Month: March 2003

I’m somewhat thrilled my little obsession of the past couple months has begun to find new converts. Not exactly my persuasive powers. More due to the fact that suddenly the BBC is being broadcast live to Americans. That funny, subtle sound you hear is of a few thousand jaws dropping. The Mickster suddenly sees what I’ve been going on about. Here’s Rand Simberg too.

How do you insinuate that the precision targeting of the headquarters of a murderous tyrant is the moral equivalent of a terrorist assault on civilians? If you’re the New York Times, it’s easy.
UPDATE: Another beaut captured by London blogger, Belgravia Dispatch.

More reader disgruntlement:

I’m a lifelong NY Times reader and NPR listener. But no more. Raines has successfully driven me to subscribe to the Post. And this morning I started searching the radio dial for AM news to wake up to. The final nail in the NPR coffin occurred last night (3/21), when they reported on the Palestinian “Peace Protests.” No mention of them chanting for “Our beloved Saddam, hit Tel Aviv.” Instead, it was about them protesting American aggression. What really got me apoplectic was when they referred to the sympathetic relationship between Hamas and Hussein. As NPR described it, Hussein has helped give aid to Palestinian families who have lost loved ones in the struggle with Israel. This is how they refer to Hussein paying the families of homicide bombers. I’m through with NPR.

Lots of epiphanies all round. This war is clarifying a lot of things, isn’t it?

An email from the in-tray:

I just finished watching the first news brief/update by Gen Franks.- During the question period, a BBC World reporter stood and made some statements that were truly shocking.- I’m going by memory, but the salient points were:
You (Franks) are trying to get us to report that many Iraqi troops are surrendering
If we do, this would provide you much valuable propaganda wouldn’t it?- It just might-accelerate further surrenders.
You are going to have to provide me with much better proof if you expect me to report that there are “tens of thousands” of troops surrendering.
Franks replied with a “Whoa! No one here mentioned anything about ‘tens of thousands’ surrendering” and then proceed to calmly re-state the information he had previously.
-What kind of mind inhabits the BBC?- God forbid that-they report something that might hasten and end to war – and save lives on all fronts.

What inhabits the minds of the lefties who work for the BBC is a visceral hatred of American power, even to the extent of spinning for a genocidal monster.

From a story on UPI:

A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip ‘had shocked me back to reality.’ Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera ‘told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn’t start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam’s bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.’

Maybe when we liberate the place, others will finally get to realize the same things.

Let’s leave the attempt to spin overwhelming support for the war and Bush’s handling of it. Look at the photos. Even the Guardian led with the joy of some in Safwan to see U.S. troops. You have to go deep into Rainesian territory before we’re allowed to see that. The two lead photographs (in the dead tree version) for the “Nation at War” section, are a marine seemingly wounded (although he looks unscathed) by a land mine and an Iraqi child also wounded in the head. Neither is a fatality. I’m not saying these pictures don’t belong in the paper. I’m saying that on a day of extraordinary military advances, their placement tells you a lot. And it will get a lot worse before too long.

That’s what the Saddamites are claiming from the Baghdad raids. If true, an astonishing result after a night of “Biblical” destruction. Then there’s this from Burns:

[W]hat has added mystery to the story since Thursday is that Mr. Hussein, normally inclined to issue long, discursive, grandiose philippics at times of crisis, has simply disappeared. All he has left to Iraq’s 24 million people at a time of crisis is Thursday’s five-minute, disjointed, hand-lettered denunciation of the “criminal little Bush,” and his vow to Iraqis that “these days will add to your glorious history.”

Either he’s fighting for life or he’s dead.

“You’re late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious… I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave.” – the words of a liberated Iraqi, reported by the Guardian. Sorry, guys, you see, twelve years ago, we got cold feet and abandoned you, and then there are these people called the French, and you see, they … oh never mind. Welcome back to humanity. Welcome back from the grave.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “The U.S. is the only ally providing Tokyo with deterrent power against any foreign country that could threaten regional security, such as North Korea, and the Japanese people should never forget it.” – Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi.

THE PALESTINIANS: Getting it wrong – again and again and again.

A highly intelligent piece in the Catholic newspaper, the Tablet, on how American Catholics (mostly pro-war) manage to side-step the Vatican’s position (more pro-Saddam than the French). Yes, it has to do with the slide in papal authority since Humanae vitae, the papal letter that condemned contraception. And then there’s the child abuse crisis, which hasn’t exactly increased the hierarchy’s moral standing. Then there’s this:

It is easier for the Roman Catholic Right to shrug off Rome because, as it happens, Rome is being shifty. During his mission to Washington, Cardinal Laghi declared: “We have always insisted on the framework of the United Nations. Without it, I’d say war is illegal.’ But Americans have not forgotten their first bout of warfare with Iraq, in 1991. That conflict had fervent UN approval; Providence had apparently crafted it to meet Aquinas’ standards for a just war; yet it was still condemned by the Pope and Vatican. People also remember that the UN sanctions designed since then to contain Saddam and enforce inspections have also been steadily damned by Rome. Thus John Paul, despite his approval of forcible intervention in East Timor and Bosnia, is widely perceived as a pacifist, and therefore not a serious commentator. “It’s the Pope’s job to shake his head over the wicked way of the world”, I was told by another white-haired, loyal worshipper at another parish, forthright and cheerful in sensible shoes and medal of Lourdes. “And it’s our job to do something about it.”

Beautifully put.

Critically good news:

The seizure of oil and port facilities in southern Iraq deprived Hussein of some of his most prized assets and appeared to prevent any serious sabotage of the sort envisioned by many analysts in recent weeks. Marine officers said as many as nine oil wells were burning in Rumaila, but civilian firefighters will be sent in a few days to put them out and no important facilities suffered major damage. By preserving the oil industry and using the port to bring in humanitarian aid, the U.S.-British coalition hopes to demonstrate positive intentions to the Iraqi people.
“The ability to recover in a post-Saddam world will be greatly enhanced by keeping the oil infrastructure,” said Col. Christopher Gunther, chief war planner for the Marines. “It won’t be like Afghanistan where they’re really hat in hand.”

Some major possible disasters haven’t happened yet. Which is cause enough for relief.

AND YOU THOUGHT I WAS TOUGH: “The New York Times is a hyper-capitalist vacuum which sucks in high commodity advertising targeted to its wealthy readers, covering it with a pathetic, neosocialist editorial slant, designed to disguise its plutocratic raison d’etre: handbags for the rich and editorials for the poor.” – Charlie Finch, lambasting the Times’ fine arts coverage, artnet.

WHAT DISMAYS THE “PEACE” MOVEMENT: Pictures like this one.