor rehabilitated -- more or less -- after the war, there was always a Japanese leader of prominence as chief of state, and democracy could be fostered in due course. So, in this sense, it is Germany that is the better example of the problems faced when dealing with the vacuum created by the "supreme leader's" demise.
Think Konrad Adenauer. Most Germans knew little about him, when he became West Germany's first chancellor. Adenauer had spent World War II keeping a VERY low profile within Nazi Germany, and even ended up imprisoned by the Nazis.
The most "interesting" wartime experiences had by a postwar chancellor have to be those of Willy Brandt. Thirty-seven years Adenauer's junior, Brandt spent most of 1933-1945 on the run in Spain, France, Norway and Sweden. The Nazis stripped him of his German citizenship. Technically "stateless" for a time, he was eventually granted Norwegian citizenship, but chose to return to Germany after the war, and regained his German citizenship.
In short, when your best minds are dead, abroad or have been in hiding, it is naturally much harder to find leaders "at home", after the dictator is deposed. After all, compared to the former "great ruler," a democratic successor looks like a "small fry." The aging Adenauer -- in 1949, he was 73 -- did. But in the end, Konrad Adenauer was perhaps the best thing that could have happened to postwar West Germany.
Pipes continues:
. . .To live a fully Muslim life requires living in accord with the many laws of Islam, called the Sharia. The Sharia includes difficult-to-implement precepts pertaining to taxation, the judicial system, and warfare. Its complete implementation can occur only when the ruler himself is a pious Muslim (though an impious Muslim is much preferable to a non-Muslim ). For Muslims, rule by non-Muslims is an abomination, a blasphemous inversion of God's dispensation.
This explains why one finds a consistently strong resistance to rule by non-Muslims through 14 centuries of Muslim history. Europeans recognized this resistance and in their post-crusades global expansion stayed largely away from majority-Muslim territories, knowing these would awesomely resist their control. . .
After citing several examples of the historical difficulty of Muslims being governed by non-Muslims, Pipes notes:
. . .This history suggests that the coalition's grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending $18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.
I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system. . .
If all we are going to get out of Iraq is another "Mubarak", then the liberation must be considered only, at best, a half success -- and perhaps, even a failure.
What will "failure" mean in the longer term? Well, the war on Islamist terror must also be in serious trouble. For if pluralist democracy cannot succeed in Muslim lands, then Muslim extremism will grow and flourish, and its adherents in the "non-Muslim world" will continue to target pluralist societies.
Indeed, if Pipes' argument is that Muslims will never be comfortable in a pluralist, democratic, open society, that lifts a lid off a horrible can of worms: How can pluralist, democratic, open societies hope to assimilate Muslim immigrants in large numbers, when those immigrants will, in the long term, aim at nothing short of the destruction of those societies, because they are not Islamic societies?
So, we had better hope Pipes is wrong on that.
When most people use historical examples to illustrate arguments, it is not because they consider two events utterly alike. Mostly, they are just trying to sort out in their heads how the present might be better understood, based on the experiences of the past. Clearly, everyone knows there are differences between World War II and the war on Islamist terror.
Underneath it all, most of us believe we now find ourselves in a struggle that will last a lifetime or more. There will be successes and failures. But what Pipes writes is particularly chilling stuff: He seems to believe we are in for at least another version of the Hundred Years War.
UPDATE: Tim Blair reminds us that there remain those always eager to be impressed at how "safe" and "secure" the national jail cell happened to be. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 23, 2004
Thursday, April 22, 2004
A VIKING IN STRASBOURG
Viking Pundit is coming to Europe:
This blog will be on a brief hiatus as I will be traveling to France for the Photonics Europe conference where I will be presenting a paper on the super-exciting topic of “Aging behavior of optical fibers in aqueous environments.” Oh yeah!
The conference is being held in Strasbourg, France. One could make a compelling case that Strasbourg is about as European as Europe gets. The city is in eastern France, about a mile from the German border, and is the seat of the European Parliament. Allegedly, the culture and cuisine is a blend of French and German influences. There are so many jokes I could make based on that last statement…
Fought over by the French and the Germans for generations, Strasbourg ended up, in 1944, in France. The cathedral is especially beautiful, and compelling. Standing in some form on that spot since A.D. 1015, hopefully it will be standing for many more centuries -- although, if some "religious critics" eventually get their way, it probably, urrr, won't be:
Four Algerians accused of plotting to bomb a Christmas market in France were . . . convicted of conspiring to murder and sentenced to prison terms of between 10 and 12 years.
The men had planned to detonate a bomb at the busy market beside Strasbourg cathedral on New Year's Eve in 2000. . .
. . . Prosecutors based their case largely on a homemade videotape of the brightly lit Christmas market and Strasbourg cathedral made by Boukari and Sabour weeks before the attack allegedly was to take place. On the tape, Boukari's voice can be heard saying: "These are the enemies of God."
The prosecution also cited the discovery of several pressure cookers and about 30kg of chemicals that could be used to make explosives, as well as a notebook full of jottings about how to mix homemade bombs, seized at one of the two Frankfurt apartments used by the group after their arrest on Christmas Day 2000. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
Viking Pundit is coming to Europe:
This blog will be on a brief hiatus as I will be traveling to France for the Photonics Europe conference where I will be presenting a paper on the super-exciting topic of “Aging behavior of optical fibers in aqueous environments.” Oh yeah!
The conference is being held in Strasbourg, France. One could make a compelling case that Strasbourg is about as European as Europe gets. The city is in eastern France, about a mile from the German border, and is the seat of the European Parliament. Allegedly, the culture and cuisine is a blend of French and German influences. There are so many jokes I could make based on that last statement…
Fought over by the French and the Germans for generations, Strasbourg ended up, in 1944, in France. The cathedral is especially beautiful, and compelling. Standing in some form on that spot since A.D. 1015, hopefully it will be standing for many more centuries -- although, if some "religious critics" eventually get their way, it probably, urrr, won't be:
Four Algerians accused of plotting to bomb a Christmas market in France were . . . convicted of conspiring to murder and sentenced to prison terms of between 10 and 12 years.
The men had planned to detonate a bomb at the busy market beside Strasbourg cathedral on New Year's Eve in 2000. . .
. . . Prosecutors based their case largely on a homemade videotape of the brightly lit Christmas market and Strasbourg cathedral made by Boukari and Sabour weeks before the attack allegedly was to take place. On the tape, Boukari's voice can be heard saying: "These are the enemies of God."
The prosecution also cited the discovery of several pressure cookers and about 30kg of chemicals that could be used to make explosives, as well as a notebook full of jottings about how to mix homemade bombs, seized at one of the two Frankfurt apartments used by the group after their arrest on Christmas Day 2000. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
THE MARINES HAVE A "WILL" TOO
We hear a great deal of the "determination" of the insurgents. Writing from Iraq for the NRO, W. Thomas Smith Jr. notes that others have some "determination" too:
. . . The greatest difficulty for Sadr and others opposing U.S. forces is that they are facing "the best trained, most highly skilled, smartest group of kids ever to wear the uniform," says Col. Jeff Bearor at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. "No Marine ever deploys without every scrap of operational and tactical knowledge we can impart to them." Still, Bearor concedes, "it's a tough fight," adding the insurgents are a "tough, dedicated, even fanatical enemy who hate us just because of who we are and what we represent."
The fighting has indeed escalated in Iraq. For those on the outside looking in, it may at times appear that U.S. forces are becoming embroiled in an inextricable quagmire. But for the young Americans there on the ground, it is a fight they are winning and a noble cause they are committed to seeing through to completion.
In the words of 1st Lt. Edward M. Solis, a platoon commander with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, "If the enemy only knew our will, they would've given up by now." ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
We hear a great deal of the "determination" of the insurgents. Writing from Iraq for the NRO, W. Thomas Smith Jr. notes that others have some "determination" too:
. . . The greatest difficulty for Sadr and others opposing U.S. forces is that they are facing "the best trained, most highly skilled, smartest group of kids ever to wear the uniform," says Col. Jeff Bearor at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. "No Marine ever deploys without every scrap of operational and tactical knowledge we can impart to them." Still, Bearor concedes, "it's a tough fight," adding the insurgents are a "tough, dedicated, even fanatical enemy who hate us just because of who we are and what we represent."
The fighting has indeed escalated in Iraq. For those on the outside looking in, it may at times appear that U.S. forces are becoming embroiled in an inextricable quagmire. But for the young Americans there on the ground, it is a fight they are winning and a noble cause they are committed to seeing through to completion.
In the words of 1st Lt. Edward M. Solis, a platoon commander with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines, "If the enemy only knew our will, they would've given up by now." ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE
The BBC reports:
US condemned at Muslim conference
Muslim nations have begun an emergency meeting in Malaysia with criticisms of US policies on Israel and Iraq. . .
This is news? After all, conferences like those always have LOTS to say about the U.S. Interestingly, though, as BoTW pointed out yesterday, in a slightly different, but highly appropriate context:
. . . With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries by and large do not allow Palestinians to become citizens, settle permanently or own land. What some of them are willing to do, notably Saudi Arabia and preliberation Iraq, is send money to support suicide bombers.
Then there's this Reuters headline: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever." Imagine the outcry if this were ever to appear in reverse. Bush: U.S. Hates Arabs More Than Ever.
We don't hate Arabs, but it doesn't seem unduly harsh to say many of them have a lot of growing up to do. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
The BBC reports:
US condemned at Muslim conference
Muslim nations have begun an emergency meeting in Malaysia with criticisms of US policies on Israel and Iraq. . .
This is news? After all, conferences like those always have LOTS to say about the U.S. Interestingly, though, as BoTW pointed out yesterday, in a slightly different, but highly appropriate context:
. . . With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries by and large do not allow Palestinians to become citizens, settle permanently or own land. What some of them are willing to do, notably Saudi Arabia and preliberation Iraq, is send money to support suicide bombers.
Then there's this Reuters headline: "Mubarak: Arabs Hate U.S. More Than Ever." Imagine the outcry if this were ever to appear in reverse. Bush: U.S. Hates Arabs More Than Ever.
We don't hate Arabs, but it doesn't seem unduly harsh to say many of them have a lot of growing up to do. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
TOTAL WAR
CNN reports:
The Saudi ambassador to the United States says his nation is now in "total war" against terrorists following a car bombing that ripped through the capital Riyadh, killing four people and wounding 148 others.
Wednesday's bombing marked the third terror attack in the kingdom in less than a year.
"This shows that this group is evil, and they consider everybody their enemy," Prince Bandar bin Sultan said after meeting with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the White House.
"We are going to fight them hard.". . .
Yeh, yeh, we know. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
CNN reports:
The Saudi ambassador to the United States says his nation is now in "total war" against terrorists following a car bombing that ripped through the capital Riyadh, killing four people and wounding 148 others.
Wednesday's bombing marked the third terror attack in the kingdom in less than a year.
"This shows that this group is evil, and they consider everybody their enemy," Prince Bandar bin Sultan said after meeting with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice at the White House.
"We are going to fight them hard.". . .
Yeh, yeh, we know. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
ONE OTHER THING
Michael Moore's April 14 "Letter" had a paragraph that appears startlingly dumb, regarding non-passport travelling abroad, the U.S. military, and a war zone:
. . .I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq . . .
I am not sure how much is actually honestly accurate in that spout above on the likes the Fed Ex-ing of footage back the U.S., etc. So, I'll reserve judgement on that. However, interestingly, that Moore's "cameramen/reporters" are in Iraq wandering around, supposedly talking to soldiers without military interference, would seem to undercut any argument that the military is obsessively controlling the flow of information for the benefit of Halliburton and Dick Cheney. But be that as it may.
More to the point, when he wrote the above, Moore probably failed to realize that in citing "reporters" and "a new American territory called Iraq" he may accidently have stumbled on a fact, for a change -- although, not quite the "fact" he might like to think it is.
Iraq is a combat zone today -- as Western Europe was 60 years ago.
During World War II, U.S. soldiers and personnel attached to the Forces entering Britain (which was then considered in a combat zone) did not go through British immigration controls. They were in Britain physically, but were not technically under British civilian authority.
Interestingly, much the same was the case with war correspondents, employed by accredited publications, doing business with the Forces, and approved by the Forces. The best known example has to be the photographer Robert Capa, who was not yet a U.S. citizen, but held Hungarian citizenship. Neither was he a member of the Forces. Yet throughout, the U.S. military had okayed his attachment to the Forces in his capacity as an employee for U.S.-based magazines. It was as an employee for "Life", that Capa landed and photographed the horrible battle on Omaha Beach on June 6.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember hearing veterans talk about their pulling out their U.S. passports, as they waded ashore during the Normandy invasion . . .
Iraq would seem to be about much the same situation as Britain and continental Europe during the Second World War and in many ways up to the present day. My understanding is that U.S. military members, and civilian employees of the Forces, who disembark at bases in Britain, Germany and elsewhere abroad do not have to go through British or German passport control or customs. Presumably, they may have civilian passports in their possession. But they are under U.S. military jurisdiction. So, what Moore is ranting about in that paragraph is unclear. There are precedents all around him -- if he would lift his baseball cap long enough to have a look.
On the current situation for American Forces in Europe, Robert "In Notts Forest" could probably speak on this with the authority of experience. On the birth of his daughter recently, he notes just today:
. . . Here is Britain the NHS is the primary provider of heath care, but many who has the means or medical care is a priority is now going with private health care, just like in the US. NHS is hit or miss. I head many good things about it, but some of the horror stories are to frequent to write off as urban myths.
I first registered with a British National Health Service doctor when we lived near a U.S. air force base in Cambridgeshire. The first thing the office nurse asked me innocently was if I was a member of "the Forces". For if I were, I was told I was ineligible to use the NHS through civilian channels. The U.S. Forces, she joked, have their own "health service". I presume she had some idea of what she was talking about.
Anyway, enough of Moore, and back to blogging people who are at least intellectually challenging enough to make blogging them worthwhile . . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
Michael Moore's April 14 "Letter" had a paragraph that appears startlingly dumb, regarding non-passport travelling abroad, the U.S. military, and a war zone:
. . .I currently have two cameramen/reporters doing work for me in Iraq for my movie (unbeknownst to the Army). They are talking to soldiers and gathering the true sentiment about what is really going on. They Fed Ex the footage back to me each week. That's right, Fed Ex. Who said we haven't brought freedom to Iraq! The funniest story my guys tell me is how when they fly into Baghdad, they don't have to show a passport or go through immigration. Why not? Because they have not traveled from a foreign country -- they're coming from America TO America, a place that is ours, a new American territory called Iraq . . .
I am not sure how much is actually honestly accurate in that spout above on the likes the Fed Ex-ing of footage back the U.S., etc. So, I'll reserve judgement on that. However, interestingly, that Moore's "cameramen/reporters" are in Iraq wandering around, supposedly talking to soldiers without military interference, would seem to undercut any argument that the military is obsessively controlling the flow of information for the benefit of Halliburton and Dick Cheney. But be that as it may.
More to the point, when he wrote the above, Moore probably failed to realize that in citing "reporters" and "a new American territory called Iraq" he may accidently have stumbled on a fact, for a change -- although, not quite the "fact" he might like to think it is.
Iraq is a combat zone today -- as Western Europe was 60 years ago.
During World War II, U.S. soldiers and personnel attached to the Forces entering Britain (which was then considered in a combat zone) did not go through British immigration controls. They were in Britain physically, but were not technically under British civilian authority.
Interestingly, much the same was the case with war correspondents, employed by accredited publications, doing business with the Forces, and approved by the Forces. The best known example has to be the photographer Robert Capa, who was not yet a U.S. citizen, but held Hungarian citizenship. Neither was he a member of the Forces. Yet throughout, the U.S. military had okayed his attachment to the Forces in his capacity as an employee for U.S.-based magazines. It was as an employee for "Life", that Capa landed and photographed the horrible battle on Omaha Beach on June 6.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember hearing veterans talk about their pulling out their U.S. passports, as they waded ashore during the Normandy invasion . . .
Iraq would seem to be about much the same situation as Britain and continental Europe during the Second World War and in many ways up to the present day. My understanding is that U.S. military members, and civilian employees of the Forces, who disembark at bases in Britain, Germany and elsewhere abroad do not have to go through British or German passport control or customs. Presumably, they may have civilian passports in their possession. But they are under U.S. military jurisdiction. So, what Moore is ranting about in that paragraph is unclear. There are precedents all around him -- if he would lift his baseball cap long enough to have a look.
On the current situation for American Forces in Europe, Robert "In Notts Forest" could probably speak on this with the authority of experience. On the birth of his daughter recently, he notes just today:
. . . Here is Britain the NHS is the primary provider of heath care, but many who has the means or medical care is a priority is now going with private health care, just like in the US. NHS is hit or miss. I head many good things about it, but some of the horror stories are to frequent to write off as urban myths.
I first registered with a British National Health Service doctor when we lived near a U.S. air force base in Cambridgeshire. The first thing the office nurse asked me innocently was if I was a member of "the Forces". For if I were, I was told I was ineligible to use the NHS through civilian channels. The U.S. Forces, she joked, have their own "health service". I presume she had some idea of what she was talking about.
Anyway, enough of Moore, and back to blogging people who are at least intellectually challenging enough to make blogging them worthwhile . . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
BLAIR'S GOT THEM -- AGAIN
The BBC reports:
Tony Blair's U-turn on holding a referendum on the EU constitution is facing attack from top pro-Europeans.
Ex-Tory cabinet minister Michael Heseltine said the vote would spark a spread of Eurosceptic "scare stories".
And EU commissioner Neil Kinnock said a "no" vote could be "destabilising" for Britain's place in Europe. . .
It is entirely possible that there will be a British general election BEFORE any referendum. Remember that.
Will Blair and Labour win that general election, as they've won the previous two? Of course, we don't know.
Now, to any post-general election, Constitution referendum. Consider this.
Chances are any general election, with a referendum in the offing a month or two afterwards, would be, essentially, about the referendum anyway.
Blair and Labour would be expected to take a position. But Blair might opt not to take a very clear one, preferring to play down his views, and instead tell voters to decide the matter in the referendum, as their "democratic right", etc., blah, blah. If Labour goes on to lose the general election, Blair would be out of office anyhow, and his position on the later Constitution referendum and its outcome -- be it pro or con -- wouldn't matter anyway.
However, if Labour wins the pre-referendum general election, and Blair is returned as prime minister, he might still continue to be "less than clear" about the government's considered view as to the referendum's best outcome.
If that happens, and it goes down to defeat -- and with most polls showing that an overwhelming majority either don't know what they think or are dead set against ANYTHING that would be seen as further empowering Brussels, at this point defeat seems likely -- Blair is no worse off than he is right now.
On the other hand, if the British public approve the Constitution, Blair is no worse off either. In fact, he would probably be better off. After all, he called the referendum and "let the British public decide."
And this is where Blair's got 'em. By his consenting to the referendum, both the opposition Conservatives (generally in favor of having a referendum; but want the public to vote NO) and the generally insane, Liberal Democrats (in favor of the referendum; but want the public to vote YES) have lost a large political stick, with which to try to beat Blair over the head: "Tony won't hold a referendum!", etc., and so on. For by agreeing to the vote, Blair has said: Fine, you all want the referendum, you've got it; no matter what happens, though, if I'm still in office, I win.
Love him or hate him, Blair is by far the best politician in this country right now. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
The BBC reports:
Tony Blair's U-turn on holding a referendum on the EU constitution is facing attack from top pro-Europeans.
Ex-Tory cabinet minister Michael Heseltine said the vote would spark a spread of Eurosceptic "scare stories".
And EU commissioner Neil Kinnock said a "no" vote could be "destabilising" for Britain's place in Europe. . .
It is entirely possible that there will be a British general election BEFORE any referendum. Remember that.
Will Blair and Labour win that general election, as they've won the previous two? Of course, we don't know.
Now, to any post-general election, Constitution referendum. Consider this.
Chances are any general election, with a referendum in the offing a month or two afterwards, would be, essentially, about the referendum anyway.
Blair and Labour would be expected to take a position. But Blair might opt not to take a very clear one, preferring to play down his views, and instead tell voters to decide the matter in the referendum, as their "democratic right", etc., blah, blah. If Labour goes on to lose the general election, Blair would be out of office anyhow, and his position on the later Constitution referendum and its outcome -- be it pro or con -- wouldn't matter anyway.
However, if Labour wins the pre-referendum general election, and Blair is returned as prime minister, he might still continue to be "less than clear" about the government's considered view as to the referendum's best outcome.
If that happens, and it goes down to defeat -- and with most polls showing that an overwhelming majority either don't know what they think or are dead set against ANYTHING that would be seen as further empowering Brussels, at this point defeat seems likely -- Blair is no worse off than he is right now.
On the other hand, if the British public approve the Constitution, Blair is no worse off either. In fact, he would probably be better off. After all, he called the referendum and "let the British public decide."
And this is where Blair's got 'em. By his consenting to the referendum, both the opposition Conservatives (generally in favor of having a referendum; but want the public to vote NO) and the generally insane, Liberal Democrats (in favor of the referendum; but want the public to vote YES) have lost a large political stick, with which to try to beat Blair over the head: "Tony won't hold a referendum!", etc., and so on. For by agreeing to the vote, Blair has said: Fine, you all want the referendum, you've got it; no matter what happens, though, if I'm still in office, I win.
Love him or hate him, Blair is by far the best politician in this country right now. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 22, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
THIS JUST CONFIRMED
This story header of April 21, 2004, linking to today's bit of serializing by the Washington Post of Bob Woodward's new book is, well . . . just brace yourself:
"Blair Backed War"
Bob Woodward: Briton's steady support was crucial for Bush.
Good grief. Really? You're kidding!
The things one learns . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
This story header of April 21, 2004, linking to today's bit of serializing by the Washington Post of Bob Woodward's new book is, well . . . just brace yourself:
"Blair Backed War"
Bob Woodward: Briton's steady support was crucial for Bush.
Good grief. Really? You're kidding!
The things one learns . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
ERIK IN THE SOUTHWEST
Erik Svane on the wild frontier:
. . . I've been traveling through that hell-hole of misery (to quote Arlette), the United States of America, more specifically through Texas for research on a book about the Texas revolution, with the Alamo and all.
As it happens, I'm currently in Arizona (a Comfort Inn motel on Phoenix's Apache Drive), and I won't be back home to Paris before next Sunday, but after that, I'll be back in form (hopefully).
As usual, I am always amazed at the acts of generosity, even tiny, that perfect strangers are always willing to perform for one another in this country. Twice, while hiking, in Palo Verde canyon and in the Superstition Mountains, I was asked whether I needed water, and offered not just part of a bottle but the entire bottle itself. Not a single second of hesitation, and with an attitude entirely natural. On another occasion, I witnessed a drunk guy trying to pick up a Hawaiian girl, only to be offered a handful of cash so he could get a taxi home. She was insistent he take the money, and not offended one bit.
But let's get back to the raison d'etre of this particular post. In Houston, I picked up an issue of the Houston Chronicle, which published a story that proves my point of view wrong and the Chirac and Zapatero position as being the correct one: Due to their horrifying capitalist system, Americans are arrogant, money-loving, and self-centered, without an iota of fraternal humanity in them, and life in Iraq was much better before those capitalist pigs started their war for oil. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Erik Svane on the wild frontier:
. . . I've been traveling through that hell-hole of misery (to quote Arlette), the United States of America, more specifically through Texas for research on a book about the Texas revolution, with the Alamo and all.
As it happens, I'm currently in Arizona (a Comfort Inn motel on Phoenix's Apache Drive), and I won't be back home to Paris before next Sunday, but after that, I'll be back in form (hopefully).
As usual, I am always amazed at the acts of generosity, even tiny, that perfect strangers are always willing to perform for one another in this country. Twice, while hiking, in Palo Verde canyon and in the Superstition Mountains, I was asked whether I needed water, and offered not just part of a bottle but the entire bottle itself. Not a single second of hesitation, and with an attitude entirely natural. On another occasion, I witnessed a drunk guy trying to pick up a Hawaiian girl, only to be offered a handful of cash so he could get a taxi home. She was insistent he take the money, and not offended one bit.
But let's get back to the raison d'etre of this particular post. In Houston, I picked up an issue of the Houston Chronicle, which published a story that proves my point of view wrong and the Chirac and Zapatero position as being the correct one: Due to their horrifying capitalist system, Americans are arrogant, money-loving, and self-centered, without an iota of fraternal humanity in them, and life in Iraq was much better before those capitalist pigs started their war for oil. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
BUSH UP? BUSH DOWN?
Bush seems to be up in some polls. Fox reports:
The ABC-Washington Post and CNN-USA Today-Gallup polls, both released Monday, showed Bush with a slight lead over Kerry in a three-way matchup with independent Ralph Nader.
Bush was up 48-43 over Kerry among registered voters, with Nader at 6 percent in the ABC-Post poll. In the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Bush was ahead 50-44 among likely voters, with Nader at 4 percent. . .
However, writing in the New York Post (via the Command Post), campaign sharpshooter Dick Morris notes:
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a stalemate. Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days, President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent. John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided vote almost always goes against the incumbent. . .
Is President George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush therefore facing certain defeat at the polls in November? Not necessarily. In particular, Morris believes the key to victory is a Bush appeal to women voters:
. . . Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism. Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points . . .
. . . If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into a second term.
Ladies, only you know the truth . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Bush seems to be up in some polls. Fox reports:
The ABC-Washington Post and CNN-USA Today-Gallup polls, both released Monday, showed Bush with a slight lead over Kerry in a three-way matchup with independent Ralph Nader.
Bush was up 48-43 over Kerry among registered voters, with Nader at 6 percent in the ABC-Post poll. In the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Bush was ahead 50-44 among likely voters, with Nader at 4 percent. . .
However, writing in the New York Post (via the Command Post), campaign sharpshooter Dick Morris notes:
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a stalemate. Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days, President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent. John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement either way.
This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.
One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided vote almost always goes against the incumbent. . .
Is President George "Woodrow Wilson" Bush therefore facing certain defeat at the polls in November? Not necessarily. In particular, Morris believes the key to victory is a Bush appeal to women voters:
. . . Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism. Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points . . .
. . . If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into a second term.
Ladies, only you know the truth . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
RAIL SABOTAGE?
The BBC reports (rather quietly, on its "England -- London/South" page):
A youth has been arrested in connection with a series of sabotage attacks which could have derailed a train.
British Transport Police said objects, such as lumps of wood, had been dumped on the line at Westbourne Park, west London, near Paddington Station.
Safety equipment used to warn drivers of dangers on the line had also been ripped up, a spokesman.
A 15-year-old boy was arrested on Monday on suspicion of endangering the safety of people on the railway. . .
It is probably either one of two sorts.
The first, we have become eminently aware of in recent months. Let's hope it ain't that.
On the other hand, the second is probably of a sort that is scary for a different reason: Police arrest him and ask, "Why did you do it?", and the 15 year old replies, "Uh, like, well, I dunno. . ." ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The BBC reports (rather quietly, on its "England -- London/South" page):
A youth has been arrested in connection with a series of sabotage attacks which could have derailed a train.
British Transport Police said objects, such as lumps of wood, had been dumped on the line at Westbourne Park, west London, near Paddington Station.
Safety equipment used to warn drivers of dangers on the line had also been ripped up, a spokesman.
A 15-year-old boy was arrested on Monday on suspicion of endangering the safety of people on the railway. . .
It is probably either one of two sorts.
The first, we have become eminently aware of in recent months. Let's hope it ain't that.
On the other hand, the second is probably of a sort that is scary for a different reason: Police arrest him and ask, "Why did you do it?", and the 15 year old replies, "Uh, like, well, I dunno. . ." ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
THE ARCHBISHOP AND THE WMD
The BBC reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has suggested the aftermath of the Iraq war has resulted in a loss of trust in the nation's political system.
Dr Williams hinted the UK's "political health" has been damaged by failure to find weapons of mass destruction. . .
. . . Dr Williams said claims on the political loyalty of Christians had to do with a "demonstrable attention to truth, even unwelcome truth".
He said: "There were things government believed it knew and claimed to know on a privileged basis which, it emerged, were anything but certain - there were things which regional experts and others knew which seemed not to have received attention.". . .
And if mountains of WMD had been discovered, one wonders how Williams would have reacted? After all, he had opposed the war . . . period, even though most everyone -- including the French and the Germans -- were sure Saddam had them. (Apparently, even Saddam thought he had them. Would Saddam rate as a "regional expert?")
Remember the "Yes, Prime Minister" TV series, back in the 1980s? In one episode, the P.M. had to appoint a new bishop. The available choices were not to his liking, because none fit the bill.
One was "too religious" and might question the government on abortion, etc., and if I recall correctly he even favored "disestablishment" of the Church of England itself. The other was a man who may or may not have believed in God at all, but who was hip deep involved in every kooky, left wing cause.
Among other "points" he made, God is an "optional extra" when it comes to the Church of England, Sir Humphrey joked. Those are my choices? the P.M. exclaimed: One wants to get God out of the Church, the other wants to get the Queen out?
In the end, thanks to Sir Humphrey, the P.M. settled on yet another choice, who, although "weird" in his own way, was politically acceptable.
I'm sorry, but whenever I see or hear Rowan "Terrorists can have serious moral goals" Williams speak out on politics, I can't help but find myself wondering: "Which choice was he?" ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
The BBC reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has suggested the aftermath of the Iraq war has resulted in a loss of trust in the nation's political system.
Dr Williams hinted the UK's "political health" has been damaged by failure to find weapons of mass destruction. . .
. . . Dr Williams said claims on the political loyalty of Christians had to do with a "demonstrable attention to truth, even unwelcome truth".
He said: "There were things government believed it knew and claimed to know on a privileged basis which, it emerged, were anything but certain - there were things which regional experts and others knew which seemed not to have received attention.". . .
And if mountains of WMD had been discovered, one wonders how Williams would have reacted? After all, he had opposed the war . . . period, even though most everyone -- including the French and the Germans -- were sure Saddam had them. (Apparently, even Saddam thought he had them. Would Saddam rate as a "regional expert?")
Remember the "Yes, Prime Minister" TV series, back in the 1980s? In one episode, the P.M. had to appoint a new bishop. The available choices were not to his liking, because none fit the bill.
One was "too religious" and might question the government on abortion, etc., and if I recall correctly he even favored "disestablishment" of the Church of England itself. The other was a man who may or may not have believed in God at all, but who was hip deep involved in every kooky, left wing cause.
Among other "points" he made, God is an "optional extra" when it comes to the Church of England, Sir Humphrey joked. Those are my choices? the P.M. exclaimed: One wants to get God out of the Church, the other wants to get the Queen out?
In the end, thanks to Sir Humphrey, the P.M. settled on yet another choice, who, although "weird" in his own way, was politically acceptable.
I'm sorry, but whenever I see or hear Rowan "Terrorists can have serious moral goals" Williams speak out on politics, I can't help but find myself wondering: "Which choice was he?" ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
JUST LIKE LEXINGTON, OF COURSE
UPDATE: Sky is calling them suicide bombs:
INITIAL POST:
Michael Moore must have a spring in his step this morning. His "Minutemen" have struck again. The BBC reports:
But these are "Minutemen," you see.
Uh, say, dude, it's funny, but I don't remember George Washington's Continental Army (which actually WON the American Revolution; perhaps Moore has heard of them?) blowing up cars on the Boston Common. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
UPDATE: Sky is calling them suicide bombs:
A series of apparent suicide bomb attacks in and around the Iraqi city of Basra has killed up to 61 people and injured hundreds more."Minutemen" indeed. . .
Some 10 local children on their way to primary school were among the dead, police said.
A car taking children to a nursery school was also reportedly caught in one of the explosions. . .
INITIAL POST:
Michael Moore must have a spring in his step this morning. His "Minutemen" have struck again. The BBC reports:
A series of explosions in the Basra area of southern Iraq have killed at least 58 people and injured many more.And if Israelis had so much as caused a freakin' flat tire on a Palestinian school bus, filled with 18 year olds wearing suicide belts, you know the "international community" would be in an uproar, with condemnations coming from the U.N., etc.
The first blasts occurred during the morning rush hour in central Basra. At least 55 were killed in three attacks targeting police stations.
Two school buses were reportedly destroyed in one of the explosions.
But these are "Minutemen," you see.
A fourth blast reportedly killed three in Zubair, south of Basra. There was also fighting between gunmen and US troops in the central city of Falluja.And the British know a little something, unfortunately, about car bombs. So I would take their view as the most likely explanation.
Iraqi police told Reuters news agency that mortar bombs had hit two police stations in the central Ashar district of Basra, while a third station was targeted in the Old City.
However, a UK military official in the city suggested the three explosions, which all came at about 0715 (0315 GMT), had been caused by car bombs. . .
Uh, say, dude, it's funny, but I don't remember George Washington's Continental Army (which actually WON the American Revolution; perhaps Moore has heard of them?) blowing up cars on the Boston Common. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
WHAT WOULD PAUL REVERE THINK?
UPDATE: I've pulled the Cox and Forkum Michael Moore cartoon because it wasn't showing properly, for some reason. But here is the genius's quote, and the link:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." -- Michael Moore, April 2004.
That ignorant comment from the obnoxious, multimillionaire, faux "Joe Sixpack" really just speaks for itself.
Yet somewhere, a Relation definitely agrees.
Ah, and remember the "good ol' days," when France's favorite American comic was supposedly Jerry Lewis? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
UPDATE: I've pulled the Cox and Forkum Michael Moore cartoon because it wasn't showing properly, for some reason. But here is the genius's quote, and the link:
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win." -- Michael Moore, April 2004.
That ignorant comment from the obnoxious, multimillionaire, faux "Joe Sixpack" really just speaks for itself.
Yet somewhere, a Relation definitely agrees.
Ah, and remember the "good ol' days," when France's favorite American comic was supposedly Jerry Lewis? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
ON "KNOWING"
Over in Switzerland, it appears that Tom Devine is getting a bit annoyed by all the "9-11" fingerpointing:
. . .The fact is, people have been predicting for years that terrorists would strike on continental US, probably with a nuke. But, what are you supposed to do about that information? Should we mobilize the entire nation to be prepared for something that might happen? . . . A meteor may devastate the planet within 5 minutes notice, do we have back-up plans? . . .
. . . Of course, if that meteor does strike and take out Utah we'll hear Hillary and Ted Kennedy demanding to know "what Bush knew and when he knew it."
As well, my Iraqi friend will tell me it was a Jewish plot. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Over in Switzerland, it appears that Tom Devine is getting a bit annoyed by all the "9-11" fingerpointing:
. . .The fact is, people have been predicting for years that terrorists would strike on continental US, probably with a nuke. But, what are you supposed to do about that information? Should we mobilize the entire nation to be prepared for something that might happen? . . . A meteor may devastate the planet within 5 minutes notice, do we have back-up plans? . . .
. . . Of course, if that meteor does strike and take out Utah we'll hear Hillary and Ted Kennedy demanding to know "what Bush knew and when he knew it."
As well, my Iraqi friend will tell me it was a Jewish plot. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AHEAD?
When Robert "In Notts Forest" is pacing the house with his newborn in the middle of the night, he has things on his mind other than, as they say here, "nappies":
Becoming a father gives you a bit of time to think, especially when you are trying to help your newborn daughter to sleep, by carrying her on your shoulder at 2:00am. While carrying my daughter, I was thinking about a question that was posed to me right after the Madrid bombings: Where will they attack next? I tell people that Osama bin Laden is an amateur history buff and when he spoke of Spain, he referred to it as al-Andalus. So you can dust off your history books and look up military defeats of Muslim forces during the medieval and classical times in Europe. You can start your list with France, it had the Battle of Poitiers in A.D. 732, then add Austria, because it had the Battle of Vienna in 1683, finish with Italy because Sicily was occupied for a few hundred years buy the Berbers. So there is your list of targets, but add Poland, since they provide the forces that won at Vienna. With the declining population of Europe and the increase of immigrants from Islamic countries, Europe should be a very interesting place for the next few years. For Osama it is just payback time for battles long forgotten by most of the Western world . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
When Robert "In Notts Forest" is pacing the house with his newborn in the middle of the night, he has things on his mind other than, as they say here, "nappies":
Becoming a father gives you a bit of time to think, especially when you are trying to help your newborn daughter to sleep, by carrying her on your shoulder at 2:00am. While carrying my daughter, I was thinking about a question that was posed to me right after the Madrid bombings: Where will they attack next? I tell people that Osama bin Laden is an amateur history buff and when he spoke of Spain, he referred to it as al-Andalus. So you can dust off your history books and look up military defeats of Muslim forces during the medieval and classical times in Europe. You can start your list with France, it had the Battle of Poitiers in A.D. 732, then add Austria, because it had the Battle of Vienna in 1683, finish with Italy because Sicily was occupied for a few hundred years buy the Berbers. So there is your list of targets, but add Poland, since they provide the forces that won at Vienna. With the declining population of Europe and the increase of immigrants from Islamic countries, Europe should be a very interesting place for the next few years. For Osama it is just payback time for battles long forgotten by most of the Western world . . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
REYNOLDS AND OIL
Well, I see the BBC has, once again, let Paul Reynolds loose again.
Did you know that the U.S. actually attacked ITSELF at Pearl Harbor? Well, technically it didn't really -- but you will think it did, when Paul Reynolds gets done "interpreting" the attack. After all, the U.S. essentially caused the attack, by provoking the Japanese militarists, when the U.S. had the appalling nerve to slap an oil embargo on the empire of Japan, as Tokyo was slaughtering its way through mainland China and threatening the rest of southeast Asia and the south Pacific.
How imperialist of us, to cut off their oil thus causing them to want to attack us, so they could steal oil elsewhere!
Anyway, USS Neverdock has already had fun tearing apart the Reynolds, urrr, analytical skills . . .
I've never been inside the BBC offices but I imagine there must be a sign in every office that reads "No matter the subject of the story, add bias and make it Americas fault."
. . . and does an excellent demolition of Reynolds' latest "insights".
Go have a read, and enjoy.
One other issue is worth raising. Throughout his third grade history analysis, it seems obvious that, in Reynolds view, fighting over oil -- and presumably, by extension, the likes of coal, food, water, firewood, and any other natural resource -- must always be unseemly, and must never take place. It is especially inappropriate when done by the U.S. And Reynolds is entitled to his stupid opinion, of course.
It clearly never dawned on the thick-headed Reynolds that oil, like gold and uranium (and anything else on the planet, for that matter) are simply objects, which can be employed for good, or for evil. The problem isn't oil -- it is what the oil finances. Does it pay for schoolsandhospitals (that's one word, in Britain), or suicide bombers?
What if cutting off or separating an enemy from his oil (as the U.S. did to imperial Japan, to try to get the Japanese to behave, but instead of behaving, the Japanese decided to make further war) means that enemy will have a far tougher time finding the money to pay for gas chambers, bullets with which to shoot political opponents in the back of the head, mass grave diggers, suicide attackers, and so on? Is doing that okay, then?
Well, if so -- and most sensible people would probably agree that it would be -- then the war to get rid of Saddam Hussein was perfectly justified on that point alone. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Well, I see the BBC has, once again, let Paul Reynolds loose again.
Did you know that the U.S. actually attacked ITSELF at Pearl Harbor? Well, technically it didn't really -- but you will think it did, when Paul Reynolds gets done "interpreting" the attack. After all, the U.S. essentially caused the attack, by provoking the Japanese militarists, when the U.S. had the appalling nerve to slap an oil embargo on the empire of Japan, as Tokyo was slaughtering its way through mainland China and threatening the rest of southeast Asia and the south Pacific.
How imperialist of us, to cut off their oil thus causing them to want to attack us, so they could steal oil elsewhere!
Anyway, USS Neverdock has already had fun tearing apart the Reynolds, urrr, analytical skills . . .
I've never been inside the BBC offices but I imagine there must be a sign in every office that reads "No matter the subject of the story, add bias and make it Americas fault."
. . . and does an excellent demolition of Reynolds' latest "insights".
Go have a read, and enjoy.
One other issue is worth raising. Throughout his third grade history analysis, it seems obvious that, in Reynolds view, fighting over oil -- and presumably, by extension, the likes of coal, food, water, firewood, and any other natural resource -- must always be unseemly, and must never take place. It is especially inappropriate when done by the U.S. And Reynolds is entitled to his stupid opinion, of course.
It clearly never dawned on the thick-headed Reynolds that oil, like gold and uranium (and anything else on the planet, for that matter) are simply objects, which can be employed for good, or for evil. The problem isn't oil -- it is what the oil finances. Does it pay for schoolsandhospitals (that's one word, in Britain), or suicide bombers?
What if cutting off or separating an enemy from his oil (as the U.S. did to imperial Japan, to try to get the Japanese to behave, but instead of behaving, the Japanese decided to make further war) means that enemy will have a far tougher time finding the money to pay for gas chambers, bullets with which to shoot political opponents in the back of the head, mass grave diggers, suicide attackers, and so on? Is doing that okay, then?
Well, if so -- and most sensible people would probably agree that it would be -- then the war to get rid of Saddam Hussein was perfectly justified on that point alone. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
NOW THIS IS LOVELY
Being American in Toronto, Ontario directs us to this vulgarity, noted by Frozen in Montreal in this way:
Oh, this is just so charming that it makes me want to load up Mr. 45 and head down to the range for a few hours...
Someone has desecrated the tomb of the policeman that died in that explosion in Leganés a few weeks back.
Considering how Reuters reported that the captors of three Japanese were threatening not just to burn them alive, but also to eat them ("We tell you that three of your children have fallen prisoner in our hands and we give you two options -- withdraw your forces from our country and go home or we will burn them alive and feed them to the fighters," the group said.), grave desecration is about par for the course. No? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Being American in Toronto, Ontario directs us to this vulgarity, noted by Frozen in Montreal in this way:
Oh, this is just so charming that it makes me want to load up Mr. 45 and head down to the range for a few hours...
Someone has desecrated the tomb of the policeman that died in that explosion in Leganés a few weeks back.
Considering how Reuters reported that the captors of three Japanese were threatening not just to burn them alive, but also to eat them ("We tell you that three of your children have fallen prisoner in our hands and we give you two options -- withdraw your forces from our country and go home or we will burn them alive and feed them to the fighters," the group said.), grave desecration is about par for the course. No? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
WHAT IS PRODI?
On Spain's withdrawal, Euro News (short lived link) reports:
. . . European Commission president Romano Prodi, a key figure in the Italian left-wing opposition, has come out in support of Spain's decision. He said the move was aimed at putting pressure on the international community to resolve the Iraq crisis, and said Europe was finding common ground on the issue. . .
How that idiotic idea -- that withdrawing from Iraq will help solve the crisis, when in reality it will do nothing more than leave Iraq to the "tender mercies" of the "militants" and "insurgents" -- got into Romano Prodi's head is an issue all by itself. Frankly, I don't really even want to know how the man got there. But another issue also jumps out from the above.
What is Romano Prodi's actual role? Is he primarily supposed to speak for a divided E.U. membership, as the current President of the European Commission, the main governing body of the E.U., an organization that includes not just anti-liberation of Iraq member states like France, Germany and Belgium, but also states such as the U.K. and Italy, among others, that are strong supporters of the liberation?
Or is Prodi actually more a player in the anti-liberation of Iraq Italian left/socialist opposition to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? If so, is Prodi using his comfortable post in Brussels as a platform from which to mouth off, hoping to better reach an Italian audience than if he were merely "down low" and struggling to be heard within the Italian domestic political scene?
Essentially, is Prodi speaking as an Italian leftist, or as the European Commission's president? How many "hats" does the man wear? Indeed, how many paychecks does the man draw?
Just wondering. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
On Spain's withdrawal, Euro News (short lived link) reports:
. . . European Commission president Romano Prodi, a key figure in the Italian left-wing opposition, has come out in support of Spain's decision. He said the move was aimed at putting pressure on the international community to resolve the Iraq crisis, and said Europe was finding common ground on the issue. . .
How that idiotic idea -- that withdrawing from Iraq will help solve the crisis, when in reality it will do nothing more than leave Iraq to the "tender mercies" of the "militants" and "insurgents" -- got into Romano Prodi's head is an issue all by itself. Frankly, I don't really even want to know how the man got there. But another issue also jumps out from the above.
What is Romano Prodi's actual role? Is he primarily supposed to speak for a divided E.U. membership, as the current President of the European Commission, the main governing body of the E.U., an organization that includes not just anti-liberation of Iraq member states like France, Germany and Belgium, but also states such as the U.K. and Italy, among others, that are strong supporters of the liberation?
Or is Prodi actually more a player in the anti-liberation of Iraq Italian left/socialist opposition to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? If so, is Prodi using his comfortable post in Brussels as a platform from which to mouth off, hoping to better reach an Italian audience than if he were merely "down low" and struggling to be heard within the Italian domestic political scene?
Essentially, is Prodi speaking as an Italian leftist, or as the European Commission's president? How many "hats" does the man wear? Indeed, how many paychecks does the man draw?
Just wondering. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
ARRESTS IN SWEDEN
ITV News reports:
Four people have been arrested in Sweden suspected of having links to terrorism and Islamic extremism.
According to reports, the four are being held on suspicion of having supported attacks on US troops in Iraq.
"Yesterday morning we arrested four people, one in Malmo and three in Stockholm," Robert Dahlberg, duty officer from Sweden's Sapo security police said.
The country's TT news agency quoted a security police Sapo official Lars Bellman as saying: "They have connections to terror activity, Islamic extremism that is not related to Europe.". . .
Interesting that it is reported that Sweden has picked up those people for having supported attacks on the Forces IN Iraq, not for planning an attack on civilians within Europe.
Presumably they weren't themselves doing the attacking. Most tacticians would probably assert that hitting U.S. troops would be a lot easier from INSIDE Iraq. Taking shots at them from Stockholm is a bit tough. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
ITV News reports:
Four people have been arrested in Sweden suspected of having links to terrorism and Islamic extremism.
According to reports, the four are being held on suspicion of having supported attacks on US troops in Iraq.
"Yesterday morning we arrested four people, one in Malmo and three in Stockholm," Robert Dahlberg, duty officer from Sweden's Sapo security police said.
The country's TT news agency quoted a security police Sapo official Lars Bellman as saying: "They have connections to terror activity, Islamic extremism that is not related to Europe.". . .
Interesting that it is reported that Sweden has picked up those people for having supported attacks on the Forces IN Iraq, not for planning an attack on civilians within Europe.
Presumably they weren't themselves doing the attacking. Most tacticians would probably assert that hitting U.S. troops would be a lot easier from INSIDE Iraq. Taking shots at them from Stockholm is a bit tough. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
SIRE, 'TIS A SIEGE!
The A.P. reports:
Direct talks between the United States and leaders of the besieged city of Fallujah produced their first concrete results: an appeal for insurgents to turn in their mortars, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, U.S. officials announced Monday.
"Leaders of the besieged city of Fallujah"? Apparently, the A.P. believes we are in the Middle Ages, and the Forces are outside the gates of Constantinople or something.
Actually, things are probably worse than that, for there were at least reasonable rules in medieval warfare. On the other hand, the Islamist and/or Baathist enemy engages in the likes of hostage taking, shooting prisoners in the head, and/or threatening to burn them alive (and even to eat them?).
But if it is the Middle Ages again, then, presumably, the Forces have made it clear, as well, that ye enemy must also turn in all swords, lances and knives.
However, every gentleman will be permitted to keep one horse.
The A.P. continues:
In return, the U.S. military said it does not intend to resume its offensive in the Sunni Muslim stronghold so long as militants are disarming.
Would that be "militants" as in, like, those "Nazi militants", whom the Allies surrounded and destroyed on numerous occasions during the Second World War?
But with Marines encircling Fallujah and holding their positions inside the city, commanders warned that if the deal falls through, they could launch an all-out assault, which would likely mean a resumption of bloody urban combat. . .
So, let's see if we understand this. The enemy is surrounded. In order to prevent further needless killing in a hopeless siege, which the enemy cannot break, negotiations are now underway to disarm the enemy forces . . . sorry, urrr, "militants." Disarmament will presumably be followed (as it usually does in such situations) by some form of surrender. And if the enemy does not comply, the Forces will destroy them.
. . . But the Forces are NOT in reasonable control of this situation? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Direct talks between the United States and leaders of the besieged city of Fallujah produced their first concrete results: an appeal for insurgents to turn in their mortars, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons, U.S. officials announced Monday.
"Leaders of the besieged city of Fallujah"? Apparently, the A.P. believes we are in the Middle Ages, and the Forces are outside the gates of Constantinople or something.
Actually, things are probably worse than that, for there were at least reasonable rules in medieval warfare. On the other hand, the Islamist and/or Baathist enemy engages in the likes of hostage taking, shooting prisoners in the head, and/or threatening to burn them alive (and even to eat them?).
But if it is the Middle Ages again, then, presumably, the Forces have made it clear, as well, that ye enemy must also turn in all swords, lances and knives.
However, every gentleman will be permitted to keep one horse.
The A.P. continues:
In return, the U.S. military said it does not intend to resume its offensive in the Sunni Muslim stronghold so long as militants are disarming.
Would that be "militants" as in, like, those "Nazi militants", whom the Allies surrounded and destroyed on numerous occasions during the Second World War?
But with Marines encircling Fallujah and holding their positions inside the city, commanders warned that if the deal falls through, they could launch an all-out assault, which would likely mean a resumption of bloody urban combat. . .
So, let's see if we understand this. The enemy is surrounded. In order to prevent further needless killing in a hopeless siege, which the enemy cannot break, negotiations are now underway to disarm the enemy forces . . . sorry, urrr, "militants." Disarmament will presumably be followed (as it usually does in such situations) by some form of surrender. And if the enemy does not comply, the Forces will destroy them.
. . . But the Forces are NOT in reasonable control of this situation? ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
SO FAR JUST THEIR SEASON HAS SELF-DETONATED
Sky reports:
Manchester United have denied being the target for a possible terrorist attack.
Reports following the arrest of seven people in the Greater Manchester area claim the stadium was the subject of a suicide bomb plot for Saturday's match against Liverpool.
However, a United spokesman said they had been talking to the police but only with regard to normal arrangements for the match. . .
. . . All 10, described by police as North African and Iraqi Kurds, are being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. . .
Of course, if such a plot were being hatched, it is no joke.
But as Scott Burgess noted recently, regarding the Islamist terror round-up in southeast England a few weeks ago, the father of one of the "boys" then arrested had offered this defense on their behalfs:
"These boys are all Manchester United fans."
So, discovering the soccer allegiances of those arrested yesterday in Manchester is probably of prime importance in the overall inquiry. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Sky reports:
Manchester United have denied being the target for a possible terrorist attack.
Reports following the arrest of seven people in the Greater Manchester area claim the stadium was the subject of a suicide bomb plot for Saturday's match against Liverpool.
However, a United spokesman said they had been talking to the police but only with regard to normal arrangements for the match. . .
. . . All 10, described by police as North African and Iraqi Kurds, are being held on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. . .
Of course, if such a plot were being hatched, it is no joke.
But as Scott Burgess noted recently, regarding the Islamist terror round-up in southeast England a few weeks ago, the father of one of the "boys" then arrested had offered this defense on their behalfs:
"These boys are all Manchester United fans."
So, discovering the soccer allegiances of those arrested yesterday in Manchester is probably of prime importance in the overall inquiry. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
NOTHING LIKE COMMITTED ANALYSIS
One's gotta love this bit, by the BBC's Nick Assinder, on Prime Minister Blair's European Constitution referendum so-called "u-turn":
Tony Blair's apparent decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution may mark one of the greatest U-turns of the New Labour government.
Got that. His "apparent decision" which "may mark". Come on. Is that all? One can easily get at least one or two more qualifiers into a topic sentence.
But, more than that, it also represents a huge risk by the prime minister whose leadership credibility will once again be firmly on the line over a hugely controversial policy.
This is HUGE. That's right. HUGELY.
And FIRMLY.
And, just as with his previous decision to go to war on Iraq, if he fails to get his way he may find it impossible to continue as prime minister. . .
Yep, of course. There's always that hope. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
One's gotta love this bit, by the BBC's Nick Assinder, on Prime Minister Blair's European Constitution referendum so-called "u-turn":
Tony Blair's apparent decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution may mark one of the greatest U-turns of the New Labour government.
Got that. His "apparent decision" which "may mark". Come on. Is that all? One can easily get at least one or two more qualifiers into a topic sentence.
But, more than that, it also represents a huge risk by the prime minister whose leadership credibility will once again be firmly on the line over a hugely controversial policy.
This is HUGE. That's right. HUGELY.
And FIRMLY.
And, just as with his previous decision to go to war on Iraq, if he fails to get his way he may find it impossible to continue as prime minister. . .
Yep, of course. There's always that hope. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
WHAT MUST BE DONE
Larry Miller, in the Weekly Standard:
. . . MESSAGE TO THE ADMINISTRATION: Win. Get your people out there, and tell them that the answer to every question is, "We're fighting a war, and we'll let historians worry about everything else afterwards. You don't blame the fire department for the arsonist. Unless you're stupid."
No one in Europe or on the left is ever going to change their minds from seeing a photograph of a Marine handing a bag of groceries to a woman in a burkha. Jacques Chirac is never going to say, "Well, they have built a lot of community centers. Maybe Bush was right."
Win. Stop building schools. Win. There's plenty of time and need for hospitals, but first . . . win. Yes, Iraqi girls can be very empowered by seeing a female major running an outreach program, and we'll all chip in for the posters that say, "Take Your Daughters To Mosque Day," but in the meantime, would you please win. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
Larry Miller, in the Weekly Standard:
. . . MESSAGE TO THE ADMINISTRATION: Win. Get your people out there, and tell them that the answer to every question is, "We're fighting a war, and we'll let historians worry about everything else afterwards. You don't blame the fire department for the arsonist. Unless you're stupid."
No one in Europe or on the left is ever going to change their minds from seeing a photograph of a Marine handing a bag of groceries to a woman in a burkha. Jacques Chirac is never going to say, "Well, they have built a lot of community centers. Maybe Bush was right."
Win. Stop building schools. Win. There's plenty of time and need for hospitals, but first . . . win. Yes, Iraqi girls can be very empowered by seeing a female major running an outreach program, and we'll all chip in for the posters that say, "Take Your Daughters To Mosque Day," but in the meantime, would you please win. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
NO HARD FEELINGS, BUT . . .
Murdoc:
While I don't think the withdrawal of Spanish troops, to happen ASAP now that the new Socialist government has taken power, will end relations between Spain and the US, Spain had better not be surprised when they're off the Christmas card list . . .
And CNN notes:
Radical Islamic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has welcomed Spain's decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq "in the shortest time possible,". . .
And with new "friends" like everyone's currently favorite "cleric", Spain's security is bound to be enhanced, right? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
Murdoc:
While I don't think the withdrawal of Spanish troops, to happen ASAP now that the new Socialist government has taken power, will end relations between Spain and the US, Spain had better not be surprised when they're off the Christmas card list . . .
And CNN notes:
Radical Islamic cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has welcomed Spain's decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq "in the shortest time possible,". . .
And with new "friends" like everyone's currently favorite "cleric", Spain's security is bound to be enhanced, right? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
ON THE DIFFERENCE
Writing in the Telegraph, Barbara Amiel notes:
. . . al-Rantissi, who replaced the recently assassinated Hamas leader, Sheikh Yassin, had been at his post less than a month before Israel's targeted killing removed him on Saturday. A month is scarcely enough time to follow up on your initial meet-and-greet, but Rantissi got a few projects off the ground anyway.
On the very morning of his death, a Hamas suicide mission killed an Israeli border guard at the Erez Crossing in an industrial area where Palestinians cross to work alongside Israelis. Had he lived, Rantissi would have kept the Israeli body count high.
Targeted killings are counter-terrorism and as such they are not an activity any civilised human being can relish. Still, there is a moral distinction between counter-terrorism and terrorism, best described as the distinction between acts of war and war crimes. . .
. . .The Palestinian cause is an honourable one, but Hamas and similar groups, such as Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad or Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, have no interest in an honourable two-state solution. Apologists for these groups routinely condemn suicide bombers and then describe them as part of "the cycle of violence in the Middle East" which would stop if only Israel would address their grievances. No doubt. Their grievance is the existence of Israel. . .
What is amazing is that far too many people who consider themselves decent somehow fail to get the difference. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
Writing in the Telegraph, Barbara Amiel notes:
. . . al-Rantissi, who replaced the recently assassinated Hamas leader, Sheikh Yassin, had been at his post less than a month before Israel's targeted killing removed him on Saturday. A month is scarcely enough time to follow up on your initial meet-and-greet, but Rantissi got a few projects off the ground anyway.
On the very morning of his death, a Hamas suicide mission killed an Israeli border guard at the Erez Crossing in an industrial area where Palestinians cross to work alongside Israelis. Had he lived, Rantissi would have kept the Israeli body count high.
Targeted killings are counter-terrorism and as such they are not an activity any civilised human being can relish. Still, there is a moral distinction between counter-terrorism and terrorism, best described as the distinction between acts of war and war crimes. . .
. . .The Palestinian cause is an honourable one, but Hamas and similar groups, such as Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad or Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, have no interest in an honourable two-state solution. Apologists for these groups routinely condemn suicide bombers and then describe them as part of "the cycle of violence in the Middle East" which would stop if only Israel would address their grievances. No doubt. Their grievance is the existence of Israel. . .
What is amazing is that far too many people who consider themselves decent somehow fail to get the difference. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
WAIT 'TILL NEXT YEAR!
Ah, well, it was fun while it lasted:
The Islanders' thirty-second National Hockey League season ended at 10:34 pm when Martin St.Louis scored 4:07 into overtime as the Tampa Bay Lightning eliminated the Islanders with a 3-2 victory before a sellout crowd of 20,927 at the St. Pete Times Forum. . .
And looking ahead:
. . . The 2004-05 season will mark two anniversaries for the Islanders as it will be the 25th anniversary of the first Stanley Cup winning season and the 30th anniversary of the 1974-75 season that featured the Islanders' remarkable first trip to the Stanley Cup playoffs.
Whether your team wins or not, ice hockey is one of the most exciting sports there is. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
Ah, well, it was fun while it lasted:
The Islanders' thirty-second National Hockey League season ended at 10:34 pm when Martin St.Louis scored 4:07 into overtime as the Tampa Bay Lightning eliminated the Islanders with a 3-2 victory before a sellout crowd of 20,927 at the St. Pete Times Forum. . .
And looking ahead:
. . . The 2004-05 season will mark two anniversaries for the Islanders as it will be the 25th anniversary of the first Stanley Cup winning season and the 30th anniversary of the 1974-75 season that featured the Islanders' remarkable first trip to the Stanley Cup playoffs.
Whether your team wins or not, ice hockey is one of the most exciting sports there is. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
LAMBETH CONFIDENTIAL
ITV reports:
Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey was robbed while walking his dog in a London park at 4am on Saturday but asked police not to investigate the crime, it has emerged.
Spacey, 44, said he was "conned" into handing over his mobile phone which was subsequently stolen in the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park in Lambeth, south London, but later asked police officers to drop the case after reporting it.
Spacey said: "What actually happened is, I fell for a con. And I was, I think, incredibly embarrassed by it. Some sob story about somebody needing to call their mother and could they use my phone.
"It was such a good con, that I actually dialled the number myself and when somebody answered I then finally handed (over) my phone. And this kid took off and I was so upset I ran after him.
"It was late in the morning and I was walking my dog, it was about 4am, and I tripped up over my dog, and I ended up falling on to the street and hitting myself in the head. . .
But after reporting the crime, naturally Spacey started feeling sorry -- or more like a mug, than a victim:
. . . Spacey said that after a few hours' sleep he had a change of heart about reporting the crime.
"I thought you know there is a difference between assault and theft and it just wasn't on for me to not come clean about my own level of embarrassment and being humble at the fact that I got taken by the oldest con going.". . .
Actually, this is no joke. Spacey is having second thoughts because he feels foolish. He shouldn't. After all, at the very least, due to the report by Spacey, police know something very wrong went on there.
And because Spacey has chosen to report that crime, another person, walking in the same park days or weeks from now, may not now find himself or herself a victim of the same little slug. (For what it's worth, the park's web site is found through Southwark.gov.uk, not Lambeth.gov.uk.)
Yes, maybe the slug would just have taken the phone, as he did to Spacey. No big deal. Just embarrassment for the person, in the same manner as Spacey is embarrassed now.
Maybe . . .
Or, perhaps the slug and, maybe some "friends" (who appeared from nowhere, suddenly), would have beaten the daylights out of another dog walker who wasn't so cooperative, in obligingly handing over a phone.
Indeed, if Spacey hadn't handed over his phone, maybe HE would have had HIS teeth kicked out? Or perhaps even much worse -- and final? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
ITV reports:
Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey was robbed while walking his dog in a London park at 4am on Saturday but asked police not to investigate the crime, it has emerged.
Spacey, 44, said he was "conned" into handing over his mobile phone which was subsequently stolen in the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park in Lambeth, south London, but later asked police officers to drop the case after reporting it.
Spacey said: "What actually happened is, I fell for a con. And I was, I think, incredibly embarrassed by it. Some sob story about somebody needing to call their mother and could they use my phone.
"It was such a good con, that I actually dialled the number myself and when somebody answered I then finally handed (over) my phone. And this kid took off and I was so upset I ran after him.
"It was late in the morning and I was walking my dog, it was about 4am, and I tripped up over my dog, and I ended up falling on to the street and hitting myself in the head. . .
But after reporting the crime, naturally Spacey started feeling sorry -- or more like a mug, than a victim:
. . . Spacey said that after a few hours' sleep he had a change of heart about reporting the crime.
"I thought you know there is a difference between assault and theft and it just wasn't on for me to not come clean about my own level of embarrassment and being humble at the fact that I got taken by the oldest con going.". . .
Actually, this is no joke. Spacey is having second thoughts because he feels foolish. He shouldn't. After all, at the very least, due to the report by Spacey, police know something very wrong went on there.
And because Spacey has chosen to report that crime, another person, walking in the same park days or weeks from now, may not now find himself or herself a victim of the same little slug. (For what it's worth, the park's web site is found through Southwark.gov.uk, not Lambeth.gov.uk.)
Yes, maybe the slug would just have taken the phone, as he did to Spacey. No big deal. Just embarrassment for the person, in the same manner as Spacey is embarrassed now.
Maybe . . .
Or, perhaps the slug and, maybe some "friends" (who appeared from nowhere, suddenly), would have beaten the daylights out of another dog walker who wasn't so cooperative, in obligingly handing over a phone.
Indeed, if Spacey hadn't handed over his phone, maybe HE would have had HIS teeth kicked out? Or perhaps even much worse -- and final? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
GOOD MORNING MANCHESTER
The BBC reports that early today:
Police in Manchester have carried out raids under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Parts of Upper Brook Street, a main arterial route close to Manchester University, have been closed.
Police said a number of search warrants were executed on Monday morning, but more details would not be released until later. . .
They're probably just trying to catch TV license non-payers, while they're illegally viewing BBC "Breakfast". ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
The BBC reports that early today:
Police in Manchester have carried out raids under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Parts of Upper Brook Street, a main arterial route close to Manchester University, have been closed.
Police said a number of search warrants were executed on Monday morning, but more details would not be released until later. . .
They're probably just trying to catch TV license non-payers, while they're illegally viewing BBC "Breakfast". ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
"100 UNIQUE REPRISALS"
In March, the Israelis got Yassin. And now, in April, they got his "successor", Rantisi. Not surprisingly, the Hamas followers seem a tad perturbed. The A.P. reports:
Hamas threatened "100 unique reprisals" against Israel for killing its leader, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, as hundreds of thousands of mourners flooded the streets Sunday in a show of strength and fury.
It wasn't clear if the Islamic militant group was strong enough to carry out large-scale attacks after a sustained two-year Israeli campaign against it. Despite promises of revenge, Hamas still has not struck in the three weeks since Israel assassinated Rantisi's predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Hamas chose a replacement for Rantisi on Sunday, but did not disclose his name — a clear sign at least that the group is on the defensive in the face of Israeli attacks ahead of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. . .
One in March. One in April. Clearly, for some time to come, leading Hamas is likely best done in, shall we say, a rather "lower key" manner than was the case in the past.
But good news, of course, is hard to keep under wraps. Tim Blair tells us the new Hamas leader is a Mahmoud Zahar. . .
. . . Or, a gentleman perhaps soon to be better known as "May's Bullseye"? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
In March, the Israelis got Yassin. And now, in April, they got his "successor", Rantisi. Not surprisingly, the Hamas followers seem a tad perturbed. The A.P. reports:
Hamas threatened "100 unique reprisals" against Israel for killing its leader, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, as hundreds of thousands of mourners flooded the streets Sunday in a show of strength and fury.
It wasn't clear if the Islamic militant group was strong enough to carry out large-scale attacks after a sustained two-year Israeli campaign against it. Despite promises of revenge, Hamas still has not struck in the three weeks since Israel assassinated Rantisi's predecessor, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Hamas chose a replacement for Rantisi on Sunday, but did not disclose his name — a clear sign at least that the group is on the defensive in the face of Israeli attacks ahead of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. . .
One in March. One in April. Clearly, for some time to come, leading Hamas is likely best done in, shall we say, a rather "lower key" manner than was the case in the past.
But good news, of course, is hard to keep under wraps. Tim Blair tells us the new Hamas leader is a Mahmoud Zahar. . .
. . . Or, a gentleman perhaps soon to be better known as "May's Bullseye"? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
U.K. ON E.U.
CNN reports:
British voters are likely to be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the planned European Union constitution, a move that would mark a major U-turn by the government, newspapers reported on Sunday.
The EU constitution, yet to be finalized, is aimed at ensuring the smooth running of the bloc after it expands from 15 to 25 members in May. Once agreed, it has to be approved unanimously by the 15 existing members and 10 newcomers.
Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has so far resisted calls from the opposition Conservatives to put the issue before the public, arguing that ratification by parliament is sufficient. . .
The media has been making a big deal about Tony's supposed "flip-flop."
I haven't followed this all that closely, but the funny thing is, I don't recall Blair's ever having publicly previously COMMITTED the government to an unalterable, ANTI-referendum position. Yes, there appeared to be debate within the government, while a "PRO" or "ANTI" decision was being reached. But it was always newspapers and other media who told us of his "ANTI" view.
So, now, naturally, with a "PRO" decision apparently to be unveiled shortly, the anti-Blair media are trying to make it look like "Tony switched".
Yeh, whatever. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
CNN reports:
British voters are likely to be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the planned European Union constitution, a move that would mark a major U-turn by the government, newspapers reported on Sunday.
The EU constitution, yet to be finalized, is aimed at ensuring the smooth running of the bloc after it expands from 15 to 25 members in May. Once agreed, it has to be approved unanimously by the 15 existing members and 10 newcomers.
Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has so far resisted calls from the opposition Conservatives to put the issue before the public, arguing that ratification by parliament is sufficient. . .
The media has been making a big deal about Tony's supposed "flip-flop."
I haven't followed this all that closely, but the funny thing is, I don't recall Blair's ever having publicly previously COMMITTED the government to an unalterable, ANTI-referendum position. Yes, there appeared to be debate within the government, while a "PRO" or "ANTI" decision was being reached. But it was always newspapers and other media who told us of his "ANTI" view.
So, now, naturally, with a "PRO" decision apparently to be unveiled shortly, the anti-Blair media are trying to make it look like "Tony switched".
Yeh, whatever. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
SPAIN OUT
The BBC reports:
. . . Spain's new prime minister confirmed on Sunday that he wanted Spain's troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible". . .
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he had decided to recall the 1,300 Spanish soldiers based in Iraq because he could not ignore what he called the will of the Spanish people.
Spain's foreign minister told his Egyptian counterpart the pull-out would be "within 15 days", the Egyptian foreign ministry said in a statement. . .
The BBC's "man in Washington" tells us:
. . .The loss of any member will put a dent in President George W Bush's image of the "coalition of the willing" and will create concerns of a possible domino effect among other countries with troops stationed in Iraq. . .
Actually, it just means that there is one less country that appears "willing." Such is life. Democratic Spain has a right to withdraw its troops, if that is the will of the Spanish people.
But as I noted at the time of Zapatero's victory, in implementing the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, Spain's governing socialists should immediately also desist from perpetually moaning about Western democracies' not standing up for then socialist-led Spain in its struggle with Franco's fascists during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). That "guilt debt" is now thoroughly repaid, by Spain's pulling out of Iraq -- another country needing the help of democracies (like Spain) in its battle to overcome totalitarianism.
Yesterday, Being American in Toronto, Ontario noted:
Looks like Zapatero is taking bin Laden up on his offer of a truce (Spain plans quick pull out of Iraq.)
I don't know if he'll go all the way and withdraw from Afghanistan, though. Does bin Laden do compromise?
Here's our first real chance to test that "Mowlam theory". Maybe bin Laden should be invited to Stormont, for the talks? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
The BBC reports:
. . . Spain's new prime minister confirmed on Sunday that he wanted Spain's troops out of Iraq "as soon as possible". . .
Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he had decided to recall the 1,300 Spanish soldiers based in Iraq because he could not ignore what he called the will of the Spanish people.
Spain's foreign minister told his Egyptian counterpart the pull-out would be "within 15 days", the Egyptian foreign ministry said in a statement. . .
The BBC's "man in Washington" tells us:
. . .The loss of any member will put a dent in President George W Bush's image of the "coalition of the willing" and will create concerns of a possible domino effect among other countries with troops stationed in Iraq. . .
Actually, it just means that there is one less country that appears "willing." Such is life. Democratic Spain has a right to withdraw its troops, if that is the will of the Spanish people.
But as I noted at the time of Zapatero's victory, in implementing the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, Spain's governing socialists should immediately also desist from perpetually moaning about Western democracies' not standing up for then socialist-led Spain in its struggle with Franco's fascists during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). That "guilt debt" is now thoroughly repaid, by Spain's pulling out of Iraq -- another country needing the help of democracies (like Spain) in its battle to overcome totalitarianism.
Yesterday, Being American in Toronto, Ontario noted:
Looks like Zapatero is taking bin Laden up on his offer of a truce (Spain plans quick pull out of Iraq.)
I don't know if he'll go all the way and withdraw from Afghanistan, though. Does bin Laden do compromise?
Here's our first real chance to test that "Mowlam theory". Maybe bin Laden should be invited to Stormont, for the talks? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 19, 2004
Sunday, April 18, 2004
THOSE KERRY RETURNS
Just as I am getting caught up on what's been written over the last week and a half, I stumble across the fact that Eric, "Viking Pundit," has been "Instapundited."
Wow, I was running errands all day and came back to a mini-Instalanche. The megaphone of the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds, picked up on my story of John Kerry's missing Massachusetts state tax returns. I was afraid this story was going to fade away, but now I feel it may have new life. Thanks, Professor!
And, for Eric, "blogging life" may never be the same. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 18, 2004
Just as I am getting caught up on what's been written over the last week and a half, I stumble across the fact that Eric, "Viking Pundit," has been "Instapundited."
Wow, I was running errands all day and came back to a mini-Instalanche. The megaphone of the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds, picked up on my story of John Kerry's missing Massachusetts state tax returns. I was afraid this story was going to fade away, but now I feel it may have new life. Thanks, Professor!
And, for Eric, "blogging life" may never be the same. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 18, 2004
NOTHING LIKE A REASONABLE DISCUSSION
Visiting with one relative during our week in the States, I had the privilege of having a thoughtful, understanding and useful exchange of views, on the Iraq battle and the overall war on Islamist terror. If you honor me by popping by here regularly, you know my views. My relation's were, umm, shall we say, different. The "debate", such as it was, tended to go along the following, all too familiar, lines:
Relative claims that the battle of Iraq is nothing but an imperialist, Halliburton oil grab.
Yours Truly responds that it is not, but is reasonably part of the overall war on the root causes of Islamist terror.
Relative claims that "Those people" -- the Bush administration -- "are fu-king EVIL!"
Relative then angrily proclaims that Iraq had and has nothing to do with terror, and if the U.S. would stop backing Israel "100 percent of the time" we would have less trouble.
Yours Truly responds that the U.S. never backs Israel "100 percent of the time" and for those who wish Israel destroyed backing it even "1 percent of the time" would still make us targets.
Then, in a situation where sanity seems fast slipping away, Yours Truly notes that there are serious points to be made regarding Saddamite involvement in terror, and tries to offer a couple of examples, such as al Qaeda-style groups attacking Kurds in the north, PRIOR to the fall of Saddam.
Relative eloquently notes that "That's BULLS--T!"
Relative then screeches that U.S. deserved attacks on September 11, for it gave Americans a taste of what it is to be beaten on, as America supposedly always beats on everyone else.
Yours Truly finally gets a bit excited at that, and informs relative that he should stop reading Michael Moore.
Relative flatly denies reading that gentleman (Hours later, Yours Truly sees a Moore hardcover book in plain sight, on Relative's desk.) and exclaims loudly that "He's" -- President Bush -- "a MORON!"
Ah, nothing like rational debate. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 18, 2004
Visiting with one relative during our week in the States, I had the privilege of having a thoughtful, understanding and useful exchange of views, on the Iraq battle and the overall war on Islamist terror. If you honor me by popping by here regularly, you know my views. My relation's were, umm, shall we say, different. The "debate", such as it was, tended to go along the following, all too familiar, lines:
Relative claims that the battle of Iraq is nothing but an imperialist, Halliburton oil grab.
Yours Truly responds that it is not, but is reasonably part of the overall war on the root causes of Islamist terror.
Relative claims that "Those people" -- the Bush administration -- "are fu-king EVIL!"
Relative then angrily proclaims that Iraq had and has nothing to do with terror, and if the U.S. would stop backing Israel "100 percent of the time" we would have less trouble.
Yours Truly responds that the U.S. never backs Israel "100 percent of the time" and for those who wish Israel destroyed backing it even "1 percent of the time" would still make us targets.
Then, in a situation where sanity seems fast slipping away, Yours Truly notes that there are serious points to be made regarding Saddamite involvement in terror, and tries to offer a couple of examples, such as al Qaeda-style groups attacking Kurds in the north, PRIOR to the fall of Saddam.
Relative eloquently notes that "That's BULLS--T!"
Relative then screeches that U.S. deserved attacks on September 11, for it gave Americans a taste of what it is to be beaten on, as America supposedly always beats on everyone else.
Yours Truly finally gets a bit excited at that, and informs relative that he should stop reading Michael Moore.
Relative flatly denies reading that gentleman (Hours later, Yours Truly sees a Moore hardcover book in plain sight, on Relative's desk.) and exclaims loudly that "He's" -- President Bush -- "a MORON!"
Ah, nothing like rational debate. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 18, 2004
Saturday, April 17, 2004
BUSH AS ANOTHER WILSON?
We just got back from a week with my parents in New York. (More on that in further posts.) While there, I found myself picking up the NY Daily News. (Online, I prefer the New York Post.) In the print edition, I stumbled across two columns re-printed in the News by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.
Those two columns by Cohen were, urrr, masterpieces . . . and I believe are worth noting.
In the first, as it appeared in the New York Daily News on Tuesday:
Cohen continues:
Most interestingly, overall, is this: In Cohen's view, George W. Bush is both a flaming unilateralist and a Wilsonian idealist.
Hey, if it works for ya, right?
The problem is, it doesn't.
Presumably, Cohen is aware that a Wilsonian's goal is actually to make the world a better place THROUGH the USE of international institutions? President Wilson himself ultimately staked his presidency and physically and mentally wore himself out -- thus probably costing himself his own life -- trying to get the U.S. to join his "naive" League of Nations. (The U.S. never did join the League.)
And, presumably, Cohen knows as well that the defunct League formed the basis for the United Nations, when it was founded in 1945? If there is ONE person who might be considered the father of the League, and thus the grandfather of the U.N., it is that "naive" Woodrow Wilson.
If Richard Cohen and those like him are going to try to sound slick when tossing stones, they might at least help us out by getting their characterizations and definitions straight before trying to do so.
Indeed, is Cohen actually claiming that Bush is setting himself up to be another Woodrow Wilson? Hey, Bush could do much worse. After all, for Wilson's "naive" efforts "to reorder the world" -- which in fact did help change the world enough to lead to the creation eventually of the U.N., that body which today appears apparently to be the only repository of "international legitimacy" in the eyes of the Cohens out there -- Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize.
And if Bush is another Woodrow Wilson, where then does that leave those who think as Richard Cohen? ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 17, 2004
We just got back from a week with my parents in New York. (More on that in further posts.) While there, I found myself picking up the NY Daily News. (Online, I prefer the New York Post.) In the print edition, I stumbled across two columns re-printed in the News by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.
Those two columns by Cohen were, urrr, masterpieces . . . and I believe are worth noting.
In the first, as it appeared in the New York Daily News on Tuesday:
Here are the reasons Iraq is not Vietnam: It is a desert, not a jungle. The enemy is not protected and supplied by major powers such as the Soviet Union or China, not to mention a formidable front-line state such as North Vietnam.After further developing his notions on how the battle of Iraq and the U.S. experience in Vietnam are much the same . . . 'cept when they are different, Cohen managed to better himself a couple of days later, when, in Friday's Daily News he shared this gem with us all. I believe it is worth examining closely:
The Iraqis are not, like the Vietnamese, a single culture fighting a long-term war of liberation from colonial masters. They are fragmented by religion and language, and they have been independent ever since the British left, lo these many years ago.
In almost every way but one, Iraq is not Vietnam. Here's the one: We don't know what the hell we're doing. . .
Bush's pipe dreamI watched the same news conference. To me, Bush's demeanor far more resembled a man who has apparently grown utterly weary of repeatedly having to explain to people like Richard Cohen just how and why "6 x 3 = 18."
The term of the moment in Washington is "the wall." This is the legal barrier that once separated the CIA from the FBI and which may have contributed to the confusion that enabled the attacks of 9/11. A more interesting wall, however, was on view Tuesday evening in President Bush's news conference. It's the one between him and reality.
Never mind that even for Bush, this was a poor performance - answers that resembled a frantic scavenger hunt for the right (or any) word or, too often, a thought. Never mind that he really had very little to say - not, for example, an exit plan for Iraq, no second thoughts about 9/11, not even wonderment at the apparent disappearance of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and how that might have happened.
Like a kid who has been told otherwise, Bush persists in believing in his own version of Santa Claus. The weapons are there, somewhere - in a North Pole of his mind.
Cohen continues:
What matters more, is the phrase Bush used five times in one way or another: "We're changing the world." He used it always in reference to the war in Iraq and in ways that would make even Woodrow Wilson, that personification of naive morality, shake his head in bemusement. In Bush's rhetoric, a war to rid Saddam of his WMD, a war to ensure that Condoleezza Rice's "mushroom cloud" did not appear over an American city, has mutated into an effort to reorder the world.Oh, good grief. One is left stunned. Did Cohen just deride, of all people, Woodrow Wilson, as that "that personification of naive morality?" Remember that, as you read on:
"I also know that there's a historic opportunity here to change the world," Bush said of the effort in Iraq. The next sentence was even more disquieting. "And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better." It is one thing to die to defend your country. It is quite another to do that for one man's impossible dream. What Bush wants is admirable. It is not, however, attainable.
Several investigative commissions are now looking into intelligence failures - everything from the failure to detect and intercept the terrorist attack of 9/11 to the assertion that Iraq was armed to the teeth with all sort of awful stuff. But what really has to be examined is how a single man, the President, took the nation and part of the world to war because, as he essentially put it Tuesday night, he was "called" to do it.So, in Cohen's world, Bush is "a barely elected President" (that one is president or one isn't president, that there is no "barely", is lost on Cohen -- but that's the least of Cohen's problems) and essentially a unilateralist, who pushed for an unnecessary war.
If that is the case, and it sure seems so at the moment, then this commission has to ask us all - and I don't exclude myself - how much of Congress and the press went to war with an air of juvenile glee. The Commission on Credulous Stupidity may call me as its first witness, but after that it has to examine how, despite our vaunted separation of powers, a barely elected President opted for a war that need not have been fought.
This is Bush's cause, a noble but irrational effort much like the one that set off for Jerusalem in 1212. It was known as the Children's Crusade.The other day Iraq was a lot like Vietnam . . . except when it isn't like Vietnam. A couple of days later it is like the "Children's Crusade". We await eagerly Cohen's upcoming columns and his other tortured analogies.
Most interestingly, overall, is this: In Cohen's view, George W. Bush is both a flaming unilateralist and a Wilsonian idealist.
Hey, if it works for ya, right?
The problem is, it doesn't.
Presumably, Cohen is aware that a Wilsonian's goal is actually to make the world a better place THROUGH the USE of international institutions? President Wilson himself ultimately staked his presidency and physically and mentally wore himself out -- thus probably costing himself his own life -- trying to get the U.S. to join his "naive" League of Nations. (The U.S. never did join the League.)
And, presumably, Cohen knows as well that the defunct League formed the basis for the United Nations, when it was founded in 1945? If there is ONE person who might be considered the father of the League, and thus the grandfather of the U.N., it is that "naive" Woodrow Wilson.
If Richard Cohen and those like him are going to try to sound slick when tossing stones, they might at least help us out by getting their characterizations and definitions straight before trying to do so.
Indeed, is Cohen actually claiming that Bush is setting himself up to be another Woodrow Wilson? Hey, Bush could do much worse. After all, for Wilson's "naive" efforts "to reorder the world" -- which in fact did help change the world enough to lead to the creation eventually of the U.N., that body which today appears apparently to be the only repository of "international legitimacy" in the eyes of the Cohens out there -- Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize.
And if Bush is another Woodrow Wilson, where then does that leave those who think as Richard Cohen? ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 17, 2004
Friday, April 09, 2004
A PAUSE
Unless something extra important happens -- like they catch bin Laden or Saddam Hussein gets the Democratic nod for vice president -- I have to take a break for a week, and will be back around April 17.
In the meantime, pop over and check out other "friends of freedom", who will undoubtedly be doing their normally stellar jobs pointing out global insanity and how best to combat it:
Being American in Toronto, Ontario
Bluebook Authority, The
Daily Ablution, The
Erik Svane
Expat Egghead and Cathy
Free Thought
In Notts Forest
Insults Unpunished
Last Night's BBC News
Murdoc Online
No Pasarán!
USS Neverdock
Viking Pundit
Yankee From Mississippi
And have a great Easter. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 09, 2004
Unless something extra important happens -- like they catch bin Laden or Saddam Hussein gets the Democratic nod for vice president -- I have to take a break for a week, and will be back around April 17.
In the meantime, pop over and check out other "friends of freedom", who will undoubtedly be doing their normally stellar jobs pointing out global insanity and how best to combat it:
Being American in Toronto, Ontario
Bluebook Authority, The
Daily Ablution, The
Erik Svane
Expat Egghead and Cathy
Free Thought
In Notts Forest
Insults Unpunished
Last Night's BBC News
Murdoc Online
No Pasarán!
USS Neverdock
Viking Pundit
Yankee From Mississippi
And have a great Easter. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 09, 2004
Thursday, April 08, 2004
IS THIS PERHAPS THE MOST WRONGHEADED OF ALL?
Ananova has this:
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam has called on the British and American governments to open talks with Osama bin Laden and al Qaida around a negotiating table.
The former Labour MP for Redcar said that by carrying out military campaigns in the Middle East, Britain and the US were acting as a "recruitment officer for the terrorists".
In a television interview which will be broadcast on Easter Sunday, she described the current hardline approach to the war on terror as "completely counter-productive".
Ms Mowlam told Tyne Tees TV's Sunday Interview that Britain and America must open a dialogue with their enemies.
Interviewer Tony Cartledge asked if she could imagine "al Qaida and Osama bin Laden arriving at the negotiating table".
She replied: "You have to do that. If you do not you condemn large parts of the world to war forever.
"Some people couldn't conceive of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness getting to the table but they did."
She added: "If you go in with guns and bombs, you act as a recruitment officer for the terrorists.". . .
Where does one begin? Well, let's just confine outselves to the immediate issue she raises: Mowlam could not miss the point more, when she compares al Qaeda to Sinn Fein and the I.R.A. Why?
Whether or not one agrees with the uniting, or reuniting (depending on one's perspective) of the island of Ireland under one government, housed in Dublin, the overall issue is a readily rational one. It can be argued and can to some extent be negotiated. There is even some solution, although whatever it is will never be to everyone's liking, of course.
Most importantly, those on the many sides of the "Irish issue", while they might at times loathe each other, are not demented, flippin' pre-medieval, lunatics.
Which is why there is no way to negotiate with al Qaeda and its offshoots and most importantly, the mentality which has already created them. That's because the goal of its adherents is, more or less, the Islamization of the world. It is nothing short of freakin' insanity, writ global.
Mowlam's "analysis", such as it is, is therefore perhaps the single, most wrongheaded characterization of the conflict I think I have ever heard. And considering the wide variety of nutcases running around out there, that's saying a lot. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
Ananova has this:
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam has called on the British and American governments to open talks with Osama bin Laden and al Qaida around a negotiating table.
The former Labour MP for Redcar said that by carrying out military campaigns in the Middle East, Britain and the US were acting as a "recruitment officer for the terrorists".
In a television interview which will be broadcast on Easter Sunday, she described the current hardline approach to the war on terror as "completely counter-productive".
Ms Mowlam told Tyne Tees TV's Sunday Interview that Britain and America must open a dialogue with their enemies.
Interviewer Tony Cartledge asked if she could imagine "al Qaida and Osama bin Laden arriving at the negotiating table".
She replied: "You have to do that. If you do not you condemn large parts of the world to war forever.
"Some people couldn't conceive of Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness getting to the table but they did."
She added: "If you go in with guns and bombs, you act as a recruitment officer for the terrorists.". . .
Where does one begin? Well, let's just confine outselves to the immediate issue she raises: Mowlam could not miss the point more, when she compares al Qaeda to Sinn Fein and the I.R.A. Why?
Whether or not one agrees with the uniting, or reuniting (depending on one's perspective) of the island of Ireland under one government, housed in Dublin, the overall issue is a readily rational one. It can be argued and can to some extent be negotiated. There is even some solution, although whatever it is will never be to everyone's liking, of course.
Most importantly, those on the many sides of the "Irish issue", while they might at times loathe each other, are not demented, flippin' pre-medieval, lunatics.
Which is why there is no way to negotiate with al Qaeda and its offshoots and most importantly, the mentality which has already created them. That's because the goal of its adherents is, more or less, the Islamization of the world. It is nothing short of freakin' insanity, writ global.
Mowlam's "analysis", such as it is, is therefore perhaps the single, most wrongheaded characterization of the conflict I think I have ever heard. And considering the wide variety of nutcases running around out there, that's saying a lot. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
"VIGILANT RESOLVE" AND OPERATION "GET THE 'CLERIC' " (THURSDAY)
NOTE: Newer updates higher up.
UPDATE XVI: Now, for some sanity. American Forces Press Service has this today:
Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7, said during a briefing from Baghdad that the coalition will not allow thugs, extremists and terrorists to stop the transition to Iraqi sovereignty or to try to control the country with a violent power play. . .
. . . He said the Marines are experts at civil-military operations and will bring substantial resources to improve the quality of life in Fallujah. Sanchez said coalition forces are allowing food and humanitarian supplies into the city.
In the central and southern areas of Iraq, coalition forces have launched another operation dubbed Resolute Sword. This operation is aimed directly at the militia forces of Muqtada al-Sadr. Pentagon officials said Sadr is a minor Shiia cleric who is launching a power play to increase his stature in the country as transfer of sovereignty approaches. The cleric is anti-American and has urged followers to kill coalition forces. . .
. . .Helping the command is the fact that it is in the midst of a major troop rotation, and this provides an increased number of U.S. troops in the country. "We are taking advantage of these forces, and we will manage the redeployment to give us the combat power that is necessary to accomplish the mission at hand," he said.
The current coalition strength troop strength in Iraq is about 160,000 -- 134,000 Americans. More than 200,000 Iraqis serve in the country's security forces. . .
UPDATE XV: Surprise. Surprise. Sky has dug up Robin Cook:
. . . "A number of changes need to be made if we are going to recover the situation in Iraq.
"The first and most compelling of those is that the US forces have got to stop acting like warriors and start acting like peacekeepers". . .
For goodness sake, just what does the clueless Cook think they were doing BEFORE last weekend?
And, just curious: How does one behave like a "peacekeeper", in the middle of a battle?
UPDATE XIV: Sky reports:
An Iraqi group has threatened to kill three Japanese hostages within three days.
Elsewhere, eight South Koreans and a Briton have also been kidnapped in Iraq.
Arab TV station Al Jazeera reports that, if the Japanese government fails to pull out its troops by the deadline, the group will burn the three hostages alive. . .
. . . And those are the "moderates."
The "Geneva Convention, P.O.W. protection crowd" could not be reached for comment.
UPDATE XIII: Having seen the entire British Expeditionary Force cut off and trapped around the port of Dunkirk, the Blair government is even now meeting in emergency session, to consider asking the now unstoppable and triumphant Baathists/Islamists if they might care to talk terms. The BBC reports:
. . .The heaviest of the fighting has been reported in Falluja.
A correspondent for French news agency AFP, told the BBC there was a constant rumble of explosions throughout the city - some caused by mortars and rockets fired by the insurgents. . .
Can nothing stop them? Do we have anything at all left? Anything?
UPDATE XII: The A.P. reports:
Shiite Muslim militias held partial control Thursday over three southern Iraqi cities, while Sunni insurgents killed a U.S. Marine in the battle for Fallujah. In escalating violence, gunmen kidnapped three Japanese and eight South Korean civilians.
The militia led by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has full control over the city of Kut and partial control in Najaf, but coalition forces will move soon to break their hold, said Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq said. Residents of Kufa said militiamen also control that southern city by holding police stations and government buildings.
In a videotape broadcast to the Arab world by Al-Jazeera, kidnappers armed with automatic rifles and swords threatened to kill the blindfolded Japanese hostages unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq. . .
Just like the good, ol' days we all remember, in Beirut, in the lovely 1980s. Ah, to be young again. . .
And the "Geneva Convention, P.O.W. protection crowd" is, uh, WHERE exactly?
UPDATE XI: The Nazi counteroffensive continues. Where might it be halted? The Meuse? Antwerp? Euronews (short lived link, 1300 British time) tells us:
. . .The coalition no longer controls the central Shia holy city of Najaf now that Spanish troops have withdrawn ahead of April 12, the second holiest religious day for the Shia community. It has also lost control of the southern city of Kut after Ukrainian troops withdrew on Wednesday when they came under heavy attack. . .
Najaf and Kut. Next, Topeka?
UPDATE X: With Condoleezza Rice due before the "9-11 Commission" today, Insults Unpunished notes that at least one commission member has a rather less than "nuanced" view about the battle of Iraq:
Bob Kerrey, not to be confused with John Kerry though both were Senators, supports the war with Iraq and sees it, properly, as a part of the war against terrorism. He's right that the terrorists despise the idea of a free Iraq, an oasis of freedom in a sea of despots, and that is playing a big role in the uptick in violence. The insurgents and terrorists want either a Ba'athist dictatorship or a Muslim theocracy. With the United States leading the charge they will get neither.
UPDATE IX: Murdoc:
. . . There is certainly a lot yet to be done, but our troops seem to be getting a handle on things. Those that suggested we weren't going into Fallujah because we were unable to appear to have been quite wrong. We seem to have waited until our ducks were in a row, then launched our operations methodically. . .
UPDATE VIII: The issue of treatment of any prisoners taken by both sides in the current fighting has not been tackled much in the media. It may have to be. Sky reports:
A US General has denied claims by an Iraqi militia group that it is holding Spanish hostages and possibly an American.
The Spanish military has also "categorically" denied the claims made by militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
The militia is demanding the release of its Najaf-based leader Mustafa Yaacubi who was arrested by coalition forces on Saturday.
"We hold coalition hostages, most of them Spaniards, and possibly a US soldier, whom we want to swap against Mustafa al-Yaacubi", said Amar al-Husseini, a spokesman for Sadr in Baghdad's Shia stronghold of Sadr City. . .
If you think about it, though, when compared to suicide bombings aimed at families in restaurants, and "freedom fighters" crashing hijacked civilian aircraft into NY skyscrapers, ye good, ol' fashioned Middle Eastern "hostage taking" sounds almost downright . . . civilized.
UPDATE VII: Lileks:
. . . Questions: when the UN takes control before the hand-over, and refuses to authorize a military response to an assault on coalition troops, and the emboldened “rebels” kill a dozen Marines in a new attack, can we vote Kofi out of office? Can we sue Hans Blix?. . .
UPDATE VI: Victor Davis Hanson:
. . . Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?
No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty. . .
UPDATE V: While the BBC's reporting is generally anti-coalition and pro-Baathist/Islamist, it is rather predictable, and not hysterical. On the other hand, Britain's ITV is setting itself up for the scaremongering award of 2004. Get an eyefull of this nonsense (posted around 1000):
Coalition troops in Iraq are bracing themselves for more violence as chaos continues to spread across the country.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted the US-led forces are still in control but has warned of further bloodshed.
This week's intense fighting has killed 35 Coalition soldiers and several hundred Iraqis.
The descent into mayhem and murder has accelerated rapidly and Mosques have started broadcasting calls for a holy war. . .
Everybody, ready, set, and all together now . . . PANIC! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! They're coming!!!!!! Ahhhhh!
UPDATE IV: The A.P:
More than 280 Iraqis have been killed and 400 wounded this week in the U.S. Marines' siege of insurgents in this city west of Baghdad, the director of Fallujah's hospital said Thursday. . .
We are, of course, supposed to believe reports from a "news service" that also finds the phrase "the war over" in the first paragraph of a now famous speech.
UPDATE III: At 0740, the BBC is reporting:
. . .Operations were also continuing in the Sunni city of Falluja west of the capital - a day after the US military bombed a compound housing a mosque. . .
Ah, so now it's a compound "housing" a mosque. . .
Better. Better.
Still this would have been much better: - a day after the US military attacked a mosque compound, which defenders were using as if it were a section of the Maginot Line.
UPDATE II: The Daily Ablution's Scott Burgess:
Andrew Neil (Scotland's preeminent newspaper publisher) serves up a fine example of reportorial spin in his Evening Standard Media column (seemingly unavailable online) this afternoon.
In the item, headlined:
Blair is losing the media war in Iraq
Neil writes:
"Support for Anglo-American intervention in Iraq is waning fast in the British press as events there deteriorate.
"Only The Telegraph and the Murdoch press can be counted on as true believers in the coalition's mission."
Well, The Telegraph is the highest circulation broadsheet in the country. And the unnamed papers sneakily bundled together as "the Murdoch press" happen to be the Sun - the highest circulation newspaper in the UK - and the obscure, little-credited Times. . .
Read the rest.
UPDATE: CNN reports:
Coalition troops battled Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents separately in several key Iraq cities Wednesday, one day after suffering their deadliest ground attack
. . . hold it, hold it, wait, wait, here it comes; you know what's coming. Okay guys, print it!!!!
since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.
Ah, that's it.
At least CNN, unlike the A.P. and Ananova, is using the term "major combat."
The fundamental misconception for readers, however, remains. The context is clearly implying that somehow Bush had then declared that "the war" was really supposed to be, uh, yeh, "over."
The A.P. and Ananova, however, don't even bother to be "nuanced." They have reported -- flat out and incorrectly -- that Bush had said that the war was over.
This bears repeating, yet again. Here is the entire speech, on the White House web site. (Talk about DIFFICULT research!) And here is the forever misquoted and misconstrued opening paragraph:
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
And this is how the GENERAL IN CHARGE understood the president's words, when some eight days later General Franks told a briefing the following: (Again, it is "difficult research" -- being in a DOD transcript, visible to anyone with internet access.)
. . . As President Bush told the nation from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, decisive combat operations in Iraq have concluded, and the coalition today is focused on helping Iraqi people as they work to build a new country. Our forces still stand in harm's way and much dangerous work remains to be done. I have every expectation that we will continue to see pockets of resistance, and we will see pockets of instability and we will come across difficult situation[s] in the weeks and in the months ahead. But our forces are up to the task, and will remain committed to the task. . .
And the likes of the A.P. and Ananova consider Bush's words as meaning "the war is over"? And, come to think of it, that interpretation is especially clueless given that the only place the word "over" even appears in the entire address is in this sentence:
. . .The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. . .
Frankly, if they can't even read and report correctly a quote from what is perhaps Bush's most widely heard single address, how the hell are we supposed to trust ANYTHING ELSE they "report"?
INITIAL POST
Oh, help us. It begins again. At 0520 British time, the BBC reports:
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said US plans for Iraq will not be derailed by the surge in violence.
He said US-led forces had not lost control of the security situation, but some "seasoned" US troops in Iraq might be kept there longer than planned.
His comments came after the US military bombed a compound housing a mosque in the Sunni Muslim Iraqi town of Falluja.
Sounds horrific! The "horrific" death toll?
US officials initially said about 40 Iraqis were thought to have died, but the figure was later revised to one. . .
I have no idea what to do with that. One? Seriously? That isn't a Beeb typo, to be secretly fixed later?
Anyway, we'll see, as today goes on.
By the way, Kurt Cobain blew his own head off ten years ago. That is currently a big story on the Beeb's web site. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
NOTE: Newer updates higher up.
UPDATE XVI: Now, for some sanity. American Forces Press Service has this today:
Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7, said during a briefing from Baghdad that the coalition will not allow thugs, extremists and terrorists to stop the transition to Iraqi sovereignty or to try to control the country with a violent power play. . .
. . . He said the Marines are experts at civil-military operations and will bring substantial resources to improve the quality of life in Fallujah. Sanchez said coalition forces are allowing food and humanitarian supplies into the city.
In the central and southern areas of Iraq, coalition forces have launched another operation dubbed Resolute Sword. This operation is aimed directly at the militia forces of Muqtada al-Sadr. Pentagon officials said Sadr is a minor Shiia cleric who is launching a power play to increase his stature in the country as transfer of sovereignty approaches. The cleric is anti-American and has urged followers to kill coalition forces. . .
. . .Helping the command is the fact that it is in the midst of a major troop rotation, and this provides an increased number of U.S. troops in the country. "We are taking advantage of these forces, and we will manage the redeployment to give us the combat power that is necessary to accomplish the mission at hand," he said.
The current coalition strength troop strength in Iraq is about 160,000 -- 134,000 Americans. More than 200,000 Iraqis serve in the country's security forces. . .
UPDATE XV: Surprise. Surprise. Sky has dug up Robin Cook:
. . . "A number of changes need to be made if we are going to recover the situation in Iraq.
"The first and most compelling of those is that the US forces have got to stop acting like warriors and start acting like peacekeepers". . .
For goodness sake, just what does the clueless Cook think they were doing BEFORE last weekend?
And, just curious: How does one behave like a "peacekeeper", in the middle of a battle?
UPDATE XIV: Sky reports:
An Iraqi group has threatened to kill three Japanese hostages within three days.
Elsewhere, eight South Koreans and a Briton have also been kidnapped in Iraq.
Arab TV station Al Jazeera reports that, if the Japanese government fails to pull out its troops by the deadline, the group will burn the three hostages alive. . .
. . . And those are the "moderates."
The "Geneva Convention, P.O.W. protection crowd" could not be reached for comment.
UPDATE XIII: Having seen the entire British Expeditionary Force cut off and trapped around the port of Dunkirk, the Blair government is even now meeting in emergency session, to consider asking the now unstoppable and triumphant Baathists/Islamists if they might care to talk terms. The BBC reports:
. . .The heaviest of the fighting has been reported in Falluja.
A correspondent for French news agency AFP, told the BBC there was a constant rumble of explosions throughout the city - some caused by mortars and rockets fired by the insurgents. . .
Can nothing stop them? Do we have anything at all left? Anything?
UPDATE XII: The A.P. reports:
Shiite Muslim militias held partial control Thursday over three southern Iraqi cities, while Sunni insurgents killed a U.S. Marine in the battle for Fallujah. In escalating violence, gunmen kidnapped three Japanese and eight South Korean civilians.
The militia led by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has full control over the city of Kut and partial control in Najaf, but coalition forces will move soon to break their hold, said Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq said. Residents of Kufa said militiamen also control that southern city by holding police stations and government buildings.
In a videotape broadcast to the Arab world by Al-Jazeera, kidnappers armed with automatic rifles and swords threatened to kill the blindfolded Japanese hostages unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq. . .
Just like the good, ol' days we all remember, in Beirut, in the lovely 1980s. Ah, to be young again. . .
And the "Geneva Convention, P.O.W. protection crowd" is, uh, WHERE exactly?
UPDATE XI: The Nazi counteroffensive continues. Where might it be halted? The Meuse? Antwerp? Euronews (short lived link, 1300 British time) tells us:
. . .The coalition no longer controls the central Shia holy city of Najaf now that Spanish troops have withdrawn ahead of April 12, the second holiest religious day for the Shia community. It has also lost control of the southern city of Kut after Ukrainian troops withdrew on Wednesday when they came under heavy attack. . .
Najaf and Kut. Next, Topeka?
UPDATE X: With Condoleezza Rice due before the "9-11 Commission" today, Insults Unpunished notes that at least one commission member has a rather less than "nuanced" view about the battle of Iraq:
Bob Kerrey, not to be confused with John Kerry though both were Senators, supports the war with Iraq and sees it, properly, as a part of the war against terrorism. He's right that the terrorists despise the idea of a free Iraq, an oasis of freedom in a sea of despots, and that is playing a big role in the uptick in violence. The insurgents and terrorists want either a Ba'athist dictatorship or a Muslim theocracy. With the United States leading the charge they will get neither.
UPDATE IX: Murdoc:
. . . There is certainly a lot yet to be done, but our troops seem to be getting a handle on things. Those that suggested we weren't going into Fallujah because we were unable to appear to have been quite wrong. We seem to have waited until our ducks were in a row, then launched our operations methodically. . .
UPDATE VIII: The issue of treatment of any prisoners taken by both sides in the current fighting has not been tackled much in the media. It may have to be. Sky reports:
A US General has denied claims by an Iraqi militia group that it is holding Spanish hostages and possibly an American.
The Spanish military has also "categorically" denied the claims made by militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr.
The militia is demanding the release of its Najaf-based leader Mustafa Yaacubi who was arrested by coalition forces on Saturday.
"We hold coalition hostages, most of them Spaniards, and possibly a US soldier, whom we want to swap against Mustafa al-Yaacubi", said Amar al-Husseini, a spokesman for Sadr in Baghdad's Shia stronghold of Sadr City. . .
If you think about it, though, when compared to suicide bombings aimed at families in restaurants, and "freedom fighters" crashing hijacked civilian aircraft into NY skyscrapers, ye good, ol' fashioned Middle Eastern "hostage taking" sounds almost downright . . . civilized.
UPDATE VII: Lileks:
. . . Questions: when the UN takes control before the hand-over, and refuses to authorize a military response to an assault on coalition troops, and the emboldened “rebels” kill a dozen Marines in a new attack, can we vote Kofi out of office? Can we sue Hans Blix?. . .
UPDATE VI: Victor Davis Hanson:
. . . Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?
No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty. . .
UPDATE V: While the BBC's reporting is generally anti-coalition and pro-Baathist/Islamist, it is rather predictable, and not hysterical. On the other hand, Britain's ITV is setting itself up for the scaremongering award of 2004. Get an eyefull of this nonsense (posted around 1000):
Coalition troops in Iraq are bracing themselves for more violence as chaos continues to spread across the country.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has insisted the US-led forces are still in control but has warned of further bloodshed.
This week's intense fighting has killed 35 Coalition soldiers and several hundred Iraqis.
The descent into mayhem and murder has accelerated rapidly and Mosques have started broadcasting calls for a holy war. . .
Everybody, ready, set, and all together now . . . PANIC! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! They're coming!!!!!! Ahhhhh!
UPDATE IV: The A.P:
More than 280 Iraqis have been killed and 400 wounded this week in the U.S. Marines' siege of insurgents in this city west of Baghdad, the director of Fallujah's hospital said Thursday. . .
We are, of course, supposed to believe reports from a "news service" that also finds the phrase "the war over" in the first paragraph of a now famous speech.
UPDATE III: At 0740, the BBC is reporting:
. . .Operations were also continuing in the Sunni city of Falluja west of the capital - a day after the US military bombed a compound housing a mosque. . .
Ah, so now it's a compound "housing" a mosque. . .
Better. Better.
Still this would have been much better: - a day after the US military attacked a mosque compound, which defenders were using as if it were a section of the Maginot Line.
UPDATE II: The Daily Ablution's Scott Burgess:
Andrew Neil (Scotland's preeminent newspaper publisher) serves up a fine example of reportorial spin in his Evening Standard Media column (seemingly unavailable online) this afternoon.
In the item, headlined:
Blair is losing the media war in Iraq
Neil writes:
"Support for Anglo-American intervention in Iraq is waning fast in the British press as events there deteriorate.
"Only The Telegraph and the Murdoch press can be counted on as true believers in the coalition's mission."
Well, The Telegraph is the highest circulation broadsheet in the country. And the unnamed papers sneakily bundled together as "the Murdoch press" happen to be the Sun - the highest circulation newspaper in the UK - and the obscure, little-credited Times. . .
Read the rest.
UPDATE: CNN reports:
Coalition troops battled Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents separately in several key Iraq cities Wednesday, one day after suffering their deadliest ground attack
. . . hold it, hold it, wait, wait, here it comes; you know what's coming. Okay guys, print it!!!!
since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.
Ah, that's it.
At least CNN, unlike the A.P. and Ananova, is using the term "major combat."
The fundamental misconception for readers, however, remains. The context is clearly implying that somehow Bush had then declared that "the war" was really supposed to be, uh, yeh, "over."
The A.P. and Ananova, however, don't even bother to be "nuanced." They have reported -- flat out and incorrectly -- that Bush had said that the war was over.
This bears repeating, yet again. Here is the entire speech, on the White House web site. (Talk about DIFFICULT research!) And here is the forever misquoted and misconstrued opening paragraph:
Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
And this is how the GENERAL IN CHARGE understood the president's words, when some eight days later General Franks told a briefing the following: (Again, it is "difficult research" -- being in a DOD transcript, visible to anyone with internet access.)
. . . As President Bush told the nation from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, decisive combat operations in Iraq have concluded, and the coalition today is focused on helping Iraqi people as they work to build a new country. Our forces still stand in harm's way and much dangerous work remains to be done. I have every expectation that we will continue to see pockets of resistance, and we will see pockets of instability and we will come across difficult situation[s] in the weeks and in the months ahead. But our forces are up to the task, and will remain committed to the task. . .
And the likes of the A.P. and Ananova consider Bush's words as meaning "the war is over"? And, come to think of it, that interpretation is especially clueless given that the only place the word "over" even appears in the entire address is in this sentence:
. . .The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. . .
Frankly, if they can't even read and report correctly a quote from what is perhaps Bush's most widely heard single address, how the hell are we supposed to trust ANYTHING ELSE they "report"?
INITIAL POST
Oh, help us. It begins again. At 0520 British time, the BBC reports:
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said US plans for Iraq will not be derailed by the surge in violence.
He said US-led forces had not lost control of the security situation, but some "seasoned" US troops in Iraq might be kept there longer than planned.
His comments came after the US military bombed a compound housing a mosque in the Sunni Muslim Iraqi town of Falluja.
Sounds horrific! The "horrific" death toll?
US officials initially said about 40 Iraqis were thought to have died, but the figure was later revised to one. . .
I have no idea what to do with that. One? Seriously? That isn't a Beeb typo, to be secretly fixed later?
Anyway, we'll see, as today goes on.
By the way, Kurt Cobain blew his own head off ten years ago. That is currently a big story on the Beeb's web site. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
A REVIEW DESTINED TO BE A CLASSIC
If you haven't yet seen this review of "Anti-Americanism" by Jean-Francois Revel, you will. In the Asia Times, John Parker writes:
All across the globe, from Sydney to Siberia, from Quebec to Patagonia, there is one sporting obsession that unifies the entire human race. Young and old, male and female, black, white and every shade in between, there is one pleasurable activity that unifies them all.
I'm speaking, of course, about America-bashing. (Why, did you think I was talking about something else?) By 2004, any remaining wisps of sympathy for the Americans who were forced to choose between jumping and burning alive in 2001 had long since dissipated, and the globe had returned to its former habit of treating the United States as the official whipping boy for all the world's ills.
Indeed, anti-Americanism has ascended from its former status as the preoccupation of a relative handful of Jurassic Marxists, professional victims, Third World whiners, and Islamo-fascist troglodytes to the level of a major new global religion. Like any religion, it has its saints (which include the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh), its martyrs (the Rosenbergs, the Guantanamo Bay detainees and Saddam Hussein's sons), its high priests (Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Abu Bakar Ba'asyir), and its desperately over-eager wanna-bes (eg, Asia Times Online's very own Pepe Escobar, whose viewpoint on any issue can be predicted with absolute accuracy by simply asking "what interpretation of this situation will put the United States in the worst light?").
Curiously, however, while the religion has a hell (America), and a devil (George W Bush), it lacks both a heaven (the collectivist pipe dream having been found wanting) and a god (since the anti-Americans consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need for a deity - save their Islamist faction, which wants to impose its religion forcibly on everyone else). Still, the anti-American cult provides its legions of drooling adherents with the crucial element of any faith: the illusion of meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. That priceless psychological salve, in this case, is the comforting delusion that, no matter how hypocritical, backward, bigoted, ignorant, corrupt or cowardly the cult's followers might otherwise be, at least they are better than those awful Americans. . .
(Via Viking Pundit.) ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
If you haven't yet seen this review of "Anti-Americanism" by Jean-Francois Revel, you will. In the Asia Times, John Parker writes:
All across the globe, from Sydney to Siberia, from Quebec to Patagonia, there is one sporting obsession that unifies the entire human race. Young and old, male and female, black, white and every shade in between, there is one pleasurable activity that unifies them all.
I'm speaking, of course, about America-bashing. (Why, did you think I was talking about something else?) By 2004, any remaining wisps of sympathy for the Americans who were forced to choose between jumping and burning alive in 2001 had long since dissipated, and the globe had returned to its former habit of treating the United States as the official whipping boy for all the world's ills.
Indeed, anti-Americanism has ascended from its former status as the preoccupation of a relative handful of Jurassic Marxists, professional victims, Third World whiners, and Islamo-fascist troglodytes to the level of a major new global religion. Like any religion, it has its saints (which include the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh), its martyrs (the Rosenbergs, the Guantanamo Bay detainees and Saddam Hussein's sons), its high priests (Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Abu Bakar Ba'asyir), and its desperately over-eager wanna-bes (eg, Asia Times Online's very own Pepe Escobar, whose viewpoint on any issue can be predicted with absolute accuracy by simply asking "what interpretation of this situation will put the United States in the worst light?").
Curiously, however, while the religion has a hell (America), and a devil (George W Bush), it lacks both a heaven (the collectivist pipe dream having been found wanting) and a god (since the anti-Americans consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need for a deity - save their Islamist faction, which wants to impose its religion forcibly on everyone else). Still, the anti-American cult provides its legions of drooling adherents with the crucial element of any faith: the illusion of meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. That priceless psychological salve, in this case, is the comforting delusion that, no matter how hypocritical, backward, bigoted, ignorant, corrupt or cowardly the cult's followers might otherwise be, at least they are better than those awful Americans. . .
(Via Viking Pundit.) ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 08, 2004
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
A STEYN OF SUNSHINE
Excessive viewing/reading of CNN, the BBC, the A.P., ITV and others has probably caused me more than enough stress for one day. Fortunately, Being American In Toronto, Ontario recommends a dose of, ah, Steyn:
. . . Any discomfort up your ass is due to excessive viewing of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, and a shaft of Steyn sunshine is precisely what it needs. My point in that column and my original Daily Telegraph column a year ago was a very simple one. Maybe you should stick it on the refrigerator. Here it comes:
When the media say something large and terrible is happening, it means something small and bad is happening.
When the media say something catastrophic is happening, it means (drumroll please)
…IT ISN’T!!!. . .
So, if you need a good dose of sunshine, read Steyn -- and turn off the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation for a while. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Excessive viewing/reading of CNN, the BBC, the A.P., ITV and others has probably caused me more than enough stress for one day. Fortunately, Being American In Toronto, Ontario recommends a dose of, ah, Steyn:
. . . Any discomfort up your ass is due to excessive viewing of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, and a shaft of Steyn sunshine is precisely what it needs. My point in that column and my original Daily Telegraph column a year ago was a very simple one. Maybe you should stick it on the refrigerator. Here it comes:
When the media say something large and terrible is happening, it means something small and bad is happening.
When the media say something catastrophic is happening, it means (drumroll please)
…IT ISN’T!!!. . .
So, if you need a good dose of sunshine, read Steyn -- and turn off the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation for a while. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
ALL THOSE AMERICAN BOYS
Watching the BBC news a little while ago, my gentle mother-in-law grimaced, "All those American boys dying."
Indeed. I'm furious. We all should be. Damn it! How did we freakin' get here?
We got here because of decades of neglect, stupidity, cupidity, foolishness, dimwittedness, gullibility, general idiocy, and an inability, until faced with no good choice, to realize that, yes, we do have enemies who don't want apologies, but who just want us dead, and our country brought to ruin.
They must be fought and defeated there, on ground of our time and choosing, or we will have to fight them elsewhere. Better those bastards face determined, well-equipped, increasingly battle-hardened U.S. Marines and other U.S. and coalition forces today (God Bless them all) in Iraq. For killing the bastards by the dozens and by the hundreds now will help reduce the chance that some time hence those bastards will be alive and able to take on helpless, defenseless American schoolchildren and their parents, and other civilians, on planes or on buses or in restaurants.
There is no reason to go all sour. The Forces have the bastards by the throat, and out in the open. Don't go wobbly. Support the troops. To paraphrase a general on the other side during the American Civil War: Kill 'em. Kill 'em all -- before they can kill us, our children, our parents, our friends, in America and in Europe and in civilized places around the world.
Because if we don't lick these slugs, be assured, they will do their utmost to lick us -- if not here, somewhere else, when we least expect it, perhaps after they have finished their flying lessons, and a few of them have gotten aboard a flight full of people going about their business, from "Somewhere" to "Somewhere else" U.S.A. . . .
UPDATE: April 8:
Sorry for writing that, quite that way; that's what comes out when you "post angry". And gosh was I angry . . . as well as really cranky. Regular visitors and friends know I am normally far more simply sarcastic and generally reasonable.
Indeed, given the smoke that was coming out of my ears -- which made it difficult even to see the screen -- how I was able to make the post even slightly coherent is, in and of itself, rather amazing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Watching the BBC news a little while ago, my gentle mother-in-law grimaced, "All those American boys dying."
Indeed. I'm furious. We all should be. Damn it! How did we freakin' get here?
We got here because of decades of neglect, stupidity, cupidity, foolishness, dimwittedness, gullibility, general idiocy, and an inability, until faced with no good choice, to realize that, yes, we do have enemies who don't want apologies, but who just want us dead, and our country brought to ruin.
They must be fought and defeated there, on ground of our time and choosing, or we will have to fight them elsewhere. Better those bastards face determined, well-equipped, increasingly battle-hardened U.S. Marines and other U.S. and coalition forces today (God Bless them all) in Iraq. For killing the bastards by the dozens and by the hundreds now will help reduce the chance that some time hence those bastards will be alive and able to take on helpless, defenseless American schoolchildren and their parents, and other civilians, on planes or on buses or in restaurants.
There is no reason to go all sour. The Forces have the bastards by the throat, and out in the open. Don't go wobbly. Support the troops. To paraphrase a general on the other side during the American Civil War: Kill 'em. Kill 'em all -- before they can kill us, our children, our parents, our friends, in America and in Europe and in civilized places around the world.
Because if we don't lick these slugs, be assured, they will do their utmost to lick us -- if not here, somewhere else, when we least expect it, perhaps after they have finished their flying lessons, and a few of them have gotten aboard a flight full of people going about their business, from "Somewhere" to "Somewhere else" U.S.A. . . .
UPDATE: April 8:
Sorry for writing that, quite that way; that's what comes out when you "post angry". And gosh was I angry . . . as well as really cranky. Regular visitors and friends know I am normally far more simply sarcastic and generally reasonable.
Indeed, given the smoke that was coming out of my ears -- which made it difficult even to see the screen -- how I was able to make the post even slightly coherent is, in and of itself, rather amazing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
"VIGILANT RESOLVE" II AND OPERATION "GET THE 'CLERIC' "
NOTE: Newer updates higher up.
UPDATE XVIII: Well, you knew it was only a matter of time. The Baathist Broadcasting Corporation reports as of 1845 British time:
US bombards Iraq mosque complex
Yep, that was the plan -- bombard a "mosque complex". Gosh, there's just no way to slip anything past the Beeb.
. . . A US Marine colonel said the strike targeted insurgents who had fired on US troops from inside the mosque. . .
Oh, details, details. Don't bother the Beeb with details . . . of the sort the Beeb doesn't want to fit into the headline, which might have read, say, US bombards Baathists firing from mosque.
UPDATE XVII: The A.P. reports:
U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. . .
. . . An Associated Press reporter in Fallujah saw cars ferrying the dead and wounded from the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque. Witnesses said a helicopter fired three missiles into the compound, destroying part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not damaging the main building. . .
Ah, so they didn't hit "the mosque."
And, hopefully, they hit the guys at whom they were aiming.
. . .Scores of Iraqis also have been wounded, as mosques called for a holy war against Americans and women carried guns in the streets. . .
But the coalition are NOT supposed to aim at mosques, and are NOT supposed to aim at women . . .
The coalition should shoot at anyone, anywhere, who is shooting at them.
UPDATE XVI: With a sense of timing surpassing that of even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's (see UPDATE X), CNN reports that Australia's would-be Zapatero, opposition leader Mark Latham:
. . . has reaffirmed he will recall forces from Iraq if he wins national elections later this year.
Declaring that the nation needs an exit strategy from Iraq, Latham said the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) policy was to bring troops home by Christmas.
"The thing about Iraq is that we had no business being there," he said on Wednesday in his first major foreign policy address since assuming leadership of the party in December. . .
UPDATE XV: Annika's Journal:
. . .i'm not advocating the flattening of Fallujah (although if that were to happen, i'd not lose a wink of sleep over it), or bombing it back into the stone age, as some would say. i simply think we need to be a lot more heavy handed than we have been. In those areas where the yokels are jumping around in the street and taking potshots at our guys, it seems obvious that they haven't developed a healthy fear of the United States. Machiavelli would have advised against trying to make those scumbags our friends. . .
UPDATE XIV: On the related, vital issue of the day (see UPDATE IX), over to Stephen Pollard:
Forget about Fallujah. Ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy our society. Don’t bother yourself with trivialities such as the future of Western civilisation. Concentrate, instead, on the only thing which really matters: David Beckham’s away form. . .
UPDATE XIII: The BBC apparently beat CNN to the, urrr, mosque (at 1450 BT), with a typical Beeb report:
A US air strike has killed dozens of people inside a mosque during heavy fighting in the Iraqi town of Falluja, witnesses say.
Some reports speak of more than 40 dead in the mainly Sunni Muslim town, but that figure has not yet been confirmed.
The incident came as coalition troops fought separate uprisings by both Sunni and Shia Muslims in several towns. . .
Naturally, the U.S. has nothing better to do than fire at places of worship, you see. . .
UPDATE XII: CNN is reporting "breaking news" in red at the top, at 1514 British time:
Witnesses say U.S. helicopter fire hits wall of mosque compound in Fallujah, Iraq.
Are we supposed to be scandalized by that? After all, considering that the enemy appears to consider mosques not places of worship, but safe houses from which they can fire, this is not too surprising, or shocking.
UPDATE XI: By Austin Bay, on the Strategy Page:
. . .The Fallujah fascists and al-Sadr think they can defeat or at least deflect America by causing U.S. casualties, then parading the bodies before Peter Jennings and Al Jazeera. Al-Sadr adds another wrinkle: multiple "hotspots" to seed the impression of broad insurrection. It's a clever gambit, staging gunfights in Basra, Kut and Baghdad, and leverages contemporary cable Tv's appetite for 24-7 repetition and magnification. The goal is a "Tet effect," an echo of North Vietnam's 1968 offensive, which was a battlefield disaster for the North Vietnamese but a media (and hence political) victory.
However, Tet 1968 and Mogadishu 1993 are dated scripts. We're post 9-11. Even John Kerry, now scrambling for the political center, said of Fallujah, "United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail.". . .
And when even John Kerry says such things. . .
UPDATE X: Reuters never lets us down:
Eight Iraqis were killed when clashes broke out between U.S. troops and demonstrators voicing support for Sunni resistance to the U.S.-led occupation on Wednesday, police said. . .
"Occupation", huh? The dimwits at Reuters really should hire Eleanor Clift.
Incidentally, Reuters is also kind enough to tell us:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned on Wednesday that outside military action may be needed in western Sudan to halt "ethnic cleansing" in the strife-torn Darfur region. . .
Timing is sometimes everything, Mr. Secretary. The countries that would likely provide many of such forces appear just a tad busy this afternoon.
Oh, and they wouldn't want to be accused of "occupying" somewhere else . . .
UPDATE IX: In particularly vital news, the rag Mirror reports:
DAVID and Victoria Beckham yesterday shared tender moments at a lunch with relatives that showed they are a united family.
The couple locked hands and exchanged lingering kisses, in between playful interludes with sons Brooklyn and Romeo. . .
Auwh, shucks.
UPDATE VIII: Ananova tells us:
US troops are battling with Iraqis on two fronts with at least 60 Iraqis killed and more than 120 wounded in overnight fighting in the Sunni city of Fallujah.
A top American general vowed to "destroy" a Shiite militia that, along with Sunni Muslim guerrillas, waged the most extensive fighting since President George Bush declared the war over last May.
I know, I know. I shouldn't mention it again. But I can't help it: Bush did NOT declare "the war over" last May! (See UPDATE V, below.)
Urggggh!
Now I feel better.
Up to a dozen marines, two other coalition soldiers and scores of Iraqis were killed in battles.
Ananova also reports:
A US military helicopter crashed and was seen burning on the ground as US troops fought Shiite militiamen in the central Iraqi city of Baqouba. . .
UPDATE VII: From Basra, Iraq at a Glance writes:
. . .Nearly a similar situation happened in 1999 in ‘Al-Sadr city’ when Saddam killed Muqtada’s father.. the angry people in that disgusting neighborhood made a simple chaos in the beginning , do you know what happened ? do you know how Saddam dealt with them?... a few cars went there immediately and a few men got out of the cars carrying different types of guns and rifles and started to fire continuously at them until all those people entered their houses and many of them were killed and left on the streets… then Saddam’s men completed their mission and went back..
I don’t want to say that the same thing should be done.. but I just want to say that the GC and CPA must control this freedom because it’s used improperly..
UPDATE VI: Continuing their stellar coverage of the imminent fall of New York City to the Baathists/Islamists, CNN reports:
. . . Fighting in Fallujah resumed Wednesday, as a bridge north of the city under U.S. Marines' control came under insurgent attack, according to reports from the city.
The firefight lasted at least 15 minutes, and it appears the Marines retained control of the bridge. . .
. . . Because if the Marines had lost that bridge for so much as a minute and a half, well, then, having to evacuate New York by Friday was a definite possibility.
Whew. That's a relief.
UPDATE V: The A.P.:
U.S. troops battled with insurgents in two central Iraqi towns Wednesday a day after up to a dozen Marines, two more coalition soldiers and scores of Iraqis were killed in the most extensive fighting since President Bush declared the war over in May.
But he never declared "the war over"!!!!!
Ahhhhhhh, well . . . what's the point, really.
Have a laugh. Did you know that "Elvis is alive"?
Fighting was spreading in several directions at once, with Shiite militiamen attacking coalition troops and taking control of several southern cities. . .
The "reporting" today -- you'd think the Baathists/Islamists have by now reached the outskirts of Washington and London -- gives us some hint as to what must have driven Ulysses S. Grant to blurt out to ever-looking over their shoulder subordinates (and I'm paraphrasing): Stop worrying about what Lee is going to do; think about what we are going to do to him.
UPDATE IV: Euronews (0900 BT, short lived link):
The US military has suffered one of the deadliest ground attacks in Iraq since the war to topple Saddam Hussein was launched. Around 12 Marines were killed when their position was ambushed in Ramadi, a hotbed of resistance, to the west of Baghdad. In recent days, US forces have launched a concerted drive to crush the Sunni Muslim uprising there. However, this latest assault only serves to fuel the perception that Washington is getting bogged down in a long-running guerrilla war.
Got the required "bogged down" comment in, I see.
Coalition troops are also taking casualties: a Ukrainian soldier and Bulgarian civilian were killed in southern Iraq. And British, Polish and Italian soldiers have clashed with Iraqis, this time Shi'ite milita inspired by outlawed radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. A funeral for two al-Sadr supporters in Baghdad turned into a rally repeating his call for foreign troops to withdraw and prisoners to be released. . .
More evidence, obviously, of the "unilateral" U.S. fight to liberate Iraq from Baathists and Islamists alike.
UPDATE III: Sky reports:
Fighting continues to rage in several towns across Iraq as Coalition troops clash with supporters of the cleric Moqtada al Sadr.
The Coalition has continued its operation to try to crush what is said to be growing support for the radical leader.
In Karbala, five Iranians and three Iraqis were reported killed and 16 wounded during overnight clashes between US troops and rebels. . .
Iranians. . .
Hmm.
UPDATE II: In one of the better reports today -- after scaremongering yesterday (the link is gone this morning; ITV had referred to a "civil war" breaking out) -- ITV notes:
Hundreds of British soldiers are heading for Iraq to relieve peacekeeping forces who are struggling to cope with a growing rebellion.
Twelve US troops and at least 66 Iraqis have been killed in the latest clashes while British forces killed 15 fighters in recent trouble in the south of the country.
Coalition forces now face attacks from extremists drawn from the majority Shia population led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as well as the Sunni minority and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. . .
That, at least, is not as confusing as the BBC's and CNN's reports.
UPDATE: For heaven's sake, even the BBC comes across better than CNN in covering casualties. But something else is troubling about this BBC report:
President George W Bush has declared that US resolve in Iraq remains "unshakable", despite ongoing clashes with insurgents across the country.
His comments came after one of the worst single attacks since the war left 12 US marines dead and about 20 others injured in Ramadi, west of Baghdad.
The attack came on a day of battles with Shia and Sunni Muslim gunmen west and south of the capital, Baghdad.
More than 100 Iraqis have also been killed in three days of clashes.
During the same period, at least 20 coalition troops have died. . .
In this report, the BBC has chosen, like CNN, to intermix the battles in Fallujah and those against everyone's currently favorite "cleric". Ah, but there might be a reason. The BBC may have opened a history book and has dusted off the term "second front". Hey, if it sounds good:
. . .The Shia-led violence has opened a second front for US-led coalition troops who had previously been confronting mainly Sunni supporters of the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. . .
Is that "second front" as in D-Day, to take pressure off the Soviets, "second front"?
INITIAL POST:
CNN had been improving. But this is pathetic. CNN reports:
As many as a dozen U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday in heavy fighting in the western Iraq town of Ramadi, the latest in a series of clashes with anti-coalition elements, Pentagon officials said. . .
That's the opening -- what the enemy has done to us. The third paragraph is this:
. . . A high-ranking military source said initial reports indicated several government buildings had been seized by fewer than 100 insurgents. . .
As many as a dozen dead Marines, but only 100 insurgents -- supposedly.
Is CNN trying to make the Marines look inept?
Oh, and as to what they have done to the enemy, nothing until the fifth paragraph, when we get this gem:
. . . There also were heavy Iraqi casualties . . .
Is that dead Baathist fighters, or schoolchildren? CNN doesn't say -- naturally. Ambiguity: the last refuge for those who want to convey a "certain impression", but don't want it to look overtly as if they are trying to convey a "certain impression".
Simply, if you are going to cite exact numbers of our dead, at least attempt to cite numbers of the enemy dead.
CNN's "report" aside, it does appear the Baathists being stupid enough to come out of the shadows in "force" will make it all the easier for the Marines to kill them in droves.
Buried in the middle, after having mixed up how the Forces are dealing with everyone's currently favorite "cleric", CNN finally writes this:
. . .Marines moved into Fallujah from several directions -- coming under heavy fire from insurgents -- in a second day of an operation to lock down the city.
Hospital officials in Fallujah reported at least 10 Iraqis dead and 24 injured. . .
Gosh. They noticed. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
NOTE: Newer updates higher up.
UPDATE XVIII: Well, you knew it was only a matter of time. The Baathist Broadcasting Corporation reports as of 1845 British time:
US bombards Iraq mosque complex
Yep, that was the plan -- bombard a "mosque complex". Gosh, there's just no way to slip anything past the Beeb.
. . . A US Marine colonel said the strike targeted insurgents who had fired on US troops from inside the mosque. . .
Oh, details, details. Don't bother the Beeb with details . . . of the sort the Beeb doesn't want to fit into the headline, which might have read, say, US bombards Baathists firing from mosque.
UPDATE XVII: The A.P. reports:
U.S. Marines in a fierce battle for this Sunni Muslim stronghold fired rockets that hit a mosque compound filled with worshippers Wednesday, and witnesses said as many as 40 people were killed. . .
. . . An Associated Press reporter in Fallujah saw cars ferrying the dead and wounded from the Abdul-Aziz al-Samarrai mosque. Witnesses said a helicopter fired three missiles into the compound, destroying part of a wall surrounding the mosque but not damaging the main building. . .
Ah, so they didn't hit "the mosque."
And, hopefully, they hit the guys at whom they were aiming.
. . .Scores of Iraqis also have been wounded, as mosques called for a holy war against Americans and women carried guns in the streets. . .
But the coalition are NOT supposed to aim at mosques, and are NOT supposed to aim at women . . .
The coalition should shoot at anyone, anywhere, who is shooting at them.
UPDATE XVI: With a sense of timing surpassing that of even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's (see UPDATE X), CNN reports that Australia's would-be Zapatero, opposition leader Mark Latham:
. . . has reaffirmed he will recall forces from Iraq if he wins national elections later this year.
Declaring that the nation needs an exit strategy from Iraq, Latham said the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) policy was to bring troops home by Christmas.
"The thing about Iraq is that we had no business being there," he said on Wednesday in his first major foreign policy address since assuming leadership of the party in December. . .
UPDATE XV: Annika's Journal:
. . .i'm not advocating the flattening of Fallujah (although if that were to happen, i'd not lose a wink of sleep over it), or bombing it back into the stone age, as some would say. i simply think we need to be a lot more heavy handed than we have been. In those areas where the yokels are jumping around in the street and taking potshots at our guys, it seems obvious that they haven't developed a healthy fear of the United States. Machiavelli would have advised against trying to make those scumbags our friends. . .
UPDATE XIV: On the related, vital issue of the day (see UPDATE IX), over to Stephen Pollard:
Forget about Fallujah. Ignore the fact that Islamic terrorists are trying to destroy our society. Don’t bother yourself with trivialities such as the future of Western civilisation. Concentrate, instead, on the only thing which really matters: David Beckham’s away form. . .
UPDATE XIII: The BBC apparently beat CNN to the, urrr, mosque (at 1450 BT), with a typical Beeb report:
A US air strike has killed dozens of people inside a mosque during heavy fighting in the Iraqi town of Falluja, witnesses say.
Some reports speak of more than 40 dead in the mainly Sunni Muslim town, but that figure has not yet been confirmed.
The incident came as coalition troops fought separate uprisings by both Sunni and Shia Muslims in several towns. . .
Naturally, the U.S. has nothing better to do than fire at places of worship, you see. . .
UPDATE XII: CNN is reporting "breaking news" in red at the top, at 1514 British time:
Witnesses say U.S. helicopter fire hits wall of mosque compound in Fallujah, Iraq.
Are we supposed to be scandalized by that? After all, considering that the enemy appears to consider mosques not places of worship, but safe houses from which they can fire, this is not too surprising, or shocking.
UPDATE XI: By Austin Bay, on the Strategy Page:
. . .The Fallujah fascists and al-Sadr think they can defeat or at least deflect America by causing U.S. casualties, then parading the bodies before Peter Jennings and Al Jazeera. Al-Sadr adds another wrinkle: multiple "hotspots" to seed the impression of broad insurrection. It's a clever gambit, staging gunfights in Basra, Kut and Baghdad, and leverages contemporary cable Tv's appetite for 24-7 repetition and magnification. The goal is a "Tet effect," an echo of North Vietnam's 1968 offensive, which was a battlefield disaster for the North Vietnamese but a media (and hence political) victory.
However, Tet 1968 and Mogadishu 1993 are dated scripts. We're post 9-11. Even John Kerry, now scrambling for the political center, said of Fallujah, "United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail.". . .
And when even John Kerry says such things. . .
UPDATE X: Reuters never lets us down:
Eight Iraqis were killed when clashes broke out between U.S. troops and demonstrators voicing support for Sunni resistance to the U.S.-led occupation on Wednesday, police said. . .
"Occupation", huh? The dimwits at Reuters really should hire Eleanor Clift.
Incidentally, Reuters is also kind enough to tell us:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned on Wednesday that outside military action may be needed in western Sudan to halt "ethnic cleansing" in the strife-torn Darfur region. . .
Timing is sometimes everything, Mr. Secretary. The countries that would likely provide many of such forces appear just a tad busy this afternoon.
Oh, and they wouldn't want to be accused of "occupying" somewhere else . . .
UPDATE IX: In particularly vital news, the rag Mirror reports:
DAVID and Victoria Beckham yesterday shared tender moments at a lunch with relatives that showed they are a united family.
The couple locked hands and exchanged lingering kisses, in between playful interludes with sons Brooklyn and Romeo. . .
Auwh, shucks.
UPDATE VIII: Ananova tells us:
US troops are battling with Iraqis on two fronts with at least 60 Iraqis killed and more than 120 wounded in overnight fighting in the Sunni city of Fallujah.
A top American general vowed to "destroy" a Shiite militia that, along with Sunni Muslim guerrillas, waged the most extensive fighting since President George Bush declared the war over last May.
I know, I know. I shouldn't mention it again. But I can't help it: Bush did NOT declare "the war over" last May! (See UPDATE V, below.)
Urggggh!
Now I feel better.
Up to a dozen marines, two other coalition soldiers and scores of Iraqis were killed in battles.
Ananova also reports:
A US military helicopter crashed and was seen burning on the ground as US troops fought Shiite militiamen in the central Iraqi city of Baqouba. . .
UPDATE VII: From Basra, Iraq at a Glance writes:
. . .Nearly a similar situation happened in 1999 in ‘Al-Sadr city’ when Saddam killed Muqtada’s father.. the angry people in that disgusting neighborhood made a simple chaos in the beginning , do you know what happened ? do you know how Saddam dealt with them?... a few cars went there immediately and a few men got out of the cars carrying different types of guns and rifles and started to fire continuously at them until all those people entered their houses and many of them were killed and left on the streets… then Saddam’s men completed their mission and went back..
I don’t want to say that the same thing should be done.. but I just want to say that the GC and CPA must control this freedom because it’s used improperly..
UPDATE VI: Continuing their stellar coverage of the imminent fall of New York City to the Baathists/Islamists, CNN reports:
. . . Fighting in Fallujah resumed Wednesday, as a bridge north of the city under U.S. Marines' control came under insurgent attack, according to reports from the city.
The firefight lasted at least 15 minutes, and it appears the Marines retained control of the bridge. . .
. . . Because if the Marines had lost that bridge for so much as a minute and a half, well, then, having to evacuate New York by Friday was a definite possibility.
Whew. That's a relief.
UPDATE V: The A.P.:
U.S. troops battled with insurgents in two central Iraqi towns Wednesday a day after up to a dozen Marines, two more coalition soldiers and scores of Iraqis were killed in the most extensive fighting since President Bush declared the war over in May.
But he never declared "the war over"!!!!!
Ahhhhhhh, well . . . what's the point, really.
Have a laugh. Did you know that "Elvis is alive"?
Fighting was spreading in several directions at once, with Shiite militiamen attacking coalition troops and taking control of several southern cities. . .
The "reporting" today -- you'd think the Baathists/Islamists have by now reached the outskirts of Washington and London -- gives us some hint as to what must have driven Ulysses S. Grant to blurt out to ever-looking over their shoulder subordinates (and I'm paraphrasing): Stop worrying about what Lee is going to do; think about what we are going to do to him.
UPDATE IV: Euronews (0900 BT, short lived link):
The US military has suffered one of the deadliest ground attacks in Iraq since the war to topple Saddam Hussein was launched. Around 12 Marines were killed when their position was ambushed in Ramadi, a hotbed of resistance, to the west of Baghdad. In recent days, US forces have launched a concerted drive to crush the Sunni Muslim uprising there. However, this latest assault only serves to fuel the perception that Washington is getting bogged down in a long-running guerrilla war.
Got the required "bogged down" comment in, I see.
Coalition troops are also taking casualties: a Ukrainian soldier and Bulgarian civilian were killed in southern Iraq. And British, Polish and Italian soldiers have clashed with Iraqis, this time Shi'ite milita inspired by outlawed radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. A funeral for two al-Sadr supporters in Baghdad turned into a rally repeating his call for foreign troops to withdraw and prisoners to be released. . .
More evidence, obviously, of the "unilateral" U.S. fight to liberate Iraq from Baathists and Islamists alike.
UPDATE III: Sky reports:
Fighting continues to rage in several towns across Iraq as Coalition troops clash with supporters of the cleric Moqtada al Sadr.
The Coalition has continued its operation to try to crush what is said to be growing support for the radical leader.
In Karbala, five Iranians and three Iraqis were reported killed and 16 wounded during overnight clashes between US troops and rebels. . .
Iranians. . .
Hmm.
UPDATE II: In one of the better reports today -- after scaremongering yesterday (the link is gone this morning; ITV had referred to a "civil war" breaking out) -- ITV notes:
Hundreds of British soldiers are heading for Iraq to relieve peacekeeping forces who are struggling to cope with a growing rebellion.
Twelve US troops and at least 66 Iraqis have been killed in the latest clashes while British forces killed 15 fighters in recent trouble in the south of the country.
Coalition forces now face attacks from extremists drawn from the majority Shia population led by radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as well as the Sunni minority and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. . .
That, at least, is not as confusing as the BBC's and CNN's reports.
UPDATE: For heaven's sake, even the BBC comes across better than CNN in covering casualties. But something else is troubling about this BBC report:
President George W Bush has declared that US resolve in Iraq remains "unshakable", despite ongoing clashes with insurgents across the country.
His comments came after one of the worst single attacks since the war left 12 US marines dead and about 20 others injured in Ramadi, west of Baghdad.
The attack came on a day of battles with Shia and Sunni Muslim gunmen west and south of the capital, Baghdad.
More than 100 Iraqis have also been killed in three days of clashes.
During the same period, at least 20 coalition troops have died. . .
In this report, the BBC has chosen, like CNN, to intermix the battles in Fallujah and those against everyone's currently favorite "cleric". Ah, but there might be a reason. The BBC may have opened a history book and has dusted off the term "second front". Hey, if it sounds good:
. . .The Shia-led violence has opened a second front for US-led coalition troops who had previously been confronting mainly Sunni supporters of the former Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. . .
Is that "second front" as in D-Day, to take pressure off the Soviets, "second front"?
INITIAL POST:
CNN had been improving. But this is pathetic. CNN reports:
As many as a dozen U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday in heavy fighting in the western Iraq town of Ramadi, the latest in a series of clashes with anti-coalition elements, Pentagon officials said. . .
That's the opening -- what the enemy has done to us. The third paragraph is this:
. . . A high-ranking military source said initial reports indicated several government buildings had been seized by fewer than 100 insurgents. . .
As many as a dozen dead Marines, but only 100 insurgents -- supposedly.
Is CNN trying to make the Marines look inept?
Oh, and as to what they have done to the enemy, nothing until the fifth paragraph, when we get this gem:
. . . There also were heavy Iraqi casualties . . .
Is that dead Baathist fighters, or schoolchildren? CNN doesn't say -- naturally. Ambiguity: the last refuge for those who want to convey a "certain impression", but don't want it to look overtly as if they are trying to convey a "certain impression".
Simply, if you are going to cite exact numbers of our dead, at least attempt to cite numbers of the enemy dead.
CNN's "report" aside, it does appear the Baathists being stupid enough to come out of the shadows in "force" will make it all the easier for the Marines to kill them in droves.
Buried in the middle, after having mixed up how the Forces are dealing with everyone's currently favorite "cleric", CNN finally writes this:
. . .Marines moved into Fallujah from several directions -- coming under heavy fire from insurgents -- in a second day of an operation to lock down the city.
Hospital officials in Fallujah reported at least 10 Iraqis dead and 24 injured. . .
Gosh. They noticed. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
OCCUPIER OR LIBERATOR
There I was, just minding my own business, making my coffee, at around 6:10 this morning. On a re-run of FOX's "Your World" (broadcast live, April 6) popped up Eleanor Clift. After having offered several statements re-affirming that she has indeed been on planet "la-la" for most of the past 2 1/2 years, she blurted out this "brilliance":
"The primary goal of an occupying power is to restore security". (I have not yet found the transcript, but that is verbatim what I heard her say; I scribbled it down seconds after it came out of her mouth.)
Really? Since freakin' when!?
Occupiers are thieves. They take. They kill as they see fit. They are interested only in the security of their own forces; the daily life of the population be damned. Nazis strung up people indiscriminately by the hundreds for killing one German soldier. Somebody ought to tell Clift that this is what an "occupying power" does:
. . .On May 27, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, head of the RSHA, the Reichsprotektor of Czechoslovakia, the man who had convened the Wannsee Conference only four months previously, was severely wounded in a grenade attack on his car near Prague by two Czech parachutists sent from London by the Czech government-in-exile. The two Czechs managed to leave the scene and took refuge in the Karl Borromaeus Church in Prague.
On June 4, Heydrich died of his wounds. The Nazis swore revenge: they ordered the execution of ten thousand Czechs and threatened the expulsion of millions. The Karl Borromaeus Church, where the assassins and more than one hundred members of the Czech resistance were hiding, was besieged. Everyone in the church was killed by the SS. . .
. . .At dawn on June 10, all the residents of Lidice, a village ten miles outside Prague, were taken from their homes. They were shot in batches of ten at a time behind a barn. By late afternoon, 192 men and boys and 71 women had been murdered. The other women were sent to concentration camps. The children were dispersed, some to concentration camps, although a few who were considered sufficiently Aryan were sent to Germany. The SS then razed the town and tried to eradicate its memory. The name of Lidice was expunged from all official records. . .
In stark and clear contrast, in Iraq the coalition are liberators. The notion of doing anything remotely along the lines of the above, in retaliation for coalition deaths, is not even in the distant rear of anyone's mind. Liberators are interested in liberating a people, not in slaughtering them.
It would be nice if commentators like Clift had some idea of what the hell they are talking about, BEFORE they open their big, ignorant yaps. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
There I was, just minding my own business, making my coffee, at around 6:10 this morning. On a re-run of FOX's "Your World" (broadcast live, April 6) popped up Eleanor Clift. After having offered several statements re-affirming that she has indeed been on planet "la-la" for most of the past 2 1/2 years, she blurted out this "brilliance":
"The primary goal of an occupying power is to restore security". (I have not yet found the transcript, but that is verbatim what I heard her say; I scribbled it down seconds after it came out of her mouth.)
Really? Since freakin' when!?
Occupiers are thieves. They take. They kill as they see fit. They are interested only in the security of their own forces; the daily life of the population be damned. Nazis strung up people indiscriminately by the hundreds for killing one German soldier. Somebody ought to tell Clift that this is what an "occupying power" does:
. . .On May 27, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, head of the RSHA, the Reichsprotektor of Czechoslovakia, the man who had convened the Wannsee Conference only four months previously, was severely wounded in a grenade attack on his car near Prague by two Czech parachutists sent from London by the Czech government-in-exile. The two Czechs managed to leave the scene and took refuge in the Karl Borromaeus Church in Prague.
On June 4, Heydrich died of his wounds. The Nazis swore revenge: they ordered the execution of ten thousand Czechs and threatened the expulsion of millions. The Karl Borromaeus Church, where the assassins and more than one hundred members of the Czech resistance were hiding, was besieged. Everyone in the church was killed by the SS. . .
. . .At dawn on June 10, all the residents of Lidice, a village ten miles outside Prague, were taken from their homes. They were shot in batches of ten at a time behind a barn. By late afternoon, 192 men and boys and 71 women had been murdered. The other women were sent to concentration camps. The children were dispersed, some to concentration camps, although a few who were considered sufficiently Aryan were sent to Germany. The SS then razed the town and tried to eradicate its memory. The name of Lidice was expunged from all official records. . .
In stark and clear contrast, in Iraq the coalition are liberators. The notion of doing anything remotely along the lines of the above, in retaliation for coalition deaths, is not even in the distant rear of anyone's mind. Liberators are interested in liberating a people, not in slaughtering them.
It would be nice if commentators like Clift had some idea of what the hell they are talking about, BEFORE they open their big, ignorant yaps. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
THE BBC TEN O'CLOCK NEWS REPORT CARD
Last Night's BBC News rates all your favorite . . . and your not so favorite BBC Ten O'Clock News presenters and reporters. One excellent example:
Matt Frei: ½ star -- based in Washington, D.C.; looks like a male model; thinks like a male model. . .
That's insulting to male models!
Anyway, click over and have a look. Where does Orla Guerin come in, you might wonder? Well, Nicholas deserves to be able to explain that for himself. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Last Night's BBC News rates all your favorite . . . and your not so favorite BBC Ten O'Clock News presenters and reporters. One excellent example:
Matt Frei: ½ star -- based in Washington, D.C.; looks like a male model; thinks like a male model. . .
That's insulting to male models!
Anyway, click over and have a look. Where does Orla Guerin come in, you might wonder? Well, Nicholas deserves to be able to explain that for himself. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
THE QUEEN IN FRANCE
CNN reports that Queen Elizabeth, now on a state visit to France, told an audience last night:
. . ."We cannot let immediate political pressures, however strongly felt on both sides, stand between us in the longer term,". . .
. . . Delivering her speech in fluent French, Elizabeth said: "Neither of our two great nations, nor Europe, nor the wider Western alliance, can afford the luxury of short-term division or discord, in the face of the threats to our security and prosperity that now challenge us all."
If she did deliver the entire speech in French, the royal web site (did I actually write that?) has only the English version, and it makes no obvious reference to a French original. Be that as it may, why is it even news that she can speak French? Is that really significant?
And if she had made a similar speech in the Netherlands, no one would have expected her to speak Dutch.
. . ."The United Kingdom and France share the same taste for broad horizons and the sense of duty that leads to exercising responsibilities at a world level," he said. . .
As for the vital issue of content, switch "U.K." to "U.S" and one could reasonably believe that speechwriters for President Bush had been seconded to the Queen's staff. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
CNN reports that Queen Elizabeth, now on a state visit to France, told an audience last night:
. . ."We cannot let immediate political pressures, however strongly felt on both sides, stand between us in the longer term,". . .
. . . Delivering her speech in fluent French, Elizabeth said: "Neither of our two great nations, nor Europe, nor the wider Western alliance, can afford the luxury of short-term division or discord, in the face of the threats to our security and prosperity that now challenge us all."
If she did deliver the entire speech in French, the royal web site (did I actually write that?) has only the English version, and it makes no obvious reference to a French original. Be that as it may, why is it even news that she can speak French? Is that really significant?
And if she had made a similar speech in the Netherlands, no one would have expected her to speak Dutch.
. . ."The United Kingdom and France share the same taste for broad horizons and the sense of duty that leads to exercising responsibilities at a world level," he said. . .
As for the vital issue of content, switch "U.K." to "U.S" and one could reasonably believe that speechwriters for President Bush had been seconded to the Queen's staff. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
REMEMBER THE REAL ENEMY
Glenn Reynolds (perhaps better known as the Instapundit) writes at MSNBC.com:
In a recent speech at the Brookings Institution, Massachussetts Senator Ted Kennedy referred to Iraq as "George Bush's Vietnam."
Kennedy would like it to be -- but of course if Iraq were George Bush's Vietnam, it would be America's Vietnam, too. Just like the last one. That would be bad.
Kennedy doesn't seem to care: What happens to America is second to the all-important task of beating George Bush. Kennedy -- like all too many Democratic party stalwarts in Washington -- sees Republicans, not Islamist terrorists, as the real enemy. That's a formula for disaster at home and abroad. . .
As a near former Democrat, I do not for a minute believe that most Democrats subscribe to the view that the enemy is not the Islamists, but the Republicans. (If most secretly do, then America is lost. Might as well raise the white flag now. Although, what good that would do is hard to say, as the Islamists would probably just blow up the white flag, too.)
However, there is a very troubling and vocal minority of Democrats that too often do come across as preferring the likes of bin Laden over Bush/Cheney. One could call such "Democrats" the "Bush and Cheney are evil, but bin Laden has his reasons crowd". Ted Kennedy seems to fall into that group.
Such "Democrats" are best described as being -- um, how to put this gently? -- crazy.
UPDATE: April 7: Scrappleface, errrr, reports:
In a major policy address at the Brookings Institution today Senator Edward M. Kennedy said that Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry's actions prove that "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.". . .
. . .White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded to Mr. Kennedy's remarks by saying, "Ted Kennedy is John Kerry's Chappaquiddick." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Glenn Reynolds (perhaps better known as the Instapundit) writes at MSNBC.com:
In a recent speech at the Brookings Institution, Massachussetts Senator Ted Kennedy referred to Iraq as "George Bush's Vietnam."
Kennedy would like it to be -- but of course if Iraq were George Bush's Vietnam, it would be America's Vietnam, too. Just like the last one. That would be bad.
Kennedy doesn't seem to care: What happens to America is second to the all-important task of beating George Bush. Kennedy -- like all too many Democratic party stalwarts in Washington -- sees Republicans, not Islamist terrorists, as the real enemy. That's a formula for disaster at home and abroad. . .
As a near former Democrat, I do not for a minute believe that most Democrats subscribe to the view that the enemy is not the Islamists, but the Republicans. (If most secretly do, then America is lost. Might as well raise the white flag now. Although, what good that would do is hard to say, as the Islamists would probably just blow up the white flag, too.)
However, there is a very troubling and vocal minority of Democrats that too often do come across as preferring the likes of bin Laden over Bush/Cheney. One could call such "Democrats" the "Bush and Cheney are evil, but bin Laden has his reasons crowd". Ted Kennedy seems to fall into that group.
Such "Democrats" are best described as being -- um, how to put this gently? -- crazy.
UPDATE: April 7: Scrappleface, errrr, reports:
In a major policy address at the Brookings Institution today Senator Edward M. Kennedy said that Democrat presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry's actions prove that "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.". . .
. . .White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded to Mr. Kennedy's remarks by saying, "Ted Kennedy is John Kerry's Chappaquiddick." ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
"VIGILANT RESOLVE"
UPDATE II: The BBC reports, almost casually:
. . . the few reports which have trickled out of the town speak of gunfire and explosions including a string of about 30 blasts overnight which are thought to be the sound of a bombardment.
US marine units have been probing the outer edges of Falluja and a spokesman said they had used helicopter gunships against insurgents who were firing on them from a mosque. . .
Is that a typo? Did the BBC mean "mosque", or a fort on the "Maginot" Line?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
U.S. Marines fought skirmishes with Iraqi fighters Monday in and around the restive city of Fallujah, closing off the city in response to the killing and mutilation of four American security guards last week.
Four Marines died Monday in the area around Fallujah, according to the Coalition Press Information Center.
Marines killed at least one Iraqi and called in airstrikes late Monday after coming under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns on the outskirts of town.
About 1,300 troops from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, along with Iraqi armed forces, set up a cordon around the city Monday, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. The push has been dubbed "Operation Vigilant Resolve.". . .
Then, for some reason, CNN rolled out Bush's having "announced the end of major combat" so the Forces can pack up the tents and all head home the day after tomorrow comment:
. . .Since the war began in March 2003, 619 U.S. troops have been killed; 425 of them under hostile fire. After President Bush announced the end of major combat in May, 480 troops have died, 310 from hostile fire. Overall, 721 coalition troops have been killed, 549 of them after the president's speech. . .
This one just won't go away. So it is worth repeating, for the umpteenth time, that what Bush meant was that the campaign to oust the Hussein regime had ended, but he never -- NEVER -- said the struggle was finished. There is a decided difference between the two.
On May 9, 2003 CENTCOM's then commander, General Franks, stated:
. . . As President Bush told the nation from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, decisive combat operations in Iraq have concluded, and the coalition today is focused on helping Iraqi people as they work to build a new country. Our forces still stand in harm's way and much dangerous work remains to be done. I have every expectation that we will continue to see pockets of resistance, and we will see pockets of instability and we will come across difficult situation[s] in the weeks and in the months ahead. But our forces are up to the task, and will remain committed to the task. . .
INITIAL POST
The "defenders" of Fallujah are probably on borrowed time. Murdoc:
A combined unit of US and Iraqi soldiers is preparing to launch operation Vigilant Resolve. . .
. . . I think the fact that we didn't go rushing headlong into the city on a "rescue" mission [as compared to the "Black Hawk Down" battle, in Somalia] indicates that the Marines have a plan.
All of history indicates you don't want to be on the receiving end when the US Marines have a plan. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
UPDATE II: The BBC reports, almost casually:
. . . the few reports which have trickled out of the town speak of gunfire and explosions including a string of about 30 blasts overnight which are thought to be the sound of a bombardment.
US marine units have been probing the outer edges of Falluja and a spokesman said they had used helicopter gunships against insurgents who were firing on them from a mosque. . .
Is that a typo? Did the BBC mean "mosque", or a fort on the "Maginot" Line?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
U.S. Marines fought skirmishes with Iraqi fighters Monday in and around the restive city of Fallujah, closing off the city in response to the killing and mutilation of four American security guards last week.
Four Marines died Monday in the area around Fallujah, according to the Coalition Press Information Center.
Marines killed at least one Iraqi and called in airstrikes late Monday after coming under fire from mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns on the outskirts of town.
About 1,300 troops from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, along with Iraqi armed forces, set up a cordon around the city Monday, said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. The push has been dubbed "Operation Vigilant Resolve.". . .
Then, for some reason, CNN rolled out Bush's having "announced the end of major combat" so the Forces can pack up the tents and all head home the day after tomorrow comment:
. . .Since the war began in March 2003, 619 U.S. troops have been killed; 425 of them under hostile fire. After President Bush announced the end of major combat in May, 480 troops have died, 310 from hostile fire. Overall, 721 coalition troops have been killed, 549 of them after the president's speech. . .
This one just won't go away. So it is worth repeating, for the umpteenth time, that what Bush meant was that the campaign to oust the Hussein regime had ended, but he never -- NEVER -- said the struggle was finished. There is a decided difference between the two.
On May 9, 2003 CENTCOM's then commander, General Franks, stated:
. . . As President Bush told the nation from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, decisive combat operations in Iraq have concluded, and the coalition today is focused on helping Iraqi people as they work to build a new country. Our forces still stand in harm's way and much dangerous work remains to be done. I have every expectation that we will continue to see pockets of resistance, and we will see pockets of instability and we will come across difficult situation[s] in the weeks and in the months ahead. But our forces are up to the task, and will remain committed to the task. . .
INITIAL POST
The "defenders" of Fallujah are probably on borrowed time. Murdoc:
A combined unit of US and Iraqi soldiers is preparing to launch operation Vigilant Resolve. . .
. . . I think the fact that we didn't go rushing headlong into the city on a "rescue" mission [as compared to the "Black Hawk Down" battle, in Somalia] indicates that the Marines have a plan.
All of history indicates you don't want to be on the receiving end when the US Marines have a plan. . . ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
FRENCH TERROR ARRESTS
In recent days and weeks, they had grabbed some in Britain, in Canada, in Italy, and had some blow themselves up, rather than face capture, in Spain. And now France has come down on a bunch. CNN reports:
French police have detained 13 people suspected of belonging to a militant Moroccan Islamic group accused of carrying out last month's Madrid train bombings, authorities said.
The 13 were seized in a series of dawn raids Monday in the suburbs of Paris. They are suspected of having links with last year's suicide bomb attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, officials said. . .
. . .The raids in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a suburb east of Paris, and Mantes-la-Jolie, west of the capital, began at about 6 a.m. (0400 GMT), Reuters quoted judicial sources as saying.
One person was detained at Charles de Gaulle airport as he tried to leave the country. . . Two other people were released after being detained in the raids, Reuters reported. . .
Being American in Toronto, Ontario writes:
The counter intelligence units in France have shown why they have so excellent a reputation. . .
Absolutely.
Make sure the bastards forever fret over the real possibility that the forces of civilization could very well suddenly swoop down and smash their apartment door in. Let them know that the era of complacency is over. Give them no chance to catch even a single breath.
Get 'em, damn it. Get 'em. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
In recent days and weeks, they had grabbed some in Britain, in Canada, in Italy, and had some blow themselves up, rather than face capture, in Spain. And now France has come down on a bunch. CNN reports:
French police have detained 13 people suspected of belonging to a militant Moroccan Islamic group accused of carrying out last month's Madrid train bombings, authorities said.
The 13 were seized in a series of dawn raids Monday in the suburbs of Paris. They are suspected of having links with last year's suicide bomb attacks in Casablanca, Morocco, officials said. . .
. . .The raids in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a suburb east of Paris, and Mantes-la-Jolie, west of the capital, began at about 6 a.m. (0400 GMT), Reuters quoted judicial sources as saying.
One person was detained at Charles de Gaulle airport as he tried to leave the country. . . Two other people were released after being detained in the raids, Reuters reported. . .
Being American in Toronto, Ontario writes:
The counter intelligence units in France have shown why they have so excellent a reputation. . .
Absolutely.
Make sure the bastards forever fret over the real possibility that the forces of civilization could very well suddenly swoop down and smash their apartment door in. Let them know that the era of complacency is over. Give them no chance to catch even a single breath.
Get 'em, damn it. Get 'em. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
NOT MORE "MARTYRDOM"?
The A.P. reports:
U.S. administrators in Iraq declared a radical Shiite cleric an "outlaw" Monday and announced a warrant for his arrest, heightening a confrontation after battles between his supporters and coalition troops killed at least 52 Iraqis and nine coalition troops, including eight Americans.
American officials would not say when they would move to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, who is holed up in the main mosque in Kufa, south of Baghdad, guarded by armed supporters.
"We don't fear death and martyrdom gives us dignity from God," said al-Sadr, a 30-year-old firebrand who has frequently denounced the U.S. occupation in his sermons. . .
Well, he may get his wish.
There is a great deal of overplay and scare-reporting about this. Blow away the smoke, and this guy is just young, a local "Capone", who is trying to move up. He has his own little private "army", and they seem to think they ought to be able to do whatever they like.
He and his bunch would not have been tolerated in 1946 in Germany. And it seems decidedly unlikely that they will be tolerated by the coalition in a rebuilding Iraq.
Instapundit notes (via the Washington Post):
As a fighting force, Sadr's militia impressed neither U.S. commanders nor the Iraqi officers at one police station they occupied for three hours.
"Mahdi Army! They're not an army!" Officer Haider Raheem said of the unemployed young men who took over one station by brandishing grenades. "They're a bunch of looters." Before running off at the sound of approaching tanks, Raheem said, they scooped up everything from rifles to food for the prisoners. "Can you believe they even stole the water cup from the restroom?" he said.
Iraq The Model tells us:
. . . We know that Muqtada visited Iran and met people on the highest levels. This man whom everyone refused to ally or open a dialogue with was met by none less than Khamenie himself and of course this was accompanied by financial support and instructions. . .
. . . Yes, this is my battle before it’s yours. It’s my duty to preserve the democratic changes we achieved, and just yesterday I saw the long lines standing under the burning sun to join the IP and they all know how dangerous this job is, and this gave me hope because they know very well who they’re going to face.
Yesterday, Muqtada’s followers showed in thousands in five of the eighteen Iraqi governorates carrying arms and showing their opposition to the coalition forces and their willingness to fight America but did the majority of Iraqis stand with them? No, but are the majority of Iraqis against them? Yes, but how can that be showed? Do you want us to carry arms and shoot them and then it may end to a civil war that no one knows how or when shall it stop?. . .
This is no joke. But neither should it be inflated out of proportion. In the final analysis, there is still a war on. Unless the "cleric" suddenly has an attack of earthly common sense, it is likely that he and his band of merry martyrs-to-be are indeed going down at the hands of coalition forces. It is only a question of when and how. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
The A.P. reports:
U.S. administrators in Iraq declared a radical Shiite cleric an "outlaw" Monday and announced a warrant for his arrest, heightening a confrontation after battles between his supporters and coalition troops killed at least 52 Iraqis and nine coalition troops, including eight Americans.
American officials would not say when they would move to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr, who is holed up in the main mosque in Kufa, south of Baghdad, guarded by armed supporters.
"We don't fear death and martyrdom gives us dignity from God," said al-Sadr, a 30-year-old firebrand who has frequently denounced the U.S. occupation in his sermons. . .
Well, he may get his wish.
There is a great deal of overplay and scare-reporting about this. Blow away the smoke, and this guy is just young, a local "Capone", who is trying to move up. He has his own little private "army", and they seem to think they ought to be able to do whatever they like.
He and his bunch would not have been tolerated in 1946 in Germany. And it seems decidedly unlikely that they will be tolerated by the coalition in a rebuilding Iraq.
Instapundit notes (via the Washington Post):
As a fighting force, Sadr's militia impressed neither U.S. commanders nor the Iraqi officers at one police station they occupied for three hours.
"Mahdi Army! They're not an army!" Officer Haider Raheem said of the unemployed young men who took over one station by brandishing grenades. "They're a bunch of looters." Before running off at the sound of approaching tanks, Raheem said, they scooped up everything from rifles to food for the prisoners. "Can you believe they even stole the water cup from the restroom?" he said.
Iraq The Model tells us:
. . . We know that Muqtada visited Iran and met people on the highest levels. This man whom everyone refused to ally or open a dialogue with was met by none less than Khamenie himself and of course this was accompanied by financial support and instructions. . .
. . . Yes, this is my battle before it’s yours. It’s my duty to preserve the democratic changes we achieved, and just yesterday I saw the long lines standing under the burning sun to join the IP and they all know how dangerous this job is, and this gave me hope because they know very well who they’re going to face.
Yesterday, Muqtada’s followers showed in thousands in five of the eighteen Iraqi governorates carrying arms and showing their opposition to the coalition forces and their willingness to fight America but did the majority of Iraqis stand with them? No, but are the majority of Iraqis against them? Yes, but how can that be showed? Do you want us to carry arms and shoot them and then it may end to a civil war that no one knows how or when shall it stop?. . .
This is no joke. But neither should it be inflated out of proportion. In the final analysis, there is still a war on. Unless the "cleric" suddenly has an attack of earthly common sense, it is likely that he and his band of merry martyrs-to-be are indeed going down at the hands of coalition forces. It is only a question of when and how. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
A NEW VIEW
CNN reports:
Julien Macdonald, the British designer best known for squeezing starlets into barely there shimmering evening gowns, has given British Airways staff a style revamp.
Macdonald has thrown out the old frumpy pleated floral skirt and Monday unveiled a new retro-style look for the airline's stewardesses, featuring slim line tailoring and a jaunty new hat.
Macdonald, the master of cut down to there and slit up to there red-carpet dresses for the likes of pop singer Kylie Minogue, model Naomi Campbell and actress Nicole Kidman, has toned down his usual look to provide a nod to the glamorous pioneering days of aviation. . .
A "jaunty" new hat. "Jaunty". There's a word that you don't hear much nowadays. Anyway . . .
When nearly 5 years ago, a lovely aunt of my then wife-to-be showed up at our wedding in a dress that caused some to smile and comment discreetly that the lady resembled a B.A. flight attendant, you just knew the look was definitely overdue for a makeover. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
CNN reports:
Julien Macdonald, the British designer best known for squeezing starlets into barely there shimmering evening gowns, has given British Airways staff a style revamp.
Macdonald has thrown out the old frumpy pleated floral skirt and Monday unveiled a new retro-style look for the airline's stewardesses, featuring slim line tailoring and a jaunty new hat.
Macdonald, the master of cut down to there and slit up to there red-carpet dresses for the likes of pop singer Kylie Minogue, model Naomi Campbell and actress Nicole Kidman, has toned down his usual look to provide a nod to the glamorous pioneering days of aviation. . .
A "jaunty" new hat. "Jaunty". There's a word that you don't hear much nowadays. Anyway . . .
When nearly 5 years ago, a lovely aunt of my then wife-to-be showed up at our wedding in a dress that caused some to smile and comment discreetly that the lady resembled a B.A. flight attendant, you just knew the look was definitely overdue for a makeover. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Monday, April 05, 2004
"EUROPE'S CHILD"
The other day, an American reader in Germany (I seem to be writing lots about Germany today) emailed me a link to a piece by Steve Den Beste (which for some reason I missed). In it, Steve uses an IHT article on the nature of American politics as a springboard from which he could discuss the fact that way too many Europeans seem not to get "it". (Thanks Courtenay. And be proud to sign Virginia Yank! Your southern relatives might not realize quite how much, out here, every American is a Yank.) Steve writes:
. . .There's also a tendency in Europe to engage in projection, and to think of America as being Europe's child, a rebellious teenager. Once we Americans "grow up", we'll realize that they were right all along, but in the mean time this is just a phase that all children go through.
The evidence from history is that all these assumptions are false. They ignore that evidence; they explain it away by saying that America has changed. Even if the nation was willing to sacrifice 400,000 dead in WWII, that was then and this is now, and modern Americans are different. . .
. . . And they discount the degree to which our system maintains continuity of policy. Even if Kerry wins this year, there's still essentially no chance of the Democrats regaining control of the House, and that would mean that the Democrats would have to compromise on foreign policy even if they thought the way the Europeans somehow hope they do.
But they also discount the fact that, as the IHT article points out, the Democrats don't have any higher regard for European opinion than the Republicans do, and are no more enchanted by the Europeans as any kind of role model. The main difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy is that the Democrats are willing to smile and nod at the Europeans before ignoring them, whereas the Republicans are more straightforward in expressing their disdain. . .
. . .Were Kerry to become president, the big change would be in manner and style, but there would be little change in substance. Kerry would willingly meet with European leaders, and speak to them in French, and then end up doing just about the same thing Bush will do when he gets reelected. . .
It's long, but definitely worth reading. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
The other day, an American reader in Germany (I seem to be writing lots about Germany today) emailed me a link to a piece by Steve Den Beste (which for some reason I missed). In it, Steve uses an IHT article on the nature of American politics as a springboard from which he could discuss the fact that way too many Europeans seem not to get "it". (Thanks Courtenay. And be proud to sign Virginia Yank! Your southern relatives might not realize quite how much, out here, every American is a Yank.) Steve writes:
. . .There's also a tendency in Europe to engage in projection, and to think of America as being Europe's child, a rebellious teenager. Once we Americans "grow up", we'll realize that they were right all along, but in the mean time this is just a phase that all children go through.
The evidence from history is that all these assumptions are false. They ignore that evidence; they explain it away by saying that America has changed. Even if the nation was willing to sacrifice 400,000 dead in WWII, that was then and this is now, and modern Americans are different. . .
. . . And they discount the degree to which our system maintains continuity of policy. Even if Kerry wins this year, there's still essentially no chance of the Democrats regaining control of the House, and that would mean that the Democrats would have to compromise on foreign policy even if they thought the way the Europeans somehow hope they do.
But they also discount the fact that, as the IHT article points out, the Democrats don't have any higher regard for European opinion than the Republicans do, and are no more enchanted by the Europeans as any kind of role model. The main difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy is that the Democrats are willing to smile and nod at the Europeans before ignoring them, whereas the Republicans are more straightforward in expressing their disdain. . .
. . .Were Kerry to become president, the big change would be in manner and style, but there would be little change in substance. Kerry would willingly meet with European leaders, and speak to them in French, and then end up doing just about the same thing Bush will do when he gets reelected. . .
It's long, but definitely worth reading. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
THE HANDOVER IN DANGER?
Well, the BBC has let Paul Reynolds loose yet again:
Since security in Iraq is still not under control, the nature and even the timing of the proposed handover of sovereignty on 30 June is being increasingly questioned.
Some critics are predicting that the handover will be symbolic only, with an Iraqi interim government nominally in charge but with security and economic decisions remaining in the hands of the United States. . .
Those "some critics" again.
In reading -- if you are interested -- the rest of Reynolds' piece, bear in mind the following: In 1949, the U.S., Britain and France began the handover to an independent West Germany, its capital in Bonn.
But the country as a whole, while nominally independent, was still going through growing pains, and it did not have complete sovereignty by any means. It was not until 1955 that the Federal Republic of Germany was officially granted total sovereignty. Infoplease has some details:
. . . In 1949, Germany was divided into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). . .
. . . The occupying powers allowed West Germany considerable autonomy from the start, except in foreign affairs. The three resident High Commissioners could review actions taken by the Bonn government, but in practice they rarely intervened. In 1951, West Germany was given the right to conduct its own foreign relations. In 1952, West Germany, the United States, France, and Great Britain signed the Bonn Convention, in effect a peace treaty, which granted West Germany most of the attributes of national sovereignty. The Paris agreements of 1954, which came into force in 1955, gave West Germany full independence, except that the former occupying powers reserved the right to negotiate with the USSR on matters relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. Also, the powers continued to maintain troops in the country. In 1955, West Germany was recognized as an independent country by numerous nations, including the USSR, and it became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, thus solidifying its ties with the West. In the same year, legislation was passed providing for the creation of West German armed forces. . .
Just worth noting.
For some, it is always too soon. For others, it is never soon enough. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
Well, the BBC has let Paul Reynolds loose yet again:
Since security in Iraq is still not under control, the nature and even the timing of the proposed handover of sovereignty on 30 June is being increasingly questioned.
Some critics are predicting that the handover will be symbolic only, with an Iraqi interim government nominally in charge but with security and economic decisions remaining in the hands of the United States. . .
Those "some critics" again.
In reading -- if you are interested -- the rest of Reynolds' piece, bear in mind the following: In 1949, the U.S., Britain and France began the handover to an independent West Germany, its capital in Bonn.
But the country as a whole, while nominally independent, was still going through growing pains, and it did not have complete sovereignty by any means. It was not until 1955 that the Federal Republic of Germany was officially granted total sovereignty. Infoplease has some details:
. . . In 1949, Germany was divided into the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). . .
. . . The occupying powers allowed West Germany considerable autonomy from the start, except in foreign affairs. The three resident High Commissioners could review actions taken by the Bonn government, but in practice they rarely intervened. In 1951, West Germany was given the right to conduct its own foreign relations. In 1952, West Germany, the United States, France, and Great Britain signed the Bonn Convention, in effect a peace treaty, which granted West Germany most of the attributes of national sovereignty. The Paris agreements of 1954, which came into force in 1955, gave West Germany full independence, except that the former occupying powers reserved the right to negotiate with the USSR on matters relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. Also, the powers continued to maintain troops in the country. In 1955, West Germany was recognized as an independent country by numerous nations, including the USSR, and it became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, thus solidifying its ties with the West. In the same year, legislation was passed providing for the creation of West German armed forces. . .
Just worth noting.
For some, it is always too soon. For others, it is never soon enough. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
THE REAL MORONS ARE?
Making fun of President George W. Bush's supposed intellectual deficiencies has been a staple of the "angry left." The problem with their appraisal of him is that most of the left shouldn't throw stones, considering that the left is not even half as smart as it apparently thinks it is. Take, for example, this, as Scott Burgess notes:
When he's not writing for the Socialist Review ("If we do away with the old subject boundaries and hierarchies and exams we open places of education up to people of all ages, all abilities") or speaking at pro-Palestinian rallies ("I renounce my right of return, and I make that pledge in front of all of you"), Michael Rosen writes childrens' books and presents Word of Mouth - a programme about language aired on Radio 4.
Last night he and his guests had a good snigger at the expense of George W. Bush (BA, Yale University, 1968 - MBA, Harvard Business School, 1975):
Rosen (PhD, Childrens' Literature, University of North London): "I'm trying to get into my head the notion or the picture of George W. Bush saying "rapprochement" and getting through to the end of the word."
So you know, the University of North London is defunct. It was recently combined with another failing north London university, to create London Metropolitan University.
So, we will see if failure can be achieved eventually on an even more impressive scale . . .
Marie-Noelle Lamy (Director of Languages, Open University): "Well he probably wouldn't be able to say it, but John Kerry would."
NOTE: The Open University is pretty much what you think it is. Its undergraduate courses do not require any entry qualifications. There, of course, is a place for such institutions. But, frankly, someone from Open bashing Bush's intellect is, at best, a combination of tedious, ignorant and inappropriate.
Mark Urban (Diplomatic Editor, Newsnight) : "He seemed to know the word 'entrepreneur' - 'the French don't have a word for entrepreneur' I think was the great quote."
NOTE: And the less said of BBC "Newsnight" the better.
Perhaps one shouldn't expect terribly elevated discourse from someone whose primary audience is comprised of children, but a BBC news editor should know better than to make a public display of his political bias by smirkingly repeating a debunked story. . .
One would think so. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
Making fun of President George W. Bush's supposed intellectual deficiencies has been a staple of the "angry left." The problem with their appraisal of him is that most of the left shouldn't throw stones, considering that the left is not even half as smart as it apparently thinks it is. Take, for example, this, as Scott Burgess notes:
When he's not writing for the Socialist Review ("If we do away with the old subject boundaries and hierarchies and exams we open places of education up to people of all ages, all abilities") or speaking at pro-Palestinian rallies ("I renounce my right of return, and I make that pledge in front of all of you"), Michael Rosen writes childrens' books and presents Word of Mouth - a programme about language aired on Radio 4.
Last night he and his guests had a good snigger at the expense of George W. Bush (BA, Yale University, 1968 - MBA, Harvard Business School, 1975):
Rosen (PhD, Childrens' Literature, University of North London): "I'm trying to get into my head the notion or the picture of George W. Bush saying "rapprochement" and getting through to the end of the word."
So you know, the University of North London is defunct. It was recently combined with another failing north London university, to create London Metropolitan University.
So, we will see if failure can be achieved eventually on an even more impressive scale . . .
Marie-Noelle Lamy (Director of Languages, Open University): "Well he probably wouldn't be able to say it, but John Kerry would."
NOTE: The Open University is pretty much what you think it is. Its undergraduate courses do not require any entry qualifications. There, of course, is a place for such institutions. But, frankly, someone from Open bashing Bush's intellect is, at best, a combination of tedious, ignorant and inappropriate.
Mark Urban (Diplomatic Editor, Newsnight) : "He seemed to know the word 'entrepreneur' - 'the French don't have a word for entrepreneur' I think was the great quote."
NOTE: And the less said of BBC "Newsnight" the better.
Perhaps one shouldn't expect terribly elevated discourse from someone whose primary audience is comprised of children, but a BBC news editor should know better than to make a public display of his political bias by smirkingly repeating a debunked story. . .
One would think so. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
FALLUJAH TODAY
CNN reports:
U.S. Marines on Monday closed all roads into Fallujah, the site of last week's slayings of four U.S. civilian contractors and the horrific mutilations of their bodies. The Marines engaged in firefights inside and around the city, sources there said.
One Marine was killed in the fighting, according to the Coalition Press Information Center.
At least seven Iraqis were killed Monday morning in several incidents, sources in the city said. . .
So, get ready. They're coming. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
CNN reports:
U.S. Marines on Monday closed all roads into Fallujah, the site of last week's slayings of four U.S. civilian contractors and the horrific mutilations of their bodies. The Marines engaged in firefights inside and around the city, sources there said.
One Marine was killed in the fighting, according to the Coalition Press Information Center.
At least seven Iraqis were killed Monday morning in several incidents, sources in the city said. . .
So, get ready. They're coming. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
ON A SPORTS NOTE
Putting aside the chaos of the world of a moment, a harmless diversion. Newsday reports:
For the second straight season the Islanders will face the East's top seed in the first round of the playoffs, but this time, against Tampa Bay, they hardly are the heavy underdogs they were against Ottawa last year.
"You go into the playoffs and it's all about matchups and we've matched up pretty well against Tampa Bay, not just this year but really throughout the time I've been here. We expect that to continue," Michael Peca said, referring to the 9-3 record against the Lightning since 2001, and the 3-1 record against them this season. . .
So, maybe, just maybe, the Islanders have a chance to win a playoff series . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
Putting aside the chaos of the world of a moment, a harmless diversion. Newsday reports:
For the second straight season the Islanders will face the East's top seed in the first round of the playoffs, but this time, against Tampa Bay, they hardly are the heavy underdogs they were against Ottawa last year.
"You go into the playoffs and it's all about matchups and we've matched up pretty well against Tampa Bay, not just this year but really throughout the time I've been here. We expect that to continue," Michael Peca said, referring to the 9-3 record against the Lightning since 2001, and the 3-1 record against them this season. . .
So, maybe, just maybe, the Islanders have a chance to win a playoff series . . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
LE MONDE SAYS BUSH DIDN'T LIE
Erik Svane tells us that Le Monde has admitted that Bush and Blair did not lie about Iraq's WMD. Iraq did:
. . . the gist of the April 2, 2004, article — "just the facts, Ma'am", if you prefer — undermines, undoes, and shatters the entire controversy that has been damaging Bush and Tony Blair with regards to their alleged lies when they mentioned Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for launching the March 2003 attack on the butcher of Baghdad's régime. Insofar as the issue of fibs must be addressed at all, the article not only states that if "outrageous lies" were made, they were made by the dictator's top henchmen (when answering questions by UN weapons inspectors); it also suggests that to go around carping about Dubya's alleged lies is extremely misleading, to say the least, something which could be called a lie in itself. . .
But that doesn't change anything, of course:
. . . But wait a minute, you may ask: do not the facts in this article suggest that the holy fight against Bush and America is overblown to begin with? Don't they prove — along with the fact that most Iraqis seem to have supported the war to oust Saddam — (or don't they, at least, suggest) that perhaps Dubya wasn't that horrible to begin with, that he wasn't that big of a liar to begin with, that he wasn't that wrong to have used force to depose the butcher of Baghdad to begin with?
Don't be silly. The fact that the evidence denies that Washington was treacherous to begin with, we cannot let that obscure our holy cause, can we? To agree with that, you would have to admit that France, the Élysée, and the Quai d'Orsay were mistaken to oppose President Bush in this matter. You would have to admit that the entire mudslinging campaign against Uncle Sam was wrong, not only in the beginning of the 21st century, but perhaps even for the past six decades as well. You would have to admit that the pacifists' language of doom, as applied to les Américains, was unsound and misguided. You might even have to admit that such people can hardly be called pacifists or peace-lovers, by any stretch of the imagination. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
Erik Svane tells us that Le Monde has admitted that Bush and Blair did not lie about Iraq's WMD. Iraq did:
. . . the gist of the April 2, 2004, article — "just the facts, Ma'am", if you prefer — undermines, undoes, and shatters the entire controversy that has been damaging Bush and Tony Blair with regards to their alleged lies when they mentioned Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for launching the March 2003 attack on the butcher of Baghdad's régime. Insofar as the issue of fibs must be addressed at all, the article not only states that if "outrageous lies" were made, they were made by the dictator's top henchmen (when answering questions by UN weapons inspectors); it also suggests that to go around carping about Dubya's alleged lies is extremely misleading, to say the least, something which could be called a lie in itself. . .
But that doesn't change anything, of course:
. . . But wait a minute, you may ask: do not the facts in this article suggest that the holy fight against Bush and America is overblown to begin with? Don't they prove — along with the fact that most Iraqis seem to have supported the war to oust Saddam — (or don't they, at least, suggest) that perhaps Dubya wasn't that horrible to begin with, that he wasn't that big of a liar to begin with, that he wasn't that wrong to have used force to depose the butcher of Baghdad to begin with?
Don't be silly. The fact that the evidence denies that Washington was treacherous to begin with, we cannot let that obscure our holy cause, can we? To agree with that, you would have to admit that France, the Élysée, and the Quai d'Orsay were mistaken to oppose President Bush in this matter. You would have to admit that the entire mudslinging campaign against Uncle Sam was wrong, not only in the beginning of the 21st century, but perhaps even for the past six decades as well. You would have to admit that the pacifists' language of doom, as applied to les Américains, was unsound and misguided. You might even have to admit that such people can hardly be called pacifists or peace-lovers, by any stretch of the imagination. . .
Read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
ANOTHER "INDEPENDENT INQUIRY"
The BBC reports:
The immigration system may be being used to help meet asylum seeker targets, the Tories have claimed.
Shadow home secretary David Davis told the BBC's Politics Show the government had lost control of immigration.
He said there was a belief that asylum seekers were being encouraged to enter the UK on working visas. . .
. . .Tony Blair is expected to meet ministers on Tuesday to root out abuse of the system.
The proposed summit with Home Secretary David Blunkett and Department of Work and Pensions and Foreign Office ministers would kick-start a "cross-government assault" to tackle abuse of the immigration system, a Downing Street spokeswoman said. . .
Oh, no. No!!!!!!!!! Not that! Anything but! Here it comes now:
. . . both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have called for an independent inquiry into the whole issue. . .
Another inquiry?! Help us! For the love of God! Someone . . . save us! ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
The BBC reports:
The immigration system may be being used to help meet asylum seeker targets, the Tories have claimed.
Shadow home secretary David Davis told the BBC's Politics Show the government had lost control of immigration.
He said there was a belief that asylum seekers were being encouraged to enter the UK on working visas. . .
. . .Tony Blair is expected to meet ministers on Tuesday to root out abuse of the system.
The proposed summit with Home Secretary David Blunkett and Department of Work and Pensions and Foreign Office ministers would kick-start a "cross-government assault" to tackle abuse of the immigration system, a Downing Street spokeswoman said. . .
Oh, no. No!!!!!!!!! Not that! Anything but! Here it comes now:
. . . both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have called for an independent inquiry into the whole issue. . .
Another inquiry?! Help us! For the love of God! Someone . . . save us! ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
TERROR AND IRAQ
I have been having an interesting private email exchange with the Expat Egghead and Cathy, over the war in Iraq's usefulness, and the war on Islamist terror and Iraq's connection to it.
I won't post Adrian's emails directly, because I don't feel doing that is appropriate. For the benefit of visitors here, I will simply state that Adrian takes the position -- and argues it very well -- that the war on terror is eminently necessary, but the occupation of Iraq is overkill. (Their web site explains it much better.)
However, given the events of the last few days, I believe it is worth quoting from one of my emails:
Swatting at flies, as Bush supposedly put it in early 2001, is necessary, but cannot be the be all and end all. That strategy was, after all, reactive, not pro-active. Indeed, "swatting at flies" also landed September 11 on New York and Washington. So we must not just "swat flies", but be constructive.
That is where democratizing Iraq comes in. To help a centerpiece Arab state achieve a reasonable government -- in a land where before there had been nothing but mass graves, torture chambers, secret police, poverty where there should have been at least some level of individual wealth, and scientists up to no good -- is one of the best ways anyone has thought of to help combat the insanity that breeds Islamist terrorists in general.
Hopefully, other Middle Eastern peoples will see the benefits of democracy and reasonable government in Iraq, and will want the same for themselves. (Iran is teetering, and even Syria appears to be rumbling.) As has been said elsewhere, the coalition did not invade Iraq because it wants to invade everywhere; it invaded Iraq so it doesn't have to invade everywhere.
So there are now U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq, and will be foreign troops in Iraq, possibly for generations -- as they are still in Germany and in Japan. They will help serve to stablize Iraq in the longer term. And eventually decent government will root itself there. And hopefully, thirty years from now, Iraq will be the showpiece of the Middle East in the manner that West Germany had become the showpiece of western Europe by 1975.
I have heard no other better strategy offered for combatting Islamist terrorism. The most frequently espoused alternative (the status quo, September 10, 2001) will probably get us nothing but further insanity, more suicide bombers and heaven knows what else.
And what we just witnessed in Madrid could very well have happened in Florida (September 11 hijackers sojourned in Florida, remember) or elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed, it probably will, unless we can demonstrate that sanity is indeed the better way.
"Double indeed", sometimes the "direct" route is not as "direct" as it might seem.
As we all know, World War II began officially for the U.S. when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, December 8, 1941, the U.S. declared war on Japan. Within days Hitler did Roosevelt a favor and declared war on the U.S. The U.S. then responded with a declaration of war against Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Fascist Italy also declared war on the U.S. (Talk about a brilliant move.) Naturally, the U.S. responded in kind.
However, the war between the U.S. and Germany did not commence with a U.S. invasion of Germany's North Sea coast, near, say, Bremerhaven. The U.S. forces in the European Theater proceeded to invade French North Africa in November 1942, and first fought not against Germans, but on landing beaches and in towns against French collaborationist troops. Within weeks, the Americans were also battling against Italians and, finally, ran into some Germans in Tunisia.
In July 1943 the U.S. and Britain invaded, oh, no, not Germany . . . but Sicily. There, most of the defenders were Italians, with a couple of good divisions of Germans in support. In September, the Allies then invaded mainland Italy, which surrendered and switched sides, and Germany rushed more troops down the Italian peninsula. In the confusion, some Italians still fought with the Germans, some fought with the Allies, but most probably just wished the whole damn thing would just go away.
The U.S. and British Allies finally got around to fighting purely Germans in Normandy . . . well, maybe not "purely", for there the Allies also captured large numbers of Cossacks, Russians and even Koreans, who were, for a variety of reasons, fighting for Nazi Germany.
In October 1944, the Allies FINALLY reached the German border. In their first big ground fight for a GERMAN city, U.S. troops found themselves in Aachen, facing Germans in probably the closest thing to a "Stalingrad"-like battle that the Americans faced in Europe -- house to house fighting against an enemy that used even the sewers to move troops about. The surrounded German forces finally surrendered, but by then the ancient city had been virtually destroyed.
After Aachen? Invading the interior of Germany? Impossible! Indeed, one can readily imagine what Robert Fisk might have written of Aachen . . .
The Independent, from our correspondent, Aachen, 7 October, 1944: "In a rush, in came the Americans, into Charlemagne's city, which these Germans, dirty and tired, poorly equipped, defend still. Most have no love for Hitler. But this is their place. A place not unlike other frontier places, which Romans two thousand years ago also defended. A place from which that decaying empire attempted to hold back the Germanic hordes, moving southwards, ever southwards. Now, the American hordes are the incomers. From the west. There. There they are. The GIs. . ."
Nazi Germany fell about 6 1/2 months later.
Interestingly, the Aachen tourist site notes that:
. . .On the 21 October 1944 the city was liberated by the Americans after 6 weeks of intense fighting – approx. 65% of all houses and flats had been destroyed. . .
Liberated by the Americans. Not conquered. That is a GERMAN web site. (Someday, hopefully, one of the first small Iraqi cities liberated by the coalition will have a similar comment on its tourism web site.)
After World War II ended, it all made relative sense. It was all part of the "grand strategy." Ah, huh. But imagine how the strategy undertaken by Washington and London during World War II would have been debated by the public in 1943, had there been bloggers, and -- oh, good grief --- "anti-war" activists of today's sorts? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
I have been having an interesting private email exchange with the Expat Egghead and Cathy, over the war in Iraq's usefulness, and the war on Islamist terror and Iraq's connection to it.
I won't post Adrian's emails directly, because I don't feel doing that is appropriate. For the benefit of visitors here, I will simply state that Adrian takes the position -- and argues it very well -- that the war on terror is eminently necessary, but the occupation of Iraq is overkill. (Their web site explains it much better.)
However, given the events of the last few days, I believe it is worth quoting from one of my emails:
Swatting at flies, as Bush supposedly put it in early 2001, is necessary, but cannot be the be all and end all. That strategy was, after all, reactive, not pro-active. Indeed, "swatting at flies" also landed September 11 on New York and Washington. So we must not just "swat flies", but be constructive.
That is where democratizing Iraq comes in. To help a centerpiece Arab state achieve a reasonable government -- in a land where before there had been nothing but mass graves, torture chambers, secret police, poverty where there should have been at least some level of individual wealth, and scientists up to no good -- is one of the best ways anyone has thought of to help combat the insanity that breeds Islamist terrorists in general.
Hopefully, other Middle Eastern peoples will see the benefits of democracy and reasonable government in Iraq, and will want the same for themselves. (Iran is teetering, and even Syria appears to be rumbling.) As has been said elsewhere, the coalition did not invade Iraq because it wants to invade everywhere; it invaded Iraq so it doesn't have to invade everywhere.
So there are now U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq, and will be foreign troops in Iraq, possibly for generations -- as they are still in Germany and in Japan. They will help serve to stablize Iraq in the longer term. And eventually decent government will root itself there. And hopefully, thirty years from now, Iraq will be the showpiece of the Middle East in the manner that West Germany had become the showpiece of western Europe by 1975.
I have heard no other better strategy offered for combatting Islamist terrorism. The most frequently espoused alternative (the status quo, September 10, 2001) will probably get us nothing but further insanity, more suicide bombers and heaven knows what else.
And what we just witnessed in Madrid could very well have happened in Florida (September 11 hijackers sojourned in Florida, remember) or elsewhere in the U.S. Indeed, it probably will, unless we can demonstrate that sanity is indeed the better way.
"Double indeed", sometimes the "direct" route is not as "direct" as it might seem.
As we all know, World War II began officially for the U.S. when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, December 8, 1941, the U.S. declared war on Japan. Within days Hitler did Roosevelt a favor and declared war on the U.S. The U.S. then responded with a declaration of war against Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Fascist Italy also declared war on the U.S. (Talk about a brilliant move.) Naturally, the U.S. responded in kind.
However, the war between the U.S. and Germany did not commence with a U.S. invasion of Germany's North Sea coast, near, say, Bremerhaven. The U.S. forces in the European Theater proceeded to invade French North Africa in November 1942, and first fought not against Germans, but on landing beaches and in towns against French collaborationist troops. Within weeks, the Americans were also battling against Italians and, finally, ran into some Germans in Tunisia.
In July 1943 the U.S. and Britain invaded, oh, no, not Germany . . . but Sicily. There, most of the defenders were Italians, with a couple of good divisions of Germans in support. In September, the Allies then invaded mainland Italy, which surrendered and switched sides, and Germany rushed more troops down the Italian peninsula. In the confusion, some Italians still fought with the Germans, some fought with the Allies, but most probably just wished the whole damn thing would just go away.
The U.S. and British Allies finally got around to fighting purely Germans in Normandy . . . well, maybe not "purely", for there the Allies also captured large numbers of Cossacks, Russians and even Koreans, who were, for a variety of reasons, fighting for Nazi Germany.
In October 1944, the Allies FINALLY reached the German border. In their first big ground fight for a GERMAN city, U.S. troops found themselves in Aachen, facing Germans in probably the closest thing to a "Stalingrad"-like battle that the Americans faced in Europe -- house to house fighting against an enemy that used even the sewers to move troops about. The surrounded German forces finally surrendered, but by then the ancient city had been virtually destroyed.
After Aachen? Invading the interior of Germany? Impossible! Indeed, one can readily imagine what Robert Fisk might have written of Aachen . . .
The Independent, from our correspondent, Aachen, 7 October, 1944: "In a rush, in came the Americans, into Charlemagne's city, which these Germans, dirty and tired, poorly equipped, defend still. Most have no love for Hitler. But this is their place. A place not unlike other frontier places, which Romans two thousand years ago also defended. A place from which that decaying empire attempted to hold back the Germanic hordes, moving southwards, ever southwards. Now, the American hordes are the incomers. From the west. There. There they are. The GIs. . ."
Nazi Germany fell about 6 1/2 months later.
Interestingly, the Aachen tourist site notes that:
. . .On the 21 October 1944 the city was liberated by the Americans after 6 weeks of intense fighting – approx. 65% of all houses and flats had been destroyed. . .
Liberated by the Americans. Not conquered. That is a GERMAN web site. (Someday, hopefully, one of the first small Iraqi cities liberated by the coalition will have a similar comment on its tourism web site.)
After World War II ended, it all made relative sense. It was all part of the "grand strategy." Ah, huh. But imagine how the strategy undertaken by Washington and London during World War II would have been debated by the public in 1943, had there been bloggers, and -- oh, good grief --- "anti-war" activists of today's sorts? ¶ by Robert, Monday, April 05, 2004
Sunday, April 04, 2004
IT STILL MUST BE EXPLAINED?
Christopher Hitchens in Opinionjournal (mentioned first by Shannon and Tom. Thanks!):
. . . I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?. . .
And the answers are?
Urrr . . . obvious. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
Christopher Hitchens in Opinionjournal (mentioned first by Shannon and Tom. Thanks!):
. . . I debate with the opponents of the Iraq intervention almost every day. I always have the same questions for them, which never seem to get answered. Do you believe that a confrontation with Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable or not? Do you believe that a confrontation with an Uday/Qusay regime would have been better? Do you know that Saddam's envoys were trying to buy a weapons production line off the shelf from North Korea (vide the Kay report) as late as last March? Why do you think Saddam offered "succor" (Mr. Clarke's word) to the man most wanted in the 1993 bombings in New York? Would you have been in favor of lifting the "no fly zones" over northern and southern Iraq; a 10-year prolongation of the original "Gulf War"? Were you content to have Kurdish and Shiite resistance fighters do all the fighting for us? Do you think that the timing of a confrontation should have been left, as it was in the past, for Baghdad to choose?. . .
And the answers are?
Urrr . . . obvious. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
"RINGLEADER" DEAD
UPDATE: 2110 BT: The BBC reports:
The suspected ringleader of the Madrid bombings blew himself up along with three other suspects during a police raid, Spain's interior minister said.
Angel Acebes said Serhane ben Abdelmajid Farkhet, alias "The Tunisian", died in an explosion in a Madrid suburb on Saturday night.
One policeman was also killed and 11 others hurt, some seriously.
Outside the flats where the explosion took place, police found - and safely defused - a car packed with explosives.
Officers searching the building say they have found two backpacks full of explosives, in addition to dynamite and detonators found there on Saturday. . .
. . .Police found 200 detonators of the kind used in the Madrid attacks and in the unexploded bomb that was discovered on the high speed Madrid-Seville rail line on Friday, Mr Acebes said.
Police also removed 10kg (22 pounds) of dynamite from the apartment. . .
We can only guess what has been prevented, and who will be walking around in the coming weeks, months and years, who might otherwise be dead, killed at the hands of these practitioners of one heck of an, urrr, " exploding" religion.
INITIAL POST
Sky reports at 1130 British time:
The suspected ringleader in the Madrid train bombings was among the alleged terrorists who blew themselves up as police moved in to arrest them on Saturday.
They tell us there will be an update to follow, as details about last night's lunacy are further uncovered. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
UPDATE: 2110 BT: The BBC reports:
The suspected ringleader of the Madrid bombings blew himself up along with three other suspects during a police raid, Spain's interior minister said.
Angel Acebes said Serhane ben Abdelmajid Farkhet, alias "The Tunisian", died in an explosion in a Madrid suburb on Saturday night.
One policeman was also killed and 11 others hurt, some seriously.
Outside the flats where the explosion took place, police found - and safely defused - a car packed with explosives.
Officers searching the building say they have found two backpacks full of explosives, in addition to dynamite and detonators found there on Saturday. . .
. . .Police found 200 detonators of the kind used in the Madrid attacks and in the unexploded bomb that was discovered on the high speed Madrid-Seville rail line on Friday, Mr Acebes said.
Police also removed 10kg (22 pounds) of dynamite from the apartment. . .
We can only guess what has been prevented, and who will be walking around in the coming weeks, months and years, who might otherwise be dead, killed at the hands of these practitioners of one heck of an, urrr, " exploding" religion.
INITIAL POST
Sky reports at 1130 British time:
The suspected ringleader in the Madrid train bombings was among the alleged terrorists who blew themselves up as police moved in to arrest them on Saturday.
They tell us there will be an update to follow, as details about last night's lunacy are further uncovered. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
ON THE ENEMY BURNING THE UNION JACK
Western democracies have become amazing places. They now allow the enemy to gather in the middle of a national capital -- in wartime -- and call for the destruction of that very democracy. The Sun reports:
BAYING Muslim fanatics torched a Union Jack in London yesterday — and sneered that Tony Blair is powerless to stop al-Qaeda bombing Britain. . .
The Sun comments:
THE sight of militant Muslims burning the Union Jack in Regent’s Park will sicken the nation.
So will their chants of "UK, you will pay, Bin Laden on his way."
But do not make the mistake of thinking these revolting hotheads in any way represent the views of the 1.5million Muslims in Britain.
Worshippers at the Regent’s Park mosque were disgusted at their appalling behaviour.
They know that the peaceful teachings of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, are being twisted.
There are very serious questions to be asked about the actions of these extremists.
The biggest one is: Why the hell do we put up with them?. . .
Indeed. Can one imagine Nazis being allowed to gather in central London in 1943, burning a Union Jack and chanting about the U.K. having to pay, that Hitler is on his way? ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
Western democracies have become amazing places. They now allow the enemy to gather in the middle of a national capital -- in wartime -- and call for the destruction of that very democracy. The Sun reports:
BAYING Muslim fanatics torched a Union Jack in London yesterday — and sneered that Tony Blair is powerless to stop al-Qaeda bombing Britain. . .
The Sun comments:
THE sight of militant Muslims burning the Union Jack in Regent’s Park will sicken the nation.
So will their chants of "UK, you will pay, Bin Laden on his way."
But do not make the mistake of thinking these revolting hotheads in any way represent the views of the 1.5million Muslims in Britain.
Worshippers at the Regent’s Park mosque were disgusted at their appalling behaviour.
They know that the peaceful teachings of the Muslim holy book, the Koran, are being twisted.
There are very serious questions to be asked about the actions of these extremists.
The biggest one is: Why the hell do we put up with them?. . .
Indeed. Can one imagine Nazis being allowed to gather in central London in 1943, burning a Union Jack and chanting about the U.K. having to pay, that Hitler is on his way? ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
"AMERICAN GRAVEYARD"
Well, at least the following masterpiece isn't from Paul Reynolds. The BBC's Richard Lister shares this profound insight with the rest of us blockheads:
Looking on as a crowd of cheering Iraqis desecrated the bodies of four civilians killed by insurgents, 12-year-old Mohammad Nafik said: "This is the fate of all Americans who come to Falluja.". . .
Having quoted a fierce 12 year old, Lister continues:
. . . Falluja is in a region that has become known as the "Sunni triangle" - a predominantly Sunni Muslim area in a country with a Shia majority.
The region also incorporates Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit.
As well as being united by religion, there are also important tribal links, and it was from this region that Saddam Hussein (himself a Sunni Muslim - notionally at least) recruited his powerbase of support.
That goes some way towards explaining the anti-coalition hostility in the region. . .
. . . And, girls and boys, that's how the produce gets to market. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
Well, at least the following masterpiece isn't from Paul Reynolds. The BBC's Richard Lister shares this profound insight with the rest of us blockheads:
Looking on as a crowd of cheering Iraqis desecrated the bodies of four civilians killed by insurgents, 12-year-old Mohammad Nafik said: "This is the fate of all Americans who come to Falluja.". . .
Having quoted a fierce 12 year old, Lister continues:
. . . Falluja is in a region that has become known as the "Sunni triangle" - a predominantly Sunni Muslim area in a country with a Shia majority.
The region also incorporates Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit.
As well as being united by religion, there are also important tribal links, and it was from this region that Saddam Hussein (himself a Sunni Muslim - notionally at least) recruited his powerbase of support.
That goes some way towards explaining the anti-coalition hostility in the region. . .
. . . And, girls and boys, that's how the produce gets to market. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
NYPD OR FDNY
The A.P. reports:
Two-and-a-half years after the World Trade Center attack, a plan to improve the city's handling of emergencies is incomplete because of bureaucratic delays and infighting between the police and fire departments. . .
. . . "Police want to be in charge of everything," said Deputy Chief Nick Visconti, who represents chiefs for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association. "We're supposed to play nice in the sandbox. That seldom works because there's egos involved.". . .
. . .Police officials say they have no intention of micromanaging firefighting operations. But they say it's only natural for the nation's largest law-enforcement agency to manage any response to what could be simultaneous and geographically dispersed attacks on New York. . .
We are told that September 11, 2001 changed everything. But that clearly isn't, urrr, quite the case.
Indeed, it's "re-assuring" to see that when it comes to cops v. firefighters, some things will NEVER change. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Two-and-a-half years after the World Trade Center attack, a plan to improve the city's handling of emergencies is incomplete because of bureaucratic delays and infighting between the police and fire departments. . .
. . . "Police want to be in charge of everything," said Deputy Chief Nick Visconti, who represents chiefs for the Uniformed Fire Officers Association. "We're supposed to play nice in the sandbox. That seldom works because there's egos involved.". . .
. . .Police officials say they have no intention of micromanaging firefighting operations. But they say it's only natural for the nation's largest law-enforcement agency to manage any response to what could be simultaneous and geographically dispersed attacks on New York. . .
We are told that September 11, 2001 changed everything. But that clearly isn't, urrr, quite the case.
Indeed, it's "re-assuring" to see that when it comes to cops v. firefighters, some things will NEVER change. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, April 04, 2004
Saturday, April 03, 2004
THE RELIGION OF AMMONIUM NITRATE?
The BBC reports at 2315 BST (1715 E.T. U.S):
One policeman and three suspected militants have been killed in an explosion in a suburb of the Spanish capital, Madrid.
Not those "suspected militants" again. Geezzh.
Is the phrase "enemy combatants" in ANYONE'S vocabulary?!
The blast was set off by the suspects as police closed in on an apartment in the south-western area of Leganes, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
Eleven police officers were hurt in the blast, some seriously.
Police said they had been looking for three men of Moroccan origin in connection with the Madrid train bombs.
Well, that's a flippin' shock.
"The special police agents prepared to storm the building and when they started to execute the plan, the terrorists set off a powerful explosion blowing themselves up," Mr Acebes said.
"There are three that could have blown themselves up, but the possilibity of more is not ruled out.
"Police believe some of the terrorists... could have been some sought by the security forces as the alleged perpetrators of the killings of March 11."
Obviously, they were just misunderstood sorts.
And if the police would have just left them alone, they would not have blown themselves up!
When will we learn?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
. . . A reporter from CNN partner station CNN+, who was on the scene, said the police had been attempting to enter a building to search for suspects who may be linked to the Madrid commuter train bombings of March 11 when the explosion occurred, at 9 p.m. (2 p.m. ET).
Antena 3 television reported that the suspects had threatened to blow up the four-story building in the southern Madrid suburb of Leganes, about 10 miles south of the capital. . .
Clearly, that planned withdrawal from Iraq has been making Spain an increasing number of friends among the self-detonating crowd. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
The BBC reports at 2315 BST (1715 E.T. U.S):
One policeman and three suspected militants have been killed in an explosion in a suburb of the Spanish capital, Madrid.
Not those "suspected militants" again. Geezzh.
Is the phrase "enemy combatants" in ANYONE'S vocabulary?!
The blast was set off by the suspects as police closed in on an apartment in the south-western area of Leganes, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
Eleven police officers were hurt in the blast, some seriously.
Police said they had been looking for three men of Moroccan origin in connection with the Madrid train bombs.
Well, that's a flippin' shock.
"The special police agents prepared to storm the building and when they started to execute the plan, the terrorists set off a powerful explosion blowing themselves up," Mr Acebes said.
"There are three that could have blown themselves up, but the possilibity of more is not ruled out.
"Police believe some of the terrorists... could have been some sought by the security forces as the alleged perpetrators of the killings of March 11."
Obviously, they were just misunderstood sorts.
And if the police would have just left them alone, they would not have blown themselves up!
When will we learn?
UPDATE: CNN reports:
. . . A reporter from CNN partner station CNN+, who was on the scene, said the police had been attempting to enter a building to search for suspects who may be linked to the Madrid commuter train bombings of March 11 when the explosion occurred, at 9 p.m. (2 p.m. ET).
Antena 3 television reported that the suspects had threatened to blow up the four-story building in the southern Madrid suburb of Leganes, about 10 miles south of the capital. . .
Clearly, that planned withdrawal from Iraq has been making Spain an increasing number of friends among the self-detonating crowd. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BACK THESE PEOPLE?
The Washington Times reports:
. . .Violence continued Saturday, with a Palestinian gunman killing an Israeli man and wounding his 12-year-old daughter in their home in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
The radical Islamic Hamas group claimed responsibility for the attack on the Avnei Hefetz settlement near the Palestinian town of Tulkarem, the Lebanese TV station Al Manar reported.
That they "claim responsibility" is the problem!
What a freakin' bunch.
Palestinian security officials identified the gunman as Zohair Arda, 18, a Hamas militant from the Tulkarem refugee camp, and said he had been released days earlier from an Israeli jail.
Gosh, it's good to be home. . .
The assailant, armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, cut through the settlement's perimeter fence shortly after midnight and broke into a home, firing shots that lightly wounded the girl. When her father appeared with a pistol, the attacker shot him to death, the army said.
Oh, bravo. Bravo.
Yep, what these people need is a state of their very own. . .
[In case you aren't sure, so you know, I'm was being as sarcastic as is humanly possible.] ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
The Washington Times reports:
. . .Violence continued Saturday, with a Palestinian gunman killing an Israeli man and wounding his 12-year-old daughter in their home in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
The radical Islamic Hamas group claimed responsibility for the attack on the Avnei Hefetz settlement near the Palestinian town of Tulkarem, the Lebanese TV station Al Manar reported.
That they "claim responsibility" is the problem!
What a freakin' bunch.
Palestinian security officials identified the gunman as Zohair Arda, 18, a Hamas militant from the Tulkarem refugee camp, and said he had been released days earlier from an Israeli jail.
Gosh, it's good to be home. . .
The assailant, armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, cut through the settlement's perimeter fence shortly after midnight and broke into a home, firing shots that lightly wounded the girl. When her father appeared with a pistol, the attacker shot him to death, the army said.
Oh, bravo. Bravo.
Yep, what these people need is a state of their very own. . .
[In case you aren't sure, so you know, I'm was being as sarcastic as is humanly possible.] ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
LACK OF RESPECT FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S HIGH HOLY DAY
The Telegraph reports:
An al-Qa'eda plot to blow up a high-speed train packed with tourists and Easter pilgrims in Spain was foiled by chance yesterday. . .
That is one of the only places in which I have seen the two linked.
Two what?
An Al Qaeda attack and Easter.
Since September 11, 2001, in our attempt to hurl back and crush an enemy who wraps himself up in (hopefully a warped version of) his religion, we have heard repeated requests from some to refrain from attacks on that enemy during Islamic high holy days and months.
Yet there has been thus far precious little commentary on Islamists' attempted desecration of the most holy day in the Christian year. First, the attack on March 11, during Lent. Now, the uncovered plan to attack trains filled with Christians between roughly the Palm Sunday weekend through to the Protestant/Roman Catholic Easter.
And the date of Easter is, by the way, April 11 -- exactly one month after, umm, March 11.
Just a comment. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
The Telegraph reports:
An al-Qa'eda plot to blow up a high-speed train packed with tourists and Easter pilgrims in Spain was foiled by chance yesterday. . .
That is one of the only places in which I have seen the two linked.
Two what?
An Al Qaeda attack and Easter.
Since September 11, 2001, in our attempt to hurl back and crush an enemy who wraps himself up in (hopefully a warped version of) his religion, we have heard repeated requests from some to refrain from attacks on that enemy during Islamic high holy days and months.
Yet there has been thus far precious little commentary on Islamists' attempted desecration of the most holy day in the Christian year. First, the attack on March 11, during Lent. Now, the uncovered plan to attack trains filled with Christians between roughly the Palm Sunday weekend through to the Protestant/Roman Catholic Easter.
And the date of Easter is, by the way, April 11 -- exactly one month after, umm, March 11.
Just a comment. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
WHO WOULD WANT TO DO SUCH THINGS?!
ABC News/the A.P. reports:
Terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer, according to a government bulletin issued to law enforcement officials nationwide.
The FBI and Homeland Security Department sent a bulletin Thursday night saying terrorists could attempt to conceal explosives in luggage and carry-on bags, such as duffel bags and backpacks.
The bulletin cites uncorroborated intelligence as indicating that such bombs could be made of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel, similar to what was used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995.
Just in case this hadn't crossed anyone's mind. . .
I think they made a mistake. ABC/the A.P. left one word out of that report -- as in "Islamist terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines. . ."
They must have just forgot.
Yeh, yeh, that's it. They forgot.
CNN didn't. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
ABC News/the A.P. reports:
Terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer, according to a government bulletin issued to law enforcement officials nationwide.
The FBI and Homeland Security Department sent a bulletin Thursday night saying terrorists could attempt to conceal explosives in luggage and carry-on bags, such as duffel bags and backpacks.
The bulletin cites uncorroborated intelligence as indicating that such bombs could be made of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel, similar to what was used to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995.
Just in case this hadn't crossed anyone's mind. . .
I think they made a mistake. ABC/the A.P. left one word out of that report -- as in "Islamist terrorists might try to bomb buses and rail lines. . ."
They must have just forgot.
Yeh, yeh, that's it. They forgot.
CNN didn't. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
A BAD ADVERTISEMENT?
The International Herald Tribune reports:
As the rage cooled in Falluja and the burned and beaten bodies of four American civilians were wrapped in white cloth, many townspeople said they were torn between pride in the attack and shame over the mutilations.
Many said they supported the killing of four security consultants because they were Americans and Americans are despised.
But some of those same people said they felt embarrassed when mobs tore the bodies apart afterward and dragged them through the streets, turning this town in the heart of the Sunni Triangle into a symbol not only of resistance but of barbarity. The macabre celebration was televised worldwide.
"This is a bad advertisement for everything we stand for," said Muhammad Khalifa, a spare parts trader who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "We may hate Americans. We may hate them with all our hearts. But all men are creatures of God."
I'll say one thing: That's very "nuanced" of the barbarians.
We await the "international community's" condemnation. And who will be suing on behalf of those dead men? Probably the same people, urrr, undoubtedly suing over another murder?
Yeh, right. . .
Do those butcherings make a "hate crime" list? After all, those men were killed solely because they were "hated" and because they were Americans. Seems like a straightforward, "nationality" bias killing.
Think about it this way, too. Other people regularly threaten violence over a certain type of attire. Yet it is Americans who are considered unreasonable, nasty imperialists.
Go figure. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
The International Herald Tribune reports:
As the rage cooled in Falluja and the burned and beaten bodies of four American civilians were wrapped in white cloth, many townspeople said they were torn between pride in the attack and shame over the mutilations.
Many said they supported the killing of four security consultants because they were Americans and Americans are despised.
But some of those same people said they felt embarrassed when mobs tore the bodies apart afterward and dragged them through the streets, turning this town in the heart of the Sunni Triangle into a symbol not only of resistance but of barbarity. The macabre celebration was televised worldwide.
"This is a bad advertisement for everything we stand for," said Muhammad Khalifa, a spare parts trader who closed his shop during the disturbance in a sign of disgust. "We may hate Americans. We may hate them with all our hearts. But all men are creatures of God."
I'll say one thing: That's very "nuanced" of the barbarians.
We await the "international community's" condemnation. And who will be suing on behalf of those dead men? Probably the same people, urrr, undoubtedly suing over another murder?
Yeh, right. . .
Do those butcherings make a "hate crime" list? After all, those men were killed solely because they were "hated" and because they were Americans. Seems like a straightforward, "nationality" bias killing.
Think about it this way, too. Other people regularly threaten violence over a certain type of attire. Yet it is Americans who are considered unreasonable, nasty imperialists.
Go figure. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, April 03, 2004
Friday, April 02, 2004
BORED BY, URRR, "EVIL" BUSH
Sky reports:
A 45-minute political speech is tough for any youngster to sit through - but one teenager found President George Bush particularly dull.
The US has been left gawping in disbelief at the antics of Tyler Crotty.
And the teenager is now getting worldwide attention after yawning and stretching his way through one of the US president's appearances. . .
Ever seen a kid willing to risk having his family slaughtered, by doing that when placed behind a Cuban, North Korean, Iranian, former Iraqi, or any other REAL dictator?
The most fundamental expression of freedom is the freedom to yawn and be bored (in full view of the entire world) by the president of the United States.
Magnificent. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
Sky reports:
A 45-minute political speech is tough for any youngster to sit through - but one teenager found President George Bush particularly dull.
The US has been left gawping in disbelief at the antics of Tyler Crotty.
And the teenager is now getting worldwide attention after yawning and stretching his way through one of the US president's appearances. . .
Ever seen a kid willing to risk having his family slaughtered, by doing that when placed behind a Cuban, North Korean, Iranian, former Iraqi, or any other REAL dictator?
The most fundamental expression of freedom is the freedom to yawn and be bored (in full view of the entire world) by the president of the United States.
Magnificent. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
THE NEW BBC CHAIRMAN
The BBC, reporting on itself as if it were reporting on a disinterested third party, notes:
New BBC chairman Michael Grade pledged that the corporation would "serve the licence-paying public right across the UK" in a speech after his appointment. . .
Now there's a radical idea. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
The BBC, reporting on itself as if it were reporting on a disinterested third party, notes:
New BBC chairman Michael Grade pledged that the corporation would "serve the licence-paying public right across the UK" in a speech after his appointment. . .
Now there's a radical idea. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
TIM COLLINS IS EXONERATED
CNN reports:
A British Army officer who won widespread praise for his rousing eve-of-battle speech before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has won libel actions against two newspapers over false allegations of war crimes.
Colonel Tim Collins, who led the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment during the war, was awarded undisclosed damages against two British newspapers by a judge at Belfast High Court on Friday.
"This was a fight he had to win: he's been to hell and back," the Belfast-born officer's lawyer, Ernie Telford, told reporters outside the court.
"He is used to leading his men in conflict for a cause he believes is right and just, but this time he was by himself. He's relieved it's over, and now he just wants to get on with his life.".
At the brief hearing, lawyers for the Sunday Express and the Sunday Mirror apologized for the reports, printed in May last year, and admitted they were untrue. . .
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
CNN reports:
A British Army officer who won widespread praise for his rousing eve-of-battle speech before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has won libel actions against two newspapers over false allegations of war crimes.
Colonel Tim Collins, who led the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment during the war, was awarded undisclosed damages against two British newspapers by a judge at Belfast High Court on Friday.
"This was a fight he had to win: he's been to hell and back," the Belfast-born officer's lawyer, Ernie Telford, told reporters outside the court.
"He is used to leading his men in conflict for a cause he believes is right and just, but this time he was by himself. He's relieved it's over, and now he just wants to get on with his life.".
At the brief hearing, lawyers for the Sunday Express and the Sunday Mirror apologized for the reports, printed in May last year, and admitted they were untrue. . .
Excellent. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
HOW'S THAT RETREATING THING WORKING OUT AGAIN?
The BBC reports:
Spanish police have found an explosive device on a high-speed railway between Madrid and Seville, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
Traffic on the line was halted after the discovery at Mocejon, in the Toledo area, Mr Acebes said.
A rail employee raised the alert after seeing a suspicious package on the line half an hour outside Madrid and at least 10 trains have been halted. . .
Clearly, pledging to pull out of Iraq has made all the difference. . .
After the reports of yesterday of letter bombs sent to media, and the above, USS Neverdock notes:
Still think that last election made any difference Spain? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
The BBC reports:
Spanish police have found an explosive device on a high-speed railway between Madrid and Seville, Interior Minister Angel Acebes said.
Traffic on the line was halted after the discovery at Mocejon, in the Toledo area, Mr Acebes said.
A rail employee raised the alert after seeing a suspicious package on the line half an hour outside Madrid and at least 10 trains have been halted. . .
Clearly, pledging to pull out of Iraq has made all the difference. . .
After the reports of yesterday of letter bombs sent to media, and the above, USS Neverdock notes:
Still think that last election made any difference Spain? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
KNOWN ALSO AS. . .
The A.P. reports:
Hundreds of Israeli police in riot gear stormed a disputed holy site Friday, firing tear gas, stun grenades and plastic bullets to disperse Muslim worshippers throwing stones and shoes at them. After the initial clashes, thousands of Palestinians barricaded themselves in two mosques in the walled compound for about two hours, before police agreed to let them leave without threat of arrest.
Okay, here it comes:
More than 20 Palestinians were hurt and at least nine arrested in the most violent confrontations at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, since the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in September 2000. . .
Just a point: Technically, the Jews were there first. They built their temple first. Muslims built their site amidst the Jewish site -- although the A.P. doesn't mention it quite like that, obviously.
The online Wikipedia notes:
. . . Islamic law allows mosques to be built on top of conquered temples, churches, synagogues and the like; many historians hold that this was the original reason for the Muslim building of two new Islamic holy sites on top of the remains of the Jewish Temple . . .
So, then, under their "law" that means that what's yours is theirs . . . and what's theirs is also theirs -- or they will blow themselves (and you) up?
Nice, isn't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Hundreds of Israeli police in riot gear stormed a disputed holy site Friday, firing tear gas, stun grenades and plastic bullets to disperse Muslim worshippers throwing stones and shoes at them. After the initial clashes, thousands of Palestinians barricaded themselves in two mosques in the walled compound for about two hours, before police agreed to let them leave without threat of arrest.
Okay, here it comes:
More than 20 Palestinians were hurt and at least nine arrested in the most violent confrontations at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, since the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian fighting in September 2000. . .
Just a point: Technically, the Jews were there first. They built their temple first. Muslims built their site amidst the Jewish site -- although the A.P. doesn't mention it quite like that, obviously.
The online Wikipedia notes:
. . . Islamic law allows mosques to be built on top of conquered temples, churches, synagogues and the like; many historians hold that this was the original reason for the Muslim building of two new Islamic holy sites on top of the remains of the Jewish Temple . . .
So, then, under their "law" that means that what's yours is theirs . . . and what's theirs is also theirs -- or they will blow themselves (and you) up?
Nice, isn't it? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
SOMETHING BETTER OR SOMETHING WORSE
Victor Davis Hanson:
. . . the Persians at Thermopylae represented a different and far worse vision for the Mediterranean than the Greeks who barred their way. War is never between absolute good and evil, but over something better versus something worse.
So, how about this?: the Bush "better" vs. the bin Laden "worse". There -- for those who get all annoyed at the "simplistic" good or evil that Bush supposedly represents. Now, is the Bush view "better"?
Or is "better" vs. "worse" far too "simplistic" also? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson:
. . . the Persians at Thermopylae represented a different and far worse vision for the Mediterranean than the Greeks who barred their way. War is never between absolute good and evil, but over something better versus something worse.
So, how about this?: the Bush "better" vs. the bin Laden "worse". There -- for those who get all annoyed at the "simplistic" good or evil that Bush supposedly represents. Now, is the Bush view "better"?
Or is "better" vs. "worse" far too "simplistic" also? ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
NEVER FORGET
Further to yesterday's post, in which I went on -- a bit too long -- about the Godfather, Italian surnamed Americans in the Second World War, and British Muslims (huh?), I thought I'd have a look into the Battle Monuments Commission's database for World War I. (I believe that all -- or nearly all -- American veterans of WWI are now deceased.) I stumbled across the following soldier, from New York:
Giacomo Tumbarello
Private, U.S. Army
26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division
Entered the Service from: New York
Died: October 6, 1918
Buried at: Plot C Row 04 Grave 21
Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery
Romagne, France
Aside from a shared state and a surname much like my own, other than the above from the database, I have no idea who Private Tumbarello was.
He was probably just living his life, trying to mind his own business, and ended up like so many others in the Forces in France in 1918.
And he never got home.
If I ever find myself in the vicinity of the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery, I may just try to locate him. We must never forget people like him.
Further to yesterday's post, in which I went on -- a bit too long -- about the Godfather, Italian surnamed Americans in the Second World War, and British Muslims (huh?), I thought I'd have a look into the Battle Monuments Commission's database for World War I. (I believe that all -- or nearly all -- American veterans of WWI are now deceased.) I stumbled across the following soldier, from New York:
Giacomo Tumbarello
Private, U.S. Army
26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division
Entered the Service from: New York
Died: October 6, 1918
Buried at: Plot C Row 04 Grave 21
Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery
Romagne, France
Aside from a shared state and a surname much like my own, other than the above from the database, I have no idea who Private Tumbarello was.
He was probably just living his life, trying to mind his own business, and ended up like so many others in the Forces in France in 1918.
And he never got home.
If I ever find myself in the vicinity of the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery, I may just try to locate him. We must never forget people like him.
UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson:
. . .While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry pontificate about losing the war on terror, al Qaeda is nearly finished. What we have been seeing lately are its tentacles flapping about in search of prey, after the head has been smashed — still for a time lethal, but without lasting strength. We should remember that perhaps the bloodiest month for Americans in the European theater of World War II was not during 1943 and 1944 amid the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, or Normandy, but rather in January 1945, a mere five months before the close of the war, when GIs fought back the last bitter German offensive.
Likewise a mere four months before the surrender of Japan the United States began the most bloody campaign of the entire war at Okinawa, where almost 50,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or missing. The fighting, which killed the commanding generals of both sides, did not end until a mere two months before the surrender. What later is seen rightly to be last gasps at the time often appear as irrefutable proof of inexhaustible strength and endless war to come. . .
And if you look through the WWI list of U.S. dead, a terribly high number of them are from September 1918 onwards -- some eight weeks before the Armistice, on November 11.
Indeed, this fellow died . . . just before the end:
Jesse F. Mullens
Corporal, U.S. Army
56th Infantry Regiment, 7th Infantry Division
Entered the Service from: Alabama
Died: November 10, 1918
Buried at: Plot D Row 09 Grave 08
St. Mihiel American Cemetery
Thiaucourt, France
Don't forget them.
¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
ROUND-UP OF THE REACTIONS TO THE ROUND-UP
The Daily Ablution's Scott Burgess points out:
. . . Interview: Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad
"On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the leader of the Muslim Salafi al-Muhajiroun Movement, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, praised al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden whom he described as 'the lion of the Muslim nation.'". . .
As for the arrested alleged Islamists:
. . . the Telegraph and Daily Mail both quote a father's supportive statement:
"These boys are all Manchester United fans."
To which Scott replies:
This does in fact mitigate in their favour, as it's well known that "the lion of the Muslim nation" is an Arsenal supporter. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
The Daily Ablution's Scott Burgess points out:
. . . Interview: Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad
"On the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the leader of the Muslim Salafi al-Muhajiroun Movement, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, praised al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden whom he described as 'the lion of the Muslim nation.'". . .
As for the arrested alleged Islamists:
. . . the Telegraph and Daily Mail both quote a father's supportive statement:
"These boys are all Manchester United fans."
To which Scott replies:
This does in fact mitigate in their favour, as it's well known that "the lion of the Muslim nation" is an Arsenal supporter. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
U.S. RESPONSE TO FALLUJAH CIVILIAN KILLINGS
CNN reports:
. . .Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said "we will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals."
"Quite simply, we will respond," Kimmitt said.
"We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city," Kimmitt said. "It's going to be deliberate. It will be precise and it will be overwhelming. We will not rush in to make things worse. We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city -- and we will pacify that city.". . .
Well, this guy may get his wish:
. . . Ahmed al-Dulaimi, 30, said, "We wish that they (U.S. forces) would try to enter Fallujah so we'd let hell break lo[o]se.". . .
He may not have long to wait for another chance to "unleash hell". After all, his bunch were, urrr, so effective in doing so, last year. . .
UPDATE: From Switzerland, The Bluebook Authority's Tom Devine:
. . .the barbarity of members of the so called 'religion of peace' knows no bounds. They have absolutely no qualm about dragging charred and dismembered murder victims through the streets. Meanwhile, the US took tremendous pains to ensure that casualties of the conflict were laid to rest according to Islamic customs. . .
UPDATE II: Italy's "Free Thought" links to this from the New York Post:
. . .The fact that a small crowd of thuggish Sunni tribesmen cheered while their blood-maddened brethren hacked up charred corpses for grateful Western cameramen doesn't mean that Americans are widely despised in Iraq.
In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all - except that freedom's enemies in Fallujah are both savage and clever.
It's important to remember that Sunni thugs like these did the same thing and worse to their own countrymen for decades. They're the same "people" who joined the ranks of Uday Hussein's fedayeen and filled the mass graves.
They seek a return to those days - with them in control. . .
In the old days, when in control of the state, they could inspire incredible fear.
Today, they are reduced to attacking single vehicles and mob-butchering unarmed civilians.
Their days are sooooooo over.
UPDATE III: However, Murdoc directs us to this, by Airborne Combat Engineer: Don't hold your breath waiting on "overwhelming force"
Hmmm. While it is true that generals have indeed learned to speak a lot like politicians, it seems decidedly unpolitician-like to make any statement as direct as "overwhelming force" if delivering such force is not likely. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
CNN reports:
. . .Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. Army spokesman, said "we will be back in Fallujah. It will be at the time and place of our choosing. We will hunt down the criminals."
"Quite simply, we will respond," Kimmitt said.
"We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city," Kimmitt said. "It's going to be deliberate. It will be precise and it will be overwhelming. We will not rush in to make things worse. We will plan our way through this and we will re-establish control of that city -- and we will pacify that city.". . .
Well, this guy may get his wish:
. . . Ahmed al-Dulaimi, 30, said, "We wish that they (U.S. forces) would try to enter Fallujah so we'd let hell break lo[o]se.". . .
He may not have long to wait for another chance to "unleash hell". After all, his bunch were, urrr, so effective in doing so, last year. . .
UPDATE: From Switzerland, The Bluebook Authority's Tom Devine:
. . .the barbarity of members of the so called 'religion of peace' knows no bounds. They have absolutely no qualm about dragging charred and dismembered murder victims through the streets. Meanwhile, the US took tremendous pains to ensure that casualties of the conflict were laid to rest according to Islamic customs. . .
UPDATE II: Italy's "Free Thought" links to this from the New York Post:
. . .The fact that a small crowd of thuggish Sunni tribesmen cheered while their blood-maddened brethren hacked up charred corpses for grateful Western cameramen doesn't mean that Americans are widely despised in Iraq.
In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all - except that freedom's enemies in Fallujah are both savage and clever.
It's important to remember that Sunni thugs like these did the same thing and worse to their own countrymen for decades. They're the same "people" who joined the ranks of Uday Hussein's fedayeen and filled the mass graves.
They seek a return to those days - with them in control. . .
In the old days, when in control of the state, they could inspire incredible fear.
Today, they are reduced to attacking single vehicles and mob-butchering unarmed civilians.
Their days are sooooooo over.
UPDATE III: However, Murdoc directs us to this, by Airborne Combat Engineer: Don't hold your breath waiting on "overwhelming force"
Hmmm. While it is true that generals have indeed learned to speak a lot like politicians, it seems decidedly unpolitician-like to make any statement as direct as "overwhelming force" if delivering such force is not likely. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
KERRY "ANSWERS", LILEKS INTERPRETS
Lileks on the Kerry interview. Great bit:
"Senator Kerry, in the clearest terms, what would be the principal difference between the foreign policy of your administration and that of the Bush administration?"
Let’s just think back to 1942, and imagine a blinkered, stumble-tongued Republican saying that the real problem isn’t Tojo, it’s the lack of affordable transit solutions to get women to their jobs in the munition factories. Here’s Kerry’s reply:
Brian, the principle difference will be almost everything. This administration has been arrogant. I think they have been reckless. They have been overly ideological. They have pushed our allies away. I will bring our allies back to us.
By “allies,” of course, he means Germany and France. And perhaps our deep long-standing ally Russia. Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t. Or he dismisses the story as irrelevant to the larger goal: building a body of international resolve that will meet any challenge by sending diplomats to exchange Frank and Honest Views in conference rooms, with that nice lemon tea they serve. Do they use a zest, or a peel, or just run the lemon along the rim of the cup? Whatever they do, it’s quite delicious.
I know this paints me as a buffoon of the tenth magnitude, but I don’t care what France thinks, and I wonder why some are so eager to seek their approval. France is the only nation that behaves as high-handedly as China and somehow has the moral reputation of Tibet. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
Lileks on the Kerry interview. Great bit:
"Senator Kerry, in the clearest terms, what would be the principal difference between the foreign policy of your administration and that of the Bush administration?"
Let’s just think back to 1942, and imagine a blinkered, stumble-tongued Republican saying that the real problem isn’t Tojo, it’s the lack of affordable transit solutions to get women to their jobs in the munition factories. Here’s Kerry’s reply:
Brian, the principle difference will be almost everything. This administration has been arrogant. I think they have been reckless. They have been overly ideological. They have pushed our allies away. I will bring our allies back to us.
By “allies,” of course, he means Germany and France. And perhaps our deep long-standing ally Russia. Kerry’s statement indicates that either he doesn’t know about the French government’s vested financial interests in Iraq, or he does know and thinks we don’t. Or he dismisses the story as irrelevant to the larger goal: building a body of international resolve that will meet any challenge by sending diplomats to exchange Frank and Honest Views in conference rooms, with that nice lemon tea they serve. Do they use a zest, or a peel, or just run the lemon along the rim of the cup? Whatever they do, it’s quite delicious.
I know this paints me as a buffoon of the tenth magnitude, but I don’t care what France thinks, and I wonder why some are so eager to seek their approval. France is the only nation that behaves as high-handedly as China and somehow has the moral reputation of Tibet. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
YOU WANT TO DRIVE AT ALL IN LONDON?
Simple observation: Built up areas -- especially residential -- have a 30 MPH speed limit, unless otherwise noted.
If some people insist on taking corners and speeding around in the manner of one dimwit I saw this morning (who was more than old enough to know better), Red Ken is handed easily used ammunition in pursuit of his quest to make the privately owned, internal combustion engine "illegal" in London.
Morons.
Now, I feel better. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
Simple observation: Built up areas -- especially residential -- have a 30 MPH speed limit, unless otherwise noted.
If some people insist on taking corners and speeding around in the manner of one dimwit I saw this morning (who was more than old enough to know better), Red Ken is handed easily used ammunition in pursuit of his quest to make the privately owned, internal combustion engine "illegal" in London.
Morons.
Now, I feel better. ¶ by Robert, Friday, April 02, 2004
Thursday, April 01, 2004
BLAIR IMMIGRATION MINISTER RESIGNS
The BBC reports:
Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes has resigned after admitting she had been told about a suspected visa scam.
The Tories had accused the Home Office of approving some visa claims from eastern Europe despite warnings they were backed by forged documents.
Ms Hughes had dismissed calls to quit, saying she had not known of the claims. . .
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Why should anyone care if she knew, or what she knew? After all, hasn't the consensus of opinion among the governing elite for years been that just about anybody who wants to enter Britain ought to be able to do so, for they "enrich" the splendid "multicultural" country we are also told that Britain has become? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
The BBC reports:
Immigration Minister Beverley Hughes has resigned after admitting she had been told about a suspected visa scam.
The Tories had accused the Home Office of approving some visa claims from eastern Europe despite warnings they were backed by forged documents.
Ms Hughes had dismissed calls to quit, saying she had not known of the claims. . .
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Why should anyone care if she knew, or what she knew? After all, hasn't the consensus of opinion among the governing elite for years been that just about anybody who wants to enter Britain ought to be able to do so, for they "enrich" the splendid "multicultural" country we are also told that Britain has become? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
HERE IS THE "9-11" TIMELINE
"She" explains the background of the September 11, 2001 attacks:
We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:. . .
Read on. It is so uncomfortably true. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
"She" explains the background of the September 11, 2001 attacks:
We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:. . .
Read on. It is so uncomfortably true. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
NO SMOKING, HONORABLE SIR
ITV reports:
A leading member of the Irish Parliament has been sacked for breaking the country's new smoking ban.
Fine Gael justice spokesman John Deasy lit up in the parliamentary members' bar just yards from where the ban became law. . .
Can we stop laughing yet? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
ITV reports:
A leading member of the Irish Parliament has been sacked for breaking the country's new smoking ban.
Fine Gael justice spokesman John Deasy lit up in the parliamentary members' bar just yards from where the ban became law. . .
Can we stop laughing yet? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
FALLUJAH
The A.P. reports:
Insurgents attacked a U.S. military convoy and a Humvee was burned Thursday near Fallujah, witnesses said, a day after the grisly killing and mutilation of four American civilians in the city. . .
. . ."We will not let any foreigner enter Fallujah," said Sameer Sami, 40. "Yesterday's attack is proof of how much we hate the Americans."
Another resident, Ahmed al-Dulaimi, 30, said, "We wish that they (U.S. forces) would try to enter Fallujah so we'd let hell break lose.". . .
In some ways, this is terribly sad. These people are horribly, appallingly ignorant. If U.S. forces did indeed make the wishes of those two gentlemen come true and attacked Fallujah in force, there would be nothing left of the place within moments -- and the U.S. forces would barely have broken a sweat.
Sigh. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
The A.P. reports:
Insurgents attacked a U.S. military convoy and a Humvee was burned Thursday near Fallujah, witnesses said, a day after the grisly killing and mutilation of four American civilians in the city. . .
. . ."We will not let any foreigner enter Fallujah," said Sameer Sami, 40. "Yesterday's attack is proof of how much we hate the Americans."
Another resident, Ahmed al-Dulaimi, 30, said, "We wish that they (U.S. forces) would try to enter Fallujah so we'd let hell break lose.". . .
In some ways, this is terribly sad. These people are horribly, appallingly ignorant. If U.S. forces did indeed make the wishes of those two gentlemen come true and attacked Fallujah in force, there would be nothing left of the place within moments -- and the U.S. forces would barely have broken a sweat.
Sigh. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
RUMSFELD'S BUSH AD IDEA
From IMAO:
. . . "What about my ad idea?" Rumsfeld asked.
"The one where you threaten that after the election you’ll bomb any state that hadn't given its electoral votes to Bush?" Condoleezza Rice asked.
"I don't think that's such a good idea," Rove uttered.
"We could bomb Massachusetts now to show we're serious," Rumsfeld suggested.
"That's not really the issue, Rummy," Bush told him softly, "See, you come off as a little harsh."
"Who thinks that?" Rumsfeld demanded, "I'll kill them!"
"See, that the problem," Bush continued, "You need to tone the violence down... and no more strangling."
"Hey, sometimes I squeeze my hands together," Rumsfeld said defensively, "If someone happens to put his neck between them at the time, that's his problem."
"We really need to make you appear kindler and gentler," Bush asserted, "I know I just joked about it at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner, but would you consider appearing on an episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?". . .
No idea? Just read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
From IMAO:
. . . "What about my ad idea?" Rumsfeld asked.
"The one where you threaten that after the election you’ll bomb any state that hadn't given its electoral votes to Bush?" Condoleezza Rice asked.
"I don't think that's such a good idea," Rove uttered.
"We could bomb Massachusetts now to show we're serious," Rumsfeld suggested.
"That's not really the issue, Rummy," Bush told him softly, "See, you come off as a little harsh."
"Who thinks that?" Rumsfeld demanded, "I'll kill them!"
"See, that the problem," Bush continued, "You need to tone the violence down... and no more strangling."
"Hey, sometimes I squeeze my hands together," Rumsfeld said defensively, "If someone happens to put his neck between them at the time, that's his problem."
"We really need to make you appear kindler and gentler," Bush asserted, "I know I just joked about it at the Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner, but would you consider appearing on an episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?". . .
No idea? Just read the whole thing. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
"AIR AMERICA"
Instapundit notes:
I DIDN'T LISTEN TO FRANKENRADIO TODAY, but here's a review from Josh Fielek. Meanwhile Bryan Preston notes that the "Air America" programming is displacing urban black radio talent in favor of white liberals, leaving the displaced folks unhappy. Oops. . .
. . . as well as other "groups".
Obviously, if it were here, in comparison to the BBC, Air America Radio would probably appear a tad conservative.
From Switzerland, earlier this week Tom Devine put the launch of this "liberal radio network" into perspective:
Who wants to sit and listen to "progressives" endlessly whining about ozone depletion, the greedy rich, and white male racism?
We've already got all that on NPR. . .
Interestingly, they apparently couldn't use AirAmerica.com for their web site. That belongs to a paintball company.
Need an Air America® Vigilante™ Regulator High Pressure? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
Instapundit notes:
I DIDN'T LISTEN TO FRANKENRADIO TODAY, but here's a review from Josh Fielek. Meanwhile Bryan Preston notes that the "Air America" programming is displacing urban black radio talent in favor of white liberals, leaving the displaced folks unhappy. Oops. . .
. . . as well as other "groups".
Obviously, if it were here, in comparison to the BBC, Air America Radio would probably appear a tad conservative.
From Switzerland, earlier this week Tom Devine put the launch of this "liberal radio network" into perspective:
Who wants to sit and listen to "progressives" endlessly whining about ozone depletion, the greedy rich, and white male racism?
We've already got all that on NPR. . .
Interestingly, they apparently couldn't use AirAmerica.com for their web site. That belongs to a paintball company.
Need an Air America® Vigilante™ Regulator High Pressure? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
"OH, WOE IS US" WILL GET YOU, OH, NOWHERE
The BBC reports:
. . . Bilal Patel, now 35, stood as an independent Muslim candidate in Preston at the 2001 general election. . .
. . .Mr Patel says young British Muslim disaffection comes from a belief that their elders "kow-tow" to politicians who refuse to give them an equal stake in society.
"Many of us are annoyed with the older generations. The sort of leadership we need is something more radical than what we have. But if you speak out as a young Muslim you are labelled extremist.
"And then that makes more of us into activists and creates the strong undercurrent of distrust among the young which exists for politicians and the media, not least because we see hypocrisy in the treatment of Muslims around the world. . .
A couple of weeks ago, Channel 4 completed its "Hundred Greatest Films" countdown. The greatest of all was "Star Wars" . . . and the "runner up": "The Godfather".
If I can offer my personal review: I know it is a great film and all that, but I really do hate "The Godfather".
What does this have to do with British Muslims? Stay with me.
As we know, the film was a tremendous box office and critical success. Perhaps it was too good. "Wiseguys" reportedly even went to see it in order to learn how to behave like a "real Godfather". (Usually, they were men who, in my uncle's excellent characterization, were incapable of running a corner shop without a baseball bat.)
5 of my 8 great-grandparents were born in what is today Italy. If you as an American possess an Italian surname, you are immediately labelled. You know it. It isn't always nasty. Sometimes it's even funny. Yooo dah "Gahdfahdder", right?
Yeh, whatever.
And we have seen what Mario Puzo unleashed become a U.S. cultural staple, down through the Sopranos.
But not without reason. Like most stereotypes there is an element of truth behind it. Puzo's Michael Corleone seems determined to cut his own path. He even joins the U.S. military in the wake of Pearl Harbor. "Corleone" was hardly alone; Italian-Americans would go on to serve in disproportionately large numbers in the Second World War U.S. military. "Corleone's" family doesn't approve. And it is possible to believe that such disapproval really did take place in some Italian surnamed households. In the story, as we know Michael has little choice but to get drawn into the "family business" -- and he eventually finds himself the "Godfather".
Well, the Mafia DID and DOES exist. There WERE and ARE Italian surnamed organized criminals. Even as late a decade ago, like a little "Fallujah" all its own, there were some Italian surnamed dimwits in south Queens who championed the cause of the local thug turned media-darling, the "dapper don", the killer whom we are told listed "plumbing supply salesman" as his profession on his income tax return: John Gotti.
But what has also emerged, especially in recent years, are the facts of high profile and Italian surnamed American crime fighters. The best known, by far, is former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. When it comes to organized crime, the crime fighters take the correct position: Don't romanticize the mob; they are killers; they victimize, first, their own, before they ever get to the wider world; there is nothing even slightly funny or endearing about them. Give them no quarter. Chase them down. Arrest them. Incarcerate them.
Those most Americans with Italian surnames look towards have always been the best in society. Today there are more and more like Giuliani, Supreme Court Justice (whether you agree with him or not) Antonin Scalia and others in the public realm. And we all -- Italian surnamed people and not -- benefit from their determination to do right. On September 11, 2001 and especially immediately afterwards, Rudy Giuliani was not anything other than the incredible mayor of NYC. Damn straight.
That is where British Muslims need to take hold of their "identity". They need to know that they control how they are perceived. If they are serious about stating how they hate "misplaced stereotypes," then they must attack those stereotypes with positive action and, yes, even with the law.
You want to "fit in"? Well, you don't fit in by mouthing off about how you are so put out that no one likes you. You don't like the "terrorist" label? Well, move to change it. Where are the emerging Giuliani-types and Scalia-types? Where are the young Muslims willing to say that thugs don't speak for me? Where are British Muslim lawyers determined "to get" those British Muslim thugs?
. . ."For instance, David Blunkett worked wonders to radicalise the young when he told people to speak English at home," says Mr Patel. . .
"Well, those who rioted in Bradford were speaking English - and rioting didn't strike me as the norm.
Real leaders would aim to show the way for the "terrorist image" to be squelched, not drone on about how the "community" is getting a raw deal because a politican might have suggested that maybe speaking a little English at home is a good idea.
By the way, my ancestors, too, were told that they should speak English at home. And they didn't riot.
Deal with it.
What we want to project about ourselves is the most important thing. No one can deny a person of real honor and dedication. Decency always shines through.
In Normandy, I have found tears streaming down my face (if you don't, you have no heart) at all the graves of all the dead Americans. What did they die for? I'll tell you this much: those with Italian surnames didn't die for the likes of the John freakin' Gottis of this world, believe me.
Just who are the John freakin' Gottis in the British Muslim community? Well, it would seem that decent British Muslims are among those best placed to point them out. No?
One also needs a sense of humor. Or "fugggetaboowwwdit". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
The BBC reports:
. . . Bilal Patel, now 35, stood as an independent Muslim candidate in Preston at the 2001 general election. . .
. . .Mr Patel says young British Muslim disaffection comes from a belief that their elders "kow-tow" to politicians who refuse to give them an equal stake in society.
"Many of us are annoyed with the older generations. The sort of leadership we need is something more radical than what we have. But if you speak out as a young Muslim you are labelled extremist.
"And then that makes more of us into activists and creates the strong undercurrent of distrust among the young which exists for politicians and the media, not least because we see hypocrisy in the treatment of Muslims around the world. . .
A couple of weeks ago, Channel 4 completed its "Hundred Greatest Films" countdown. The greatest of all was "Star Wars" . . . and the "runner up": "The Godfather".
If I can offer my personal review: I know it is a great film and all that, but I really do hate "The Godfather".
What does this have to do with British Muslims? Stay with me.
As we know, the film was a tremendous box office and critical success. Perhaps it was too good. "Wiseguys" reportedly even went to see it in order to learn how to behave like a "real Godfather". (Usually, they were men who, in my uncle's excellent characterization, were incapable of running a corner shop without a baseball bat.)
5 of my 8 great-grandparents were born in what is today Italy. If you as an American possess an Italian surname, you are immediately labelled. You know it. It isn't always nasty. Sometimes it's even funny. Yooo dah "Gahdfahdder", right?
Yeh, whatever.
And we have seen what Mario Puzo unleashed become a U.S. cultural staple, down through the Sopranos.
But not without reason. Like most stereotypes there is an element of truth behind it. Puzo's Michael Corleone seems determined to cut his own path. He even joins the U.S. military in the wake of Pearl Harbor. "Corleone" was hardly alone; Italian-Americans would go on to serve in disproportionately large numbers in the Second World War U.S. military. "Corleone's" family doesn't approve. And it is possible to believe that such disapproval really did take place in some Italian surnamed households. In the story, as we know Michael has little choice but to get drawn into the "family business" -- and he eventually finds himself the "Godfather".
Well, the Mafia DID and DOES exist. There WERE and ARE Italian surnamed organized criminals. Even as late a decade ago, like a little "Fallujah" all its own, there were some Italian surnamed dimwits in south Queens who championed the cause of the local thug turned media-darling, the "dapper don", the killer whom we are told listed "plumbing supply salesman" as his profession on his income tax return: John Gotti.
But what has also emerged, especially in recent years, are the facts of high profile and Italian surnamed American crime fighters. The best known, by far, is former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani. When it comes to organized crime, the crime fighters take the correct position: Don't romanticize the mob; they are killers; they victimize, first, their own, before they ever get to the wider world; there is nothing even slightly funny or endearing about them. Give them no quarter. Chase them down. Arrest them. Incarcerate them.
Those most Americans with Italian surnames look towards have always been the best in society. Today there are more and more like Giuliani, Supreme Court Justice (whether you agree with him or not) Antonin Scalia and others in the public realm. And we all -- Italian surnamed people and not -- benefit from their determination to do right. On September 11, 2001 and especially immediately afterwards, Rudy Giuliani was not anything other than the incredible mayor of NYC. Damn straight.
That is where British Muslims need to take hold of their "identity". They need to know that they control how they are perceived. If they are serious about stating how they hate "misplaced stereotypes," then they must attack those stereotypes with positive action and, yes, even with the law.
You want to "fit in"? Well, you don't fit in by mouthing off about how you are so put out that no one likes you. You don't like the "terrorist" label? Well, move to change it. Where are the emerging Giuliani-types and Scalia-types? Where are the young Muslims willing to say that thugs don't speak for me? Where are British Muslim lawyers determined "to get" those British Muslim thugs?
. . ."For instance, David Blunkett worked wonders to radicalise the young when he told people to speak English at home," says Mr Patel. . .
"Well, those who rioted in Bradford were speaking English - and rioting didn't strike me as the norm.
Real leaders would aim to show the way for the "terrorist image" to be squelched, not drone on about how the "community" is getting a raw deal because a politican might have suggested that maybe speaking a little English at home is a good idea.
By the way, my ancestors, too, were told that they should speak English at home. And they didn't riot.
Deal with it.
What we want to project about ourselves is the most important thing. No one can deny a person of real honor and dedication. Decency always shines through.
In Normandy, I have found tears streaming down my face (if you don't, you have no heart) at all the graves of all the dead Americans. What did they die for? I'll tell you this much: those with Italian surnames didn't die for the likes of the John freakin' Gottis of this world, believe me.
Just who are the John freakin' Gottis in the British Muslim community? Well, it would seem that decent British Muslims are among those best placed to point them out. No?
One also needs a sense of humor. Or "fugggetaboowwwdit". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, April 01, 2004
