Category: Old Dish

If you want proof that Jacques Chirac would never, ever have acquiesced in the removal of his old buddy, Saddam Hussein, you only have to look at his decision to prevent any NATO cooperation in Iraq, now that sovereignty has been transferred. He has one central plank in his foreign policy: the obstruction of American power. If that means hoping for the failure of Iraqi democracy, so be it. If it means turning a blind eye to terror, so be it. But even Le Monde is beginning to see through his cynicism. Here’s an extract from their editorial today, translated by my France-watcher:

“For the 15 months since the beginning of the American-British [notice avoidance of the Vichy expression “Anglo-American” — translator] intervention in Iraq, Jacques Chirac has been working on the solution to a difficult diplomatic equation: how to maintain his opposition to the war without seeming to be shamefully nostalgic for Saddam Hussein — something the Americans have hinted at on several occasions — and while also fulfilling his obligations as an ally of the US. . . . In Iraq, the United States has two goals: to give international legitimacy to its intervention and to replace a portion of its troops with NATO forces. France has conceded the first point in voting in favor of the recent UN resolutions. France still resists the second, but without having been able to block an involvement susceptible of leading, sooner or later, to the presence of the trans-Atlantic organization in Iraq. This is a rear-guard battle that illustrates Chirac’s dilemma: he must not oppose the reconstruction of a “sovereign” Iraq while at the same time not appearing to give the lie to his own [anti-war] policies. This is also a position of watchful waiting, permitting cooperation with John Kerry, if he wins the Presidential election, and also permitting living with George Bush, if reelected.”

But it’s so nakedly self-interested it’s self-defeating. Chirac is already being isolated within Europe, and is striking out at potential rivals in his own party. He’s a tired, pompous, corrupt hack. Always has been.

WHAT THE MEDIA WON’T BROADCAST: Oh, they’ll find out details of people’s sex lives and sue to publish and broadcast them, and they’ll show endless footage of Abu Ghraib abuses. But terrorist beheadings? Nah. Here’s a classic statement of the journalist elite, from the Los Angeles Times:

“Any news outlet – or any private individual, for that matter – who makes available footage of the actual beheadings is, to my mind, an accessory to the crime itself,” says Kunkel, dean of journalism at the University of Maryland. “Those are the individuals who are essentially finishing the work of the terrorists, by delivering their grisly ‘message.'”

And why isn’t the broadcasting of the Abu Ghraib abuses also adding to the humiliation of the victims? Remember that the acts occasioned shame (which was, in part, the point) and the shame is immeasurably amplified by repeated broadcasts. I think the answer is that the media will broadcast anything that will embarrass Americans or America. But they will give terrorists a pass. No surprises there, I guess.

I don’t know what to make of this. But it’s a painful addendum to a wonderful book.

“I could not resist bringing to your attention this delicious little typo-slash-Freudian-slip, from a reader review of “Fahrenheit 9/11” at the NY Times website (to which I was referred by your blog):

‘I was expecting a sloppy, fuzzy, highly manipulated treatment. Instead, Bush Administration damns itself through its own actions, its own words, its own lies…all documented for prosperity.’

Yes, pseudo-proletarian Michael Moore’s prosperity — indeed.”

Check out the reader reviews. I think they’re all five star raves.

Weird event on National Review’s website. John Derbyshire wrote one of his usual posts, celebrating a Scottish bed and breakfast for refusing to give a gay couple a double-bed. He delighted in the fact that someone somewhere was taking a stand against the evils of “oppressive tolerance,” and quoted the piece at some length, especially the owners’ abhorrence of “perversion”. A short time later, his post was truncated to a small blurb; and the quotes from the linked piece removed entirely. Does this mean that NRO actually thinks that celebrations of anti-gay intolerance are not something they want to endorse? But why start now? Derbyshire is on record supporting prejudice – pure prejudice – against gay people, proudly describing himself as a mild homophobe; he supported the abuses at Abu Ghraib with the immortal words “Kick one [a prisoner] for me;” he has proclaimed his refusal to live anywhere where there are large numbers of African-Americans; and on and on. NRO think they can prettify this by the occasional retroactive edit? Here’s the story that warmed Derbyshire’s heart:

Tom Forrest, owner of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, where a sometimes stern Presbyterian spirit remains strong, had other ideas.
He would be happy to rent the couple a room with twin beds at the guest house in the village of Kinlochewe, “but we will not condone your perversion” with a double bed, he wrote in an e-mail, the Times newspaper said Wednesday.
Angry at the response, Nock replied by suggesting that Forrest was bigoted.
“Bigot? No. Respect for other guests,” came the reply.
“Homophobic? No, I have no hatred or fear of poofs, etc — I just do not approve of unnatural acts being performed in my home.”
Nock in return asked the Scottish tourism board to remove the guesthouse from a list of recommended accommodation on its website, saying that the prejudice had “depressed” him, the report said.
The tourism board asked the guest house owner to act differently, but he has refused to back down, saying he ran a “respectable” establishment.
“I have had bent people coming to stay, but they have had a twin room and respect our wishes,” Forrest was quoted as saying.

Notice that it is not homophobic to call gay people “poofs,” or “bent”. Maybe NRO merely didn’t want those words on its website, which is commendable. What is less commendable is their desire to endorse the sentiment that makes sense of them.

“Your article about William Raspberry’s review of Moore’s movie is right on target. Unfortunately, as I can tell you as a black person, Raspberry’s irrational views are shared by many black people. I’ve never seen so many people who I always respected and always considered to be intelligent say so many crazy things, “Bush is the same as Saddam.” “Saddam was not as bad as Bush.” “The U.S. is the worst country in the world to live in.” I kid you not. In the meantime, not one liberal or black person has anything to say about what Arabs are doing to black people in North and East African. The whole thing is very disturbing. Objections to Bush and the U.S. as a whole have gone way beyond any realistic criticsm of anything that is wrong. It’s just hatred and a wish for destruction, after which I guess we will all live in brotherhood under Muslim rule! I just listen to people. I’ve given up trying to discuss it. People become enraged and start telling me I’m a self hating black, Uncle Tom, etc.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

Yes, I know it’s a Goya parody. So? Bush is eating his own son? This is simple demonization. I was worried that it appeared in the Nation. But now I’m less surprised. Guess who registered the domain name for pleasevote.com, the site sponsoring the ad? The contact listed is hamfish@nationinstitute.org. Sometimes you don’t need Michael Moore connecting the dots, do you?

The initial returns of “Fahrenheit 9/11” were less than “Jackass.” But the adjusted returns show F9/11 inching ahead of the boys with the toys. Let’s see if Moore’s propaganda beats out “Jackass’s” total $64.2 million.

Something I didn’t know, but should have. One of Jack Ryan’s rivals in the Republican primary was one Andy McKenna Jr. Ryan beat him. Then there’s this: “His father is Andy McKenna Sr., chairman of Schwarz, a minority investor in the Chicago Bears, a former chairman of both the Cubs and White Sox and a former director of Tribune Co., which also owns the Chicago Tribune.” Hmmm. (My italics). Maybe it’s not a huge surprise that the Trib exposed Ryan’s private life and will leave Kerry’s alone.

If Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce papers are legitimate objects for perusal (and you are prepared to force the issue in court), why not Kerry’s? Can’t you just wait for the Chicago Tribune to explain why they won’t pursue the story? Here’s the Trib’s specious justification for their witch-hunt:

This nation has a long tradition of open courts. There’s good reason for that. A court shrouded in secrecy is a court far more at risk to be corrupted or abused, a court that is more likely to favor those who are wealthy, powerful or politically connected.
That is why court files are open, unless a compelling interest tips the balance in favor of secrecy. Juvenile Court records are one common exception. Divorce records are not.
Last week, a California judge ruled that the Ryan divorce files should be unsealed to maintain that principle of openness.
“The public interest is for the fair, efficient and open operation of the court system,” Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider said. “The openness of court files must be maintained so that the public can … be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and the powerful. Protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what is put in public courts.”
That standard of openness is all the more crucial when it comes to information regarding candidates for public office.

Now tell me how that doesn’t apply to Kerry. In some ways, the Kerry divorce may have more public ramifications, because Kerry was also granted an annulment, indicating that the marriage, strictly speaking, was never fully valid in the Catholic church. Why? Was this special treatment for a powerful pol? On the Trib’s reasoning, isn’t that worth investigating? On the privacy matter, Kerry’s marriage is also further in the past than Ryan’s. Kerry’s daughters are grown up, while Ryan’s son – forced to endure public airing of his parents’ marital conflicts – is still a kid. (Yes, we know how the Tribune feels about the sensibilities of a young, utterly innocent boy: screw him.) Let me be clear: I think Kerry should be left alone. But the press has absolutely no good reason to do so, now they have trashed any semblance of human privacy that we might still be entitled to. So we will now see the real ethics of the Chicago Tribune: that they are a partisan attack machine, shredding people’s privacy for their own political agenda.