Year: 2003

A Freudian slip from ITN.

THEY JUST LOVE SADDAM: The Palestinians, of course. But the flipside of this is actually quite good. Without Saddam’s sponsorship of Palestinian terror, the leaders might actually have some incentive to reach a peace agreement.

SPIN AND SQUIRM: Here’s a piece from Australia, upping the ante on what a “victory” would have to look like to justify war:

The failure of our leaders’ efforts to sell this war raises the threshold of defining a satisfactory outcome. Victory must be total. It must uncover huge stocks of chemical and biological weapons. It must avoid significant civilian and – on our side – military casualties. Iraq must become a democracy where centuries of ethnic and religious rivalry can be settled by talking. Its territorial integrity must be preserved. There must be no humanitarian tragedy.

It’s a good sign that the appeasers are beginning to ratchet up their demands. It means that some of the obvious ones are in danger of being met.

Here’s their headline: “Iraqi broadcasts a ‘war crime.'” Why the quotation marks? There is no question that torturing, murdering and parading POWs is a war crime. Yet a British newspaper spins for barbarity.

The pictures on al Jazeera are Danny Pearl revisited. Cowardly, evil, depraved: and the fact that al Jazeera is broadcasting them shows exactly how unhinged the enemy has become. Ditto the news of the American serviceman who attacked his fellow soldiers. Two sides of the same Islamist coin. If these barbarians actually believe this kind of behavior will weaken American resolve, they just don’t know Americans. But it’s a good indicator that this war isn’t over yet. And the worse may yet be to come.

AFFLECK’S STYLIST, I MEAN CONSCIENCE: Are you as sickened as I am by the prospect of the Oscars tonight? My dismay at these half-brained actors is slowly beginning to morph into outright contempt. But at least Ben Affleck is being completely genuine when he talks of his preparations for tonight:

Donning an anti-war totem is also popular. Among the actors who have said that they will wear anti-war badges are nominees Day-Lewis, Adrien Brody, Pedro Almodóvar Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore as well as veteran star Dustin Hoffman. Yet even that decision has been difficult for some actors to make. Ben Affleck is among those who has apparently not yet made up his mind. Instead he has announced that the final decision will rest with his stylist.

Yep, his stylist. They don’t sell their souls in Hollywood any more. They have publicists to do that for them.

WHILE SOLDIERS DIE: Some New Yorkers do this:

“I always feel so energized after I go to these,” said a 30-year-old artist who goes by the name Machine. Lithe and statuesque, Machine was wearing sequined hot pants, fishnet stockings, shiny platform heels and a huge feathered headdress. His sign said, “Baby, I am the bomb.” Around him were drag queen nuns and two people wearing stars-and-stripes-patterned suits and dancing on stilts. A dozen women in red, white and blue bobbed wigs with matching skin-tight outfits and huge missile-shaped strap-on dildoes fanned out to the street, flouncing and dancing as they sang “Show me the way to the next little war,” to the tune of the Doors’ “Alabama Song.”

This, while barbarians are abusing captured soldiers.

Another generally good column by Tom Friedman today. He’s smart enough to realize that the French have badly miscalculated. But what’s with this repetitive use of the term “unilateral”? He uses this untruth three times (my italics):

There are three fronts in this Iraq war: one in Iraq, one between America and its Western allies, and one between America and the Arab world. They are all being affected by this unilateral exercise of U.S. power … 9/11 posed a first-order threat to America. That, combined with the unilateralist instincts of the Bush team, eventually led to America deploying its expanded power in Iraq, with full force, without asking anyone… For now, though, Europeans are too stunned by this massive exercise of unilateral U.S. power to think clearly what it’s about.

This is not a legitimate difference of opinion. It is simply not true. At the very least, this war is militarily trilateral – fought with the only European nation with any defense capacity worth using, Britain, and with some Aussies. There are some thirty countries or so behind the war, 21 of which are in Europe. Four of the six largest economies in the world support it – the U.S., Japan, Britain and Italy. When Friedman says that the U.S. did this “without asking anyone,” again, it’s simply not true. How long did we spend at the U.N.? If president Bush’s address last September to the U.N. wasn’t asking for support, then what is? As I say, it’s possible to believe that this war should have somehow been multilateral (however quixotic that might be). But it’s not possible to pretend that it has been simply unilateral. There’s simply no way in which that word can be used to describe this war. Tom knows this. So why lie? And what else do you call it when someone obviously knows the truth and says the opposite?

HEADLINE OF THE DAY: “Peace demonstrators in France stab 2 Jewish boys.” – from the Jerusalem Post. Yes, “peace” protestors. When will we stop using this term to describe anarchists, fascists and anti-Semites?

Well, we’re getting used to the phrase “Shock and Awe.” Herewith an invitation to readers to send in examples of how anti-war writers, poobahs, activists, bloggers, et al are trying to spin the liberation of Iraq into something that proves them to have been right all along. First up, a piece by Johnny Freedland (why do I know all these guys?) in the Guardian. The apparent success of “Shock and Awe” is, you see, a result of the “peace” protestors. If it hadn’t been for the patchouli paraders, no one in the Pentagon would have thought of minimizing civilian casualties! It’s a beaut:

The campaign began not with “shock and awe” but a subtler knife, aimed at the surgical decapitation of Saddam Hussein and his regime. One night’s bombing of Baghdad lasted no more than an hour. The terrifying spectaculars threatened by Rumsfeld and the boys, reminiscent of the fireworks of the first Gulf war, only materialised last night. There could be a stack of explanations for that initial deployment of the short, sharp blow… The US might have wanted to avoid a wave of worldwide revulsion. A series of tight, well-aimed strikes at the regime would have confounded the global fear of colossal Iraqi civilian casualties. It’s as if Washington had heard the peace movement’s objection to this war – that too many innocents would die – and was attempting to heed it. (Now the US can, at least, say it tried its best, but that it didn’t bring instant results.)

Notice the amazing assumption that Washington hawks would actually have wanted to slaughter thousands needlessly, if unrestrained by the Krazy Kantians in the streets. Other examples of “spin and squirms” gratefully received.

They’re racing in.

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.