The Dish

The Times (London), a conservative paper, nevertheless sees the wisdom of Tony Blair’s foreign policy in the last year:

Consider where Britain would be today if the Prime Minister had aligned himself with France and Germany. Consider the country’s position if Mr Blair had offered Washington sympathy but witheld real support. The United States would have toppled Saddam last Autumn. The UN Security Council, on which this country has a permanent seat, would have been rendered an impotent observer, once-warm political relations between America and Europe would have been plunged even further into the deep freeze and Nato would have been reduced from a military alliance of enduring value to a Cold War relic. It is hard to envisage, as Mr Blair was wise to appreciate, how any of this would have served Britain’s interests.

Exactly. Not so much a poodle, as, well, an independent ally.

No, I’m not hallucinating. But the person expressing such a view is, of course, an Iraqi exile and torture survivor. The majority of the Voice’s usual contributors are quite happy to keep Saddam in power.

BBC WATCH: Here comes the BBC, explicating and amplifying the anti-American views of one Robert Mugabe, with minimal context, and a puff piece on Michael Moore, with the odd assertion that his book “was shelved by publishers in the US at first. They only changed their minds after a protest by US librarians.” Huh? And, then, in a final flourish of chutzpah, the Beeb analyzes how biased to the right the American media are. All in a day’s work for the far-lefties running one of the world’s most influential media entity.

After months and months of prevarication, the New York Times finally gets the immensely complicated idea that U.N. Resolution 1441 might actually mean what it says.

MOORE’S NEW TRIUMPH: If you want the ultimate sign of how deep asinine anti-Americanism has become abroad, you can’t do much better than this.

A COP’S STORY: Watching his spouse die as a firefighter in the WTC on 9/11 changed one New York cop into a campaigner for marrriage rights.

The Washington Post gets the real story this morning:

A senior diplomat from another council member said his government … was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war. “You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not,” the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. “That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not.”

That’s some brinkmanship. But I think it also happens to be true. The second U.N. resolution is irrelevant to whether a war actually takes place. It is therefore a gamble Bush cannot completely lose (whatever diplomatic and popular damage it does would be more than undone by a successful war). But it’s a resolution the Security Council (and France and Germany) can easily lose. If the resolution is defeated, but war ensues, Bush will take a small hit at home, a huge hit abroad (still, how much worse could it get?) – but, precisely because of these things, an even bigger domestic gain if the war is successful. Bush will be seen as someone who did all he could to win over the U.N., but in the end, did what he believed was right. He will emerge principled and triumphant. Ditto Blair, especially if a liberated Iraq reveals untold horrors, human rights abuses and French arms contracts. Machiavelli’s dictum applies powerfully now: all that matters is that Bush win the war. If he does, this conflict will be deemed to have been just and justified. That’s why calling the French bluff is especially important – particularly if it isn’t a bluff.

FRANCE’S PREDICAMENT: France, to my mind, has the most at stake. A failed resolution followed by war would mean the end of the United Nations as a credible world body, which, in turn, is largely the source of French global influence. The French certainly don’t have any serious global military power – and even the EU is beginning to wriggle out of their grasp. If an Iraq war is successful, the orneriness of the pro-American Eastern European countries will only increase, handing more leverage to Britain, Spain and Italy in a 25-nation EU. At this point, I’d say the main real pressure – despite what seems evident on the surface – is therefore on France (and to a lesser extent, Germany). They will wield their maximum power at the next Security Council vote. But the moment the vote is over, their fate will rest entirely on how well the U.S. and U.K. armed forces do in the Iraqi desert. I’m beginning to think Saddam knows this reality as well. Perhaps he has already assumed that war is inevitable and that there’s nothing he can do to stop it. That’s why he’s is indicating he won’t give up the al Samoud missiles to help his German and French allies win in the security council. He’ll need those missiles for more urgent tasks in a couple of weeks. His gambit now is therefore to do as much damage to his enemy as possible before his inevitable demise. That means diplomatic damage, by coaxing the anti-Americans, France and Germany, out of their post-cold-war closet, wrecking the U.N., and splitting NATO and the EU. And no doubt it will also mean the deployment of whatever chemical and biological weapons he may have – against allied soldiers and the “Zionist entity.” If I were the French president, I would therefore use Saddam’s refusal to destroy the al Samoud missile, if it occurs and isn’t just another ploy, as a way to climb down. Chirac’s point has been made. And then the war will happen. Whether Chirac likes it or not.

“I’ve discovered an immediate practical use for a small portion of my emergency supply of Duct Tape. I’ve placed 2 strips at the bottom of my Television screen – covering the lower 6″ or so, blocking out the annoying scroll and other supposedly ‘vital’ information (logo, time, stock quotes, terror alert status, etc…) they cram into that portion of the screen. Being a news/political junkie, my TV is tuned to Fox News, CNN or MSNBC about 90 percent of the time, so it works out well.” – more invaluable advice from readers on the Letters Page. Plus: a glowing BBC miniseries on the Rosenbergs and the pan-Pacific penis festival. No Harvard professors allowed.

THE ABYSSINIA PRECEDENT: A wonderful piece by my old editor, Bill Deedes, on how the Western powers, stymied by – yes! – France, bungled Mussolini’s conquest of Abyssinia. Deedes was alive and kicking as a journalist at the time and remembers it all vividly. Money quote:

The crisis in 1935 came closest to where we are now after October 4, when Mussolini launched his attack on Abyssinia. Britain’s eagerness to set in motion the machinery of the League against Italy ran into immediate difficulties with France. Pierre Laval, the French foreign minister, was unwilling to antagonise Mussolini. The sticking point was the likelihood of action by the League, involving sanctions strong enough to thwart Mussolini, precipitating war. Though never a strong believer in the principle of sanctions, Eden believed that on this occasion they would be effective. He wanted the League to apply sanctions – including oil sanctions – to bring Mussolini to the negotiating table. Without the co-operation of France, this became a farce. When I passed through the Suez Canal in 1935 en route for Abyssinia, Mussolini’s ships were drawing all the oil they wanted. Financial backing for Italy, I was told, came from the Banque de France. When I came back a few months later, the same conditions prevailed.

Appeasing Mussolini and Hitler wasn’t in France’s long-term interests then either. Plus ca change …

POSEUR ALERT: “Quoting passionately from the Irish Poet, W.B Yeats, President Mbeki insisted that NAM must ensure that the ‘centre must hold and position itself in word and deed as the enemies of anarchy.’ The President urged NAM to act to neutralise the deadly impact of the tide hungry for human blood, which seeks to celebrate a victory defined as the prevalence of an ephemereal [sic] peace whose parent is the fear of death. The usage of the word ‘tide’ was quite ephemeral at this Summit in the sense that, a week ago, President Mbeki had shaped his State of the Nation Address on the 14th February 2003 on the theme, the ‘tide has turned.’ The conscious correlation between the State of the Nation Address of President Mbeki on Valentine’s Day and the concluding statement in his opening speech at NAM, calling for NAM to ‘express the message of dialogue, peace and a better life for all human beings,’ was indicative of consistency in both South Africa’s domestic policies and its foreign policy in its quest for a better life for all human beings.” – the metaphors of president Thabo Mbeki.

“At the end of the 3rd quarter in the “Is the NYT biased bowl?”, let’s review some relevant stats:

Score: Sullivan, Kaus et al: 52, NYT: 3
1st downs: Sullivan, et al: 28, NYT: 1
Passing Yards: Sullivan, et al: 320, NYT: 15
Rushing Yards: Sullivan, et al: 225, NYT: -5

So yes, while it may be true that the 4th quarter belongs to you, Mr. Raines, the rest of the world has turned the game off. It’s over.”

Now they want to cut off a snow-woman’s boobies!

Harvard’s still buzzing about the snow-penis, erected and then deflated last week, with the victim-feminists in full hue and cry. My favorite you-cant’-make-this-up quote is as follows:

Women’s Studies Lecturer Diane L. Rosenfeld, who teaches Women, Violence and the Law this semester, said that the implications of the snow phallus go beyond the legitimacy of the statue’s presence. “The ice sculpture was erected in a public space, one that should be free from menacing reminders of women’s sexual vulnerability,” Rosenfeld wrote in an e-mail yesterday. She said the snow penis follows a long line of public phallic symbols, including the Washington Monument and missiles.

A simple question: how do you make a missile that looks like a vagina?

It’s the critics of the New York Times’ bias who are the enemies of good journalism, in Raines’ eyes. Here’s the relevant quote:

The most important development of the post-war period among journalists, American journalists, was the acceptance throughout our profession of an ethic that says we report and edit the news for our papers, but we don’t wear the political collar of our owners, or the government, or any political party. It is that legacy we must protect with our diligent stewardship. To do so means we must be aware of the energetic effort that is now underway to convince our readers that we are ideologues. It is an exercise of, in disinformation, of alarming proportions. This attempt to convince the audience of the world’s most ideology free newspapers that they’re being subjected to agenda driven news reflecting a liberal bias. I don’t believe our viewers and readers will be in the long-run misled by those who advocate biased journalism.-But perhaps those of us who work for fair-minded publications and broadcasters have been too passive in pointing out the agendas of those who want to use journalism as a political tool, while aiming an accusing finger at those who practice balanced journalism. I believe as Coach Bryant used to say, ‘The fourth quarter belongs to us.’

Bottom line: he knows criticism of his ideological trashing of the New York Times’ reputation for fairness has had an effect. Did the critics win the first three quarters, Howell? But rather than change, or admit his crusading left-liberalism, he wants to smear the critics. He’s still part of the problem, isn’t he?

Saddam would be truly dumb not to destroy his al Samoud missiles. Although they’re not WMDs, they are illegal under the current sanctions. And the p.r. effect of destroying them would be enormous among the gullible peace-at-any-price Europeans. But it’s the WMDs – especially the unaccounted for anthrax, botulinum, and VX gas – that we need real answers about. And action. Meanwhile, good news about the prospect for democracy after liberation. Paul Wolfowitz – and not some anonymous leaker to the Washington Post – clearly stated yesterday that Iraq is “not going to be handed over to some junior Saddam Hussein. We’re not interested in replacing one dictator with another dictator.” That’s a relief. The proof of that, of course, will be tested in the coming months and years. But I believe Wolfowitz. And trust him.

IRAQ AND IRAN: My friend, Michael Ledeen, has long argued that the theocratic mafia in Tehran is by far the gravest threat in the Middle East. He’s right. No surprise that the mullahs are trying to go nuclear. And no surprise that the people they oppress see the looming liberation of Iraq as a godsend. A rare piece of good reporting from Iran in the Los Angeles Times yesterday captured the effect a successful removal of Saddam could have on its more powerful neighbor:

Some Iranians, particularly the young, say they would actually welcome a U.S. presence in Iraq because it would increase pressure on both their country’s conservative Islamic regime and the fractured reformers who oppose it. The regime’s efforts to portray the U.S. as the “Great Satan” have failed to sway young people, who are a clear majority of Iranians. About 70% of the country’s 70 million people are younger than 30. Young people in particular associate the U.S. with the opportunities and freedoms that Iran, with its sluggish economy and stern moral code, lacks. They believe that better relations with the U.S. would revitalize Iranian life and help the country shed its pariah status.

Then my favorite quote in the story:

“Are they changing their mind?” Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. “Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?”

My feelings entirely, Goli. We’ve already dawdled for far too long.