Month: November 2003

It’s lockdown time in London. The anti-war left, who let the visits of Mugabe and Assad pass without much protest, is galvanizing to bring the country to a standstill during Bush’s visit. The BBC is in the vanguard of anti-Bush hysteria. A British reader (an ex-pat American) writes:

It’s really bad here. Yesterday Radio 4 PM Programme they had an American ‘expert’ commenting on the American failures in Iraq. Of course it was some guy from the Clinton administration. Channel 4 had Americans who hate Bush and showed them preparing for their protest. Will Michael More be joining them? It wouldn’t surprise me.
The BBC is working the country into a frenzy regarding the upcoming Bush visit. Personally, I would love to go up to London and hold a placard welcoming the President but I fear for my safety. The Mall looks great with all the flags but I have no doubt it will all be trashed. We’re getting reports that anarchists will storm Buckingham Palace. The papier mache effigies of W are nearly complete. (Don’t these people have jobs??).
I can’t get any break from it. I was on a school inspection this week in Southampton and a weedy member of the inspection team cornered me and starting in on Bush and how she had marched against the war, etc. This was not the time nor place to express political views of any type. I simply informed her that I was a New Yorker and that my sister and brother-in-law had lost eight neighbours in the World Trade Center and I wholly support President Bush and the fight against terrorism. Silence.
Your column this morning is absolutely right – these people have forgotten 9/11.
After 22 years in Surrey we’re looking to move to America.

My column next week is a 3,000 word defense of the president and will run in the Sunday Times this Sunday (Inside Dish subscribers will receive it this weekend – click here to subscribe). I don’t believe that the Brits are, as a whole, that hostile either to the war or to Bush. The minority who hates him appeals to the ignorance of those who condescend to him. And the BBC has whipped up anti-Americanism to fever pitch. But my native country isn’t renowned for its common sense for nothing. I have faith that the majority will eventually see through the propaganda to the truth.

Another wonderful tidbit from the greatest Briton:

Churchill’s doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. “For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists – probably with Communists.”

True again today. They no longer have a monopoly – but they still force Brits to pay for propaganda. This nugget can be found in “Diaries of Lord Moran: The Struggle for Survival, 1940-1965,” page 417. (Thanks to a reader.)

The Catalogue for Philanthropy measures – on the basis of tax returns – how generous people are in various parts of the nation. Not absolute generosity – but charitable donations as a percentage of income. You can see the latest state rankings here. And here you can see how these states voted in the 2000 election. Bottom line: states which voted for Bush – you know, all those callous, selfish rich Republicans who don’t give a damn about anyone else – dominate the rankings.

Josh Marshall may be at it as well.

Peter Berkowitz points out the obvious:

what the president has given voice to are convictions central to the liberal tradition. Freedom is not just good for Americans or for the British. It is good for all people everywhere, because it reflects a universal aspiration, a permanent inclination of the human heart. While forms of government for securing individual rights will vary, as will the choices individuals and peoples make about how to take advantage of the blessings of freedom, no individual wishes to be imprisoned, tortured, or enslaved. Individuals should not be forced to be free, but free nations may be compelled to use force to counter the threat posed by governments that subjugate their own people and threaten the liberties of other nations.

Now when will real liberals realize this?

The “Mission Accomplished” photo-op is now a campaign ad, as the administration hoped. What they didn’t plan for is that it has become a campaign ad for the Democrats.

Mike Kinsley pulls off the astonishing feat of trying to tackle how president Bush went from being an anti-nation-building realist to a liberal internationalist in a few years without mentioning a certain incident that occurred, oh, say nine months or so into his presidency. Memo to Mike: some terorists attacked U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. 3,000 people or so were killed. It made a teensy little difference to U.S. foreign policy. Kinsley’s gaffe, however, is revealing about certain strands in some liberals’ thought these days. For them, 9/11 changed nothing important; it meant relatively little; it was a distraction from more important issues like Enron, as Paul Krugman opined, during the height of the Raines madness. These people don’t just have blinders on; they’ve attached them with super-glue. (On another very simple point: when Kinsley states that the war against Saddam “was sold to the country on totally non-Wilsonian grounds,” he knows that’s untrue, right? I refer to the New York Times editorial I cite below praising Bush for doing exactly that last February:

“President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.”

You could argue that this wasn’t the main thrust of Bush’s argument; but the notion that it played no role in the administration’s case is verifiably untrue.)

“These well-meaning gentlemen of the British Broadcasting Corporation have absolutely no qualifications and no claim to represent British public opinion. They have no right to say that they voice the opinions of English or British people whatever. If anyone can do that it is His Majesty’s government; and there may be two opinions about that. It would be far better to have sharply contrasted views in succession, in alteration, than to have this copious stream of pontifical, anonymous mugwumpery with which we have been dosed for so long.” – from a speech in the House of Commons, February 22, 1933.

CONDI AS A “MURDERER”: That’s the considered view of Michael Moore’s favorite cartoonist, Aaron McGruder. The NAACP’s Julian Bond concurred.

Josh Marshall and I have been tussling for a while over various aspects of foreign policy. I think he’s wrong about many things but I deeply respect his panache and integrity and reporting skills. Today is his third anniversary blogging – and he’s getting better all the time. Congrats. And check out his site.

Cozying up to Syria. Hey, they’ve lost one critical friend and ally, in Saddam. Time to find another anti-Semitic dictator to do business with.