Month: March 2003

When you lead, people respect you. Blair’s ratings are now rebounding in the UK, pro-war sentiment is now beating anti-war sentiment among men and among Labour party and Tory party voters. More to the point, a majority – 53 percent – now say that they have confidence in George Bush to make the right decisions on Iraq. My prediction: when war starts, these numbers will increase dramatically. Blair is past the worst. And he’s stronger for it.

That’s the proportion of Americans supporting the president’s ultimatum to Saddam, according to the Washington Post’s poll. 75 percent: That’s the proportion disapproving of the way in which the United Nations has behaved with regard to this matter. 71 percent support going to war with Iraq. 72 percent believe that the administration has “done enough to try to win support from other countries for taking military action against Iraq.” Those are stunning figures. There may be less public division about this war than any war in recent history. That’s worth remembering as you read the front-page editorializing put out under the guise of “news analysis,” by the New York Times.

“The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.” – George W. Bush, making the essential, to my mind unanswerable, case.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “[I]f we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam… In the post-cold war world, America and Britain have been in tough positions before: in 1998, when others wanted to lift sanctions on Iraq and we said no; in 1999 when we went into Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. In each case, there were voices of dissent. But the British-American partnership and the progress of the world were preserved. Now in another difficult spot, Blair will have to do what he believes to be right. I trust him to do that and hope the British people will too.” – Bill Clinton, despite a few, lame swipes at the Bush administration, backing Blair.

Please read Ann Clwyd’s devastating piece in the Times of London today. Here’s how it starts:

“There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food … on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”

What Clwyd says – clearly, unforgettably, indelibly – is something that some people think is unsophisticated or crude or manipulative. What she says is that the Saddam regime is evil. I’m aware of the argument that there are many evil regimes in the world and we aren’t invading to destroy all of them. But there comes a point at which such arguments say less about the world and more about the people making them. Saddam’s regime is certainly one of the vilest on earth. Its malevolence and brutality is documented beyond dispute. In a world in which morality matters, the leading theologians and moralists and politicians would not be bending over backwards to find arguments to leave this regime alone, to lend credence to its lies, and to appease its poisons. They would be casting about for reasons to end it. I think that is what has given Blair his strength these past few months. He knows he’s right. So does Clwyd:

I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight.

THE WAR: This would be true even if Iraq were not already in violation of umpteen U.N. resolutions. It would be true even if Saddam didn’t pose a genuine threat to the region and, via terrorists, to the West itself. How much more morally indefensible is appeasement when we also have complete international authority to do what must be done? I think we will look back in the future and not ask, as so many now are, how it was that diplomacy didn’t get unanimity on this matter. We will look back and see the moral obtuseness of Chirac and Putin and Schroder and Carter and feel nothing but contempt for them, and their preference for state terror over the responsibilities of the free world. That’s why I felt enormous pride tonight in the stand being taken by Blair and Bush. The president’s speech was measured, firm, just. Blair’s political risks – in order to do what he believes is plainly right – will confirm him in history as a great prime minister, the conscience of his party, and the leader of his country. I say that before this war begins, because the cause is just whatever vicissitudes of conflict await us, and there will be plenty of people who will make this point if and when the war succeeds. But the truth is, regardless of what happens next, we know something important about the two major leaders of the free world right now. Neither man has blinked at evil. The only question in the next forty-eight hours is whether evil will blink before it is destroyed.

Stratfor’s George Friedman performs the revealing task of actually counting where European countries stand on war against Saddam. There are three categories: countries that explicitly support the U.S position; countries that support it but wanted a second resolution; and countries that oppose war against Saddam. In the first camp, we have the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro. In the second camp – supportive – we have

the Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia – a bloc of five. But of these, The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey before NATO approved the shipment, while the Czechs and Slovaks have sent chemical detection teams to Kuwait.

I’d put those five into the broadly positive column myself. That makes a total of 21 European countries in favor of war. Then we have the neutrals: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. And the opponents: France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece. Friedman therefore notes something that should be borne in mind when you hear NPR, the BBC and others tell you that “Europe” opposes the war. By an overwhelming majority of 21 countries to five, Europe backs war, with five countries neutral. And of those 21, you have the second and fourth largest economies, Britain and Italy, the two biggest emerging powers, Spain and Poland, and the entire former Eastern bloc. It would be a huge majority in the future EU. So why isn’t the story that Germany and France are now isolated on the continent?

I would say that yesterday’s market rally is pretty good evidence that the New York Times headline of last Friday was pure spin. Bad spin, Howell. Bad spin.

THE LONELINESS: A non-war post. I came across this moving piece published in the Georgetown University paper. It’s by a very orthodox Catholic student – recently graduated – who, while he was a student, backed the university’s fitful attempts to uphold the Catholic Church’s teaching that gay people must never have any sexual or emotional intimacy with someone of the same gender. Then he came to terms with the fact that he too was gay. Now he recants and explains how it felt to be closeted in a straight world:

The loneliness is hard to describe to straight people. It’s the loneliness of seeing straight couples together, and knowing you’ll never know the love of another human being because it’s forbidden. It’s the loneliness of seeing your best friends pair off with their girlfriends to leave you alone to contemplate your solitude. It’s the loneliness of knowing that, no matter how much fun you may be having with your friends today, you know the day will come when they’ll be married, and you’ll be feeling sorry for yourself because you have no love in your life and never will. I’ll never forget the visit of one of my good friends from high school and his girlfriend to the Hilltop. We took a long walk down to the Lincoln Memorial and were having a great time, ostensibly. But I was really torn to pieces, knowing that my friend and his girlfriend could have a future – love and happiness together, while I was condemned to be alone for all my days. I hurt so badly that I went into the restroom at the Lincoln Memorial and cried. I returned to my friend and his girlfriend and put on my happy face again, fearing to tell the pain I felt inside.

The guy is still a Catholic, bearing witness to a Church hierarchy that still won’t listen and refuses to understand.

Money quote from the man deputed to police NPR’s “objectivity”:

[W]hat seems to be missing from other NPR’s commentaries/interviews is the unabashed and unconditional support (and there is lot of it) for the administration. Whenever that opinion is heard on NPR as it did when NPR interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell, NPR receives e-mails by the score, all asking: “NPR! How could you?”

And that’s when they’re interviewing Powell! Imagine if they asked James Lileks. But then they never would, would they?

A young Jewish student attends a debate on the Israeli-Palestinian question and sticks up for Israel. Hours later, she is attacked and has a star of David carved into her wrist. Where? Where else?

A candid headline for the latest piece of “Bush = Hitler” polemics from Ted Rall. Please keep your eyes open for similar expressions of hope that the United States lose this war and that the troops should not be supported if a war starts. It’s important to keep a record of exactly how far the anti-American left has traveled. Money quote from Rall:

The thing is, we don’t really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter. Losing to Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility, self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as Haiti and Kosovo. Our withdrawal from Nam was mainly the result of antiwar protests and public disapproval that swayed our elected representatives. It also saved a lot of money that would otherwise gone to save more “domino” dictatorships from godless communism. Most Americans who didn’t actively protest the war at least sat on their hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush’s coming unjust war of aggression. Members of our armed forces don’t deserve insults, but their role in this war doesn’t merit support. Cheering them as they leave and holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious enterprise – and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to Iran or Libya or wherever. Let’s keep our flags under wraps.

Rall also comments that “we find ourselves facing the paradox of the ‘good German’ of the ’30s. We’re ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don’t want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win – but we don’t want them to lose either.” Comparing allied soldiers to Nazis is the new level of rhetoric on the anti-war far left. It sickens me.
(Via Bill Herbert.)

The BBC tackles the issue of Libya chairing the U.N.’s Human Rights Commission:

On Monday, the media watchdog group – Reporters Without Borders (RSF) – was suspended after showering the meeting with leaflets criticising Libya’s record. In a statement, RSF said that Libya’s heading of the commission was a “sick joke” that called into question its credibility. Other countries, however, are expected to raise concerns about a possible US violation of human rights over its treatment of prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay. They say the US is holding the prisoners unfairly.

So you see, the issue is really one of parity. If the U.S. is in the U.N., why not Libya?