Month: February 2003

From Dennis MIller on Donahue: the New York Times will decide to support a war as soon as they find out Saddam has opened an all-male golfing club in Tikrit.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “The Sermon on the Mounts is the last word in Christian ethics. Everyone respects the Quakers. Still, it is not on these terms that Ministers assume their responsibilities of guiding states. Their duty is first so to deal with other nations as to avoid strife and war and to eschew aggression in all its forms, whether for nationalistic or ideological objects. But the safety of the State, the lives and freedom of their own fellow countrymen, to whom they owe their position, make it right and imperative in the last resort, or when a final and definite conviction has been reached, that the use of force should not be excluded. If the circumstances are such as to warrant it, force may be used. And if this be so, it should be used under the conditions which are most favourable. There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win. These are the tormenting dilemmas upon which mankind has throughout its history been so frequently impaled. Final judgment upon them can only be recorded by history in relation to the facts of the case as known to the parties at the time, and also as subsequently proved.” – Winston Churchill, “The Gathering Storm.”

More shameless anti-U.S. and anti-Blair propaganda from the BBC.

IN DEFENSE OF ORWELL: Leon Wieseltier dismembers pomo anti-Orwell critic (and former Wieseltier colleague) Louis Menand.

IN DEFENSE OF THE FRENCH: Not as bad as the Germans.

THE LEFT VERSUS TERRORISM: They’re getting serious at last.

A NEW BLOG: From two feisty writers and editors, Ross Douthat and Steven Menashi. It’s called “The American Scene.” Welcome, guys.

SONTAG AWARD NOMINEE: This from the Ottawa Citizen, from our old friend, Lewis Lapham, railing once again at the evils of capitalism, the imperialism of Bush, and the “gang of utopian anarchists” in the White House:

“I think the Bush administration equates the American spirit with power, not liberty,” said Lewis Lapham. “And I think the U.S. is in danger of losing its spirit of liberty.” “American politics, at this point in time, is trembling in the balance of losing its soul,” he said. He described a country run by a “gang of utopian anarchists” whose main objective in waging war is to boost military spending, and build an empire – considered the pinnacle of Republican doctrine first outlined a decade ago. “War is the health of the state,” said Mr. Lapham. The same agenda, he argued, is responsible for a steady erosion of personal freedoms, which denies the average citizen the right to dissent.

Denies the average citizen the right to dissent? Where? How? Or are these questions beneath the concern of Lapham?

My boyfriend spent the night last night in Normal, Illinois. That’s it. I’ve just always wanted to write that sentence.

WHY BLOGS MATTER IN THE U.S.: “I don’t think it’s any coincidence that blogs have been strongest in the US, where the dozy monodailies are so excruciatingly boring and where incredibly dull columnists seem able to hold down prime op-ed real estate for decade after decade. America’s torpid j-school culture is killing American newspapers, both in style and content. Why, for example, does no print columnist have the curiosity to do what Charles Johnson does and make a specialty of finding out what the Muslim world is saying about the west?” – the irrepressible Mark Steyn in a great little interview.

NOT JUST CHOMSKY: The BBC is actually running some pieces that aren’t saturated in anti-Americanism. Here’s one.

I learn three things from the latest morsel of half-crazed religious rhetoric from Osama bin Laden. The first is that he is perfectly willing to ally himself with Saddam. The critical section is as follow:

And it doesn’t harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the socialists are infidels. For the socialists and the rulers have lost their legitimacy a long time ago, and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden. And this fighting about to take place resembles the fight with the Romans earlier and the collusion of interest doesn’t harm, for the Muslims’ fight against the Romans was due to the collusion of the interests with the Persians.

This isn’t exactly a Hitler-Stalin pact. It’s more like the German-Japan axis of the last world war. OBL is the ideological purist; but Saddam is a critical ally of the Islamofascists against the West, against any notion of Western freedom in that part of the world. More important, Iraq provides a base – and far more lethal weapons – for the continuing war. The enemy of Osama’s enemy is his friend. Only experts in the Middle East could have missed that one.

OBL’S MISCALCULATION: The second thing I learn is that Osama still under-estimates American military power. He writes that America’s fundamental weakness are

fear and cowardice and absence of the fighting spirit among American soldiers. Those soldiers are completely convinced about the injustice of their government and its lies, and they lack a fair cause to fight for. And they are rather fighting for the capitalist and interest hoarders, and weapons and oil merchants, including the criminal gang at the White House, which harbors crusader hatreds and personal hatreds from Bush the father.

If I were Tommy Franks, I would post that statement in every barracks I could find, alongside a picture of the World Trade Center. If that doesn’t mobilize the troops, nothing will. But lastly, Osama is getting desperate. He senses, I think, a huge blow to his cause in the Middle East if Baghdad is liberated and Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction are taken off the table. Hence the somewhat pathetic military tips, the pep-talk, the prayers for victory, and so on. For all these reasons, this message is a timely one for the world. Some Europeans will argue that this means we should avoid war even more carefully, ignore Saddam’s arms, keep the inspection charade for a few more months, and so on. Others will recognize the voice of a lethal and determined enemy, in league with the regime they are so desperately trying to keep in power. Sooner or later, they will realize that they are at war too. And that we’re risking lives to defend their freedom as well as ours’.

I know he’s desperate to spark publicity – any publicity – for his book on why the earth is flat, I mean, why the media is hopelessly slanted to the right. But wishing Rush Limbaugh had actually gone deaf? Here’s a quote from Eric Alterman in the current Esquire: “The lack of civility he [Limbaugh] demonstrates toward liberal politicians is really dangerous to our political public. I hate to say it, but I wish the guy would have gone deaf. I shouldn’t say that, but on behalf of the country, it would be better without Limbaugh and his 20 million listeners.” And Alterman is bashing Limbaugh for incivility? Not that I’m exactly surprised. Alterman rarely avoids an ad hominem directed at yours truly. Here’s Limbaugh’s take.

In France, grilled relentlessly by French television interviewers, Vladimir Putin refuses to say he’d veto a second U.N. resolution. It’s “not necessary right now.” The French will have taken the message. There’s still a chance for a U.N.-backed war. Powell’s presentation persuaded the American public, and the Europeans have noticed. It’s still up for grabs.

SCHRODER BUNGLES: “Germany as the odd man out? This must be the nightmare now wafting through the chancellor’s office. Can it be banished? Yes, if coldly calculated interest prevails. It whispers ever so loudly: ‘Don’t mess with Mr Big unless the stronger battalions are on your side.’ Belgium is not enough.” – Josef Joffe on why Bismarck must be spinning in his grave.

“What we have made up our minds about is unilateralism vs. multilateralism. We are fully for multilateralism.” – Arthur Sulzberger Jr, February 8 2003.

“Turkey, which borders Iraq and reasonably fears Iraqi reprisals, has a legitimate need for Patriot missiles, Awacs surveillance aircraft and units specialized in combating biological and chemical attacks. NATO is capable of providing these, but so are its individual members, including the United States. Washington was wrong to strong-arm the issue to a decision in a divided NATO. The result was that France, Germany and Belgium blocked an initial American-backed proposal. They said it was premature and overly broad and would appear to commit NATO to supporting a war the Security Council had not yet approved.” – the New York Times, February 11, 2003, blaming the Bush administration for excessive multilateralism.

From the Washington Post, January 22, 1991:

Despite NATO’s commitment to defend Turkey, there is no consensus in the Western alliance to send forces to help Ankara if it is attacked by Iraq in retaliation for U.S.-led bombing raids launched from bases in Turkey, according to diplomats from four NATO nations.
If Baghdad fires Scud missiles at Turkey, the only NATO country to share a border with Iraq, the organization “will protect Turkey,” NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner has said. “Whoever attacks Turkey must realize that he will be attacking all member nations.”
But at least four NATO members – including Spain and Belgium – agree with the reluctance voiced today by German leaders against joining the Persian Gulf War, even if Turkey asks for help, according to diplomats from the United States, Britain, Germany and the Netherlands. Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s spokesman, Dieter Vogel, called Woerner’s comment “an interesting statement,” adding only that the German government’s position was not “describable.” Kohl avoided the topic today, saying he would “not publicly meditate on what would” spark Germany’s and NATO’s obligation to defend Turkey.

Maybe it’s time to ask France and Germany to leave NATO. Maybe, in reality, they already have.

MOORE WILL GET THE OSCAR: Of course he will. These people are in the movie business. They made “A Beautiful Mind” and “Good Will Hunting” the best movies of the year. You think a made-up documentary will stop them? For a little light relief, here’s a short extract from a truly hilarious Michael Moore parody in London’s satirical magazine, “Private Eye” (my brother sends over a copy every couple of weeks). It’s Michael Moore’s diary, as written by Craig Brown, Tina’s spectacularly talented brother:

The tobacco companies (all run by men) have been extremely successful in convincing the firearms lobby to pacify the car manufacturers by distributing crack cocaine to 132 nuclear plants so that now up to 69 percent of women between the ages of 28 and 39 are unable to drive their kids to school without inhaling harmful emissions from the ozone layer caused by toxic fumes radiated by President Bush under direct instructions from – yes, you guessed it – the tobacco companies. So where does that leave the rest of us? Ho-hum. From where I’m standing, guys, it looks like we’re drowning in deep doggy-do. And I don’t know ’bout you, but deep doggy-do’s not something I like to drown in – at least not when there’s a Pammy Anderson movie just started on the TV!!!

Moore in reality is a little less coherent than this, but it’s a pretty accurate otherwise, innit?

This band has got it all. Paging Mary Eberstadt. Here’s a chance to blame lesbians for pedophilia!

THE ANTI-WAR ASSUMPTION: At least this Guardian columnist comes out and says it: “The status quo is safe. Iraq is in a box.” His solution: keep sending the inspectors around Iraq for another year. But why? If Hans Blix is enough to deter Saddam, why bother with more inspectors? Why bother with Resolution 1441? Why even bother with military preparation? Just demobilize and leave the inspectors to keep the peace. Just remember: The status quo is safe. Iraq is in a box. Just close your eyes, whistle cheerfully and wait for the nerve gas.

DARWIN DAY: A group of scientists want a national holiday in Britain to commemmorate the extraordinary achievements of Charles Darwin. I guess we won’t get such an opportunity over here. But darwin surely deserves some kind of national honor in Britain. I’d add Newton and create a Science Day.

You can flame me now.