Monday, December 29, 2003
Meryl has been developing her thoughts further. I encourage you to follow through her cognitive progression. It’s interesting and pretty darn (to my mind) extemporaneously given.
(0) comments
(0) comments
This is effing ridiculous. I never mentioned anything about assisting Iranians in Bam because, well, I just figured that it was obvious. The people of Iran are not our enemy. The government of Iran is, or will be, or whatever and whenever. But the people are not. Assisting them just seemed too damn obvious to me.
But then I came upon this "controversy" about whether people of good will should actually help those poor, crushed people in Bam. Via Michelle I quote Meryl:
Here's my opinion: This is where the Jew card gets played. This is where I come into conflict with my own conscience. I don't want innocents to suffer, ever. Neither does Lair, in spite of what some people may think. But yes, Andrea, he's angry, and so am I. And yes, we want to lash out at the people who tell us that of all the people in the world, they'll accept help from everyone but Jews. Yeah. That does tend to make us angry.
Our anger springs from experiencing the ever-present Jew hatred that permeates the Middle East. The anger springs from the fact that Iran bankrolls Hizbullah, which has thousands of rockets in Lebanon aimed directly at the border farms and villages of northern Israel. The anger springs from Hizbullah's murder of hundreds of Jews in Buenos Aires. The anger springs from the easy anti-Semitism of some Iranian bloggers, who say they're not anti-Semitic, yet repeat the anti-Semitic canards about Israel and "Zionists." The anger springs from the realization that yes, the mullahs are scumbags, and yes, they don't represent all Iranians-but there are a fair number of Iranians, including, I'd wager, in Bam itself, who would also refuse help from Israel.
You cannot possibly understand our anger, Michele. You cannot possibly understand our anger, Andrea. And I say this knowing full well what stalwarts you are in rejecting all Jew-hatred. But you're not Jewish, and you don't get what it feels like.
...
And she finishes with this:
It may seem an ugly side of us to you. But we all have our ugly sides.
I cannot believe I'm reading this crap. Part of the reason I find myself so in sympathy and synergy with Jews and Israelis is because of our common humanity. Get it? Humanity. And, dare I use the word, sophistication. This comes as close to racism as I can ever remember coming from the right-thinking members of the blogosphere.
It's disgusting. Even I, who has stated quite clearly that I have a never-ending animus towards Palestinians, base that base feeling in evidence of their perfidy. Never, once, have I seen evidence that would advise me that Persians in Iran hold such categorical and racial hatred towards Jews. And to assume that, because the mullahs who dominate the government of that country hate the Jews, the population likewise hates is a presumption that is chilling in implication and galling in actual practice.
The reason I find myself sympathetic, and in political harmony with, the Israelis is because they are, to my mind, the best of the West in the Middle East. Part of that lauded "best of the West" is an understanding that genes are not opinion and government isn't popular opinion. Especially in a dictatorship!
No, this will not cause me to rethink my support of Israel in particular and Jews in general. And the reason that is, is because I will not let a few nefarious individuals speak as un-elected representatives of an entire people.
Get that?
(0) comments
But then I came upon this "controversy" about whether people of good will should actually help those poor, crushed people in Bam. Via Michelle I quote Meryl:
Here's my opinion: This is where the Jew card gets played. This is where I come into conflict with my own conscience. I don't want innocents to suffer, ever. Neither does Lair, in spite of what some people may think. But yes, Andrea, he's angry, and so am I. And yes, we want to lash out at the people who tell us that of all the people in the world, they'll accept help from everyone but Jews. Yeah. That does tend to make us angry.
Our anger springs from experiencing the ever-present Jew hatred that permeates the Middle East. The anger springs from the fact that Iran bankrolls Hizbullah, which has thousands of rockets in Lebanon aimed directly at the border farms and villages of northern Israel. The anger springs from Hizbullah's murder of hundreds of Jews in Buenos Aires. The anger springs from the easy anti-Semitism of some Iranian bloggers, who say they're not anti-Semitic, yet repeat the anti-Semitic canards about Israel and "Zionists." The anger springs from the realization that yes, the mullahs are scumbags, and yes, they don't represent all Iranians-but there are a fair number of Iranians, including, I'd wager, in Bam itself, who would also refuse help from Israel.
You cannot possibly understand our anger, Michele. You cannot possibly understand our anger, Andrea. And I say this knowing full well what stalwarts you are in rejecting all Jew-hatred. But you're not Jewish, and you don't get what it feels like.
...
And she finishes with this:
It may seem an ugly side of us to you. But we all have our ugly sides.
I cannot believe I'm reading this crap. Part of the reason I find myself so in sympathy and synergy with Jews and Israelis is because of our common humanity. Get it? Humanity. And, dare I use the word, sophistication. This comes as close to racism as I can ever remember coming from the right-thinking members of the blogosphere.
It's disgusting. Even I, who has stated quite clearly that I have a never-ending animus towards Palestinians, base that base feeling in evidence of their perfidy. Never, once, have I seen evidence that would advise me that Persians in Iran hold such categorical and racial hatred towards Jews. And to assume that, because the mullahs who dominate the government of that country hate the Jews, the population likewise hates is a presumption that is chilling in implication and galling in actual practice.
The reason I find myself sympathetic, and in political harmony with, the Israelis is because they are, to my mind, the best of the West in the Middle East. Part of that lauded "best of the West" is an understanding that genes are not opinion and government isn't popular opinion. Especially in a dictatorship!
No, this will not cause me to rethink my support of Israel in particular and Jews in general. And the reason that is, is because I will not let a few nefarious individuals speak as un-elected representatives of an entire people.
Get that?
(0) comments
Sunday, December 28, 2003
E-mail Digi Imp
If you have something you want to say then check out the link at left ("E-mail Digi Imp"). I welcome all comments, and will tend to post them here, depending on the quality of the comment (i.e. broadsides consisting of nothing but incoherent, foul-mouthed moonbat gibberish may just get ignored - unless I want to make fun of it).
Make sure to let me know if you don't want your name and/or return e-mail address (or other links) included in my post of your comment.
(0) comments
If you have something you want to say then check out the link at left ("E-mail Digi Imp"). I welcome all comments, and will tend to post them here, depending on the quality of the comment (i.e. broadsides consisting of nothing but incoherent, foul-mouthed moonbat gibberish may just get ignored - unless I want to make fun of it).
Make sure to let me know if you don't want your name and/or return e-mail address (or other links) included in my post of your comment.
(0) comments
Saturday, December 27, 2003
The Enemy Within (Remix)
I really don't know why the hell this is so confusing to some people. I'm even more mystified that some people are so oblivious to reality that this never even seems to enter their "thought" stream.
What am I ranting about? The value of will in times of war.
It's a truism of war that the entire point of war is to convince your enemy that it is in his own best interest to quit. In other words: the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight. Do that, and, by definition, you've won.
You don't have to be a military genius (I'm certainly not) to know this. And many non-geniuses know it quite well. That principal was instrumental in our capitulation during the Vietnam War, though our enemy knew that it wasn't his task to break the will of the American military: his task was to break the will of the American People. Ho Chi Minh made no secret of his task. Hell, he explained it to anybody (e.g. Western media) who would listen. And he was indisputably successful in demoralizing a vocal percentage of the American People. He barley had to try: a certain group of our fellow citizens were all too ready to be demoralized. And little has changed since then.
And that's one of the things that drives me right up the wall here. A basic tenet of defeating an enemy in general, and it's particular application when your target is the United States, a basic rule-of-thumb that every shabby insurgent and tin-pot dictator on the planet knows, is simply not understood by a segment of the American population. This is especially alarming since that principal is frequently deployed against us.
Like it is now. In Iraq.
The Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda itself understand that they would have no chance of success at all if they were to form up divisions and take the field of battle openly against the American military. They're bastards, but they're not stupid bastards. They know that their achievable goal (and the only one that has any chance of success) is to demoralize the American people so that we will accede to their demands (get out of Iraq, get out of Saudi Arabia, etc.).
So, simply (and accurately) put: The War on Terrorism is a war of wills between the people of the United States of America and the forces of international terrorism.
A war of wills: a test to determine who will give up first.
By definition, we will have lost this war at such point as we decide to allow the enemy to impose his will on us. That said, I now turn to the other end of this problem (and the other thing that leaves me in frustrated stupefaction): The enemy already has a leg up on his goal because there is in America a consistent and pervasive group of people who are willing to take the side of an enemy (any enemy) of America. People all too willing to give the enemy that leg up he’s getting.
Some of these people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. Now, I know what you're thinking: Uh oh! Now he's gone right round the bend with this "Enemies Within" paranoia. But think about what I wrote. If it is the goal of our enemy to break our will to fight, to impose their will on us, then one of their necessary tools is psychological warfare. They want to shape what we think, and one of the most obvious ways of doing that is by influencing what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read on the Internet.
An example of that was when Al Qaeda struck the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks the media were focused on the event to the exclusion of all else for days. Obviously, the attacks had a military value to Al Qaeda; they hit our economy in a way that cost billions of dollars and deepened and prolonged an existing recession. But, primarily, the attacks were meant to terrorize. The attacks were designed and executed with the explicit goal of scaring us back to our shores, of imposing their will on us. Changing our minds.
Of course, the media had no choice but to show us all what was going on in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I even think I could make an argument that they showed not enough of what had happened. I am merely pointing out that one of the most important weapons available to Al Qaeda is the ability to put before our eyes and ears information that they believe will cause us to decide to do what they say.
You, I, and every American we know were the real targets of 9/11. And the reason Al Qaeda's attack was successful in at least one of its goals (propagandizing about how they are strong and we are not safe) is that it was reported. Thus, as I said, some people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. In this circumstance I refer to the US media. No fault should be laid upon them for this, of course. But it's a fact worth noting for future reference.
Some people, however, are unaware of their being used by the enemy, but most certainly are to be blamed for their complicity with him. Of these I direct your attention to people like Barbara Streisand (and other left-wing Hollywood elites), most of the Democratic presidential candidates, leftist columnists (and Tokyo Rose wannabes) like Paul Krugman, news editors and reporters who distort the news by manipulating the balance of stories (pro-US vs. anti-US), and other advocates of US retreat and submission. I grant them the charity of believing that they are not knowingly aiding and comforting the enemy because I have a hard time believing that they would actively help him. However, they are active participants in doing the exact same thing as is Al Qaeda: trying to convince the American People that they should not be confronting our enemies, but should, instead, run back home, hide under the bed, and count on the kindness of Osama bin Ladin to assure our safety.
Other people who are willing to take supporting roles for America's enemies are even more pernicious, and intentionally so. These people so hate what America stands for and America's military might, influence and will to act that they intentionally take actions that are designed to negatively impact our efforts in the War on Terrorism. I include among these people the journalists and columnists who intentionally misquote public officials so as to heap scorn upon them (i.e. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who truncated a quote from President Bush to give the impression that he was callous towards our troops who have died in Iraq) and intentionally misreport in order to negatively affect US or allied public opinion about the success of our war efforts (i.e. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who dramatically and emphatically reported that we had not taken Baghdad Airport when, in fact, we had hours before). But there are others in this group as well.
Another recent example of these people's actions that forward the goals of our enemies was seen when a few thousand reservists were activated and were ordered to report to Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. Somehow the anti-American group known as Not In Our Name, along with several other organizations, found out the time that the reservists were to report.
These groups organized a "protest" at the gate where most of the reservists would enter the fort. Some of the signs held by the "protestors" urged the reservists to not report for duty, or to "resist" their officers by refusing to obey orders. Now, I put quotation marks around "protest" and "protestors" for a very specific reason: those were not protests, nor protestors; they were enemy actions by active enemy collaborators.
Am I being extreme? Hardly. If, as I've already said, the very essence of this War on Terror is a test of wills between America and her enemies then the state of mind (e.g. morale, good order and discipline) of our military and the strength-of-will of our citizenry are strategic national resources. Attempts to destroy or damage those resources further the direct goals of our enemies. That was the clear intent of the "protestors," whether they say so or not. That they may not see themselves as enemies of the United Stats proves only their ignorance, not their nobility.
There are, of course, more extreme examples. During the build up to the war in Iraq several people attempted to interfere with the military domestically by trying to foul the shipping of materiel. That was an enemy action. I have read at least one post on a leftist website wherein the poster openly advocated the assassination of the President. That is a direct, intentional enemy action. There are now instances of people posting on the web, stating on the radio, and writing in publications an explicit desire to see more and more of our own military personnel killed in Iraq. They want this so that American public opinion will turn against the Iraq war in particular and the War on Terror in general. This, too, is a direct, knowing, enemy action.
These people are not merely engaging in the exercise of freedom of speech. They're not merely engaging in sedition (which is permissible). They are both advocating and actively engaging in actions that facilitate and forward the enemy's goals. They are enemies of the United States.
One other thing should be considered: the will of the enemy to continue the fight. If they are trying to break our will to fight, it is also true that we are trying to break theirs. Like I said, the whole point is to get the enemy to believe that it's in his own best interest to quit. What do you think goes through the mind of the enemy when he sees BBC and CNN reporting that his efforts against us are not only successful on a military basis, but also are having the result of demoralizing the American People? What does he think when he watches our entertainment elites criticizing the conduct and possibility of success of this war? What is he to make of the leading Democrat candidate openly speculating that the President knew in advance about the imminent slaughter of 3,000 American citizens?
Given all this, and all the other indicators of US public opinion available to our enemy, do you think he is more convinced that we will continue the fight? Or, as I see it, is he more likely to conclude that our will is finally breaking, and if he keeps up his fight just a while longer then he will finally reach his goal of having the American will broken, soon to be followed by our Somalia-like retreat. Do the actions of these people I've described forward our goal of breaking our enemy's will? Or, do they forward his perception that he is actually succeeding? The longer our enemy thinks victory is possible for him the longer he will carry on the fight, and the longer our people will be at risk.
Because these people encourage our enemy with their actions, the war will last longer, and more of our military personnel (and perhaps more of the citizenry) will die. It can be difficult for some people to believe that something so insubstantial as "the will to fight" can actually affect the real world, and the lives of real people. But affecting that little idea, the will to fight, is the whole point of war, which is a very real-world thing indeed.
Do I advocate the jailing of all these people? Well, not all, no. Clearly those who advocate assassination, and those who interfere with military operations should be jailed (though, admittedly, I'd opt for launching them off the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, unaccompanied by an aircraft). Those who actively try to erode our national will to survive, attempt to incite mutiny in our military, engage in intentional propaganda in support of our enemies and intentionally distort the reporting of front-lines news to further that same goal should be known for what they are: agents of enemy aid and comfort; prolongers of war; people who's actions directly result in American deaths.
No matter how much they whine and rage to the contrary, no matter how many times they shriek "McCarthyism!" no matter how often they strip off their (no doubt) unwashed clothes and spell "PEACE!" with their shriveled naked bodies - agents of enemy aid and comfort they are. Even if some of them don't know that they are such agents, they are just the same.
(0) comments
I really don't know why the hell this is so confusing to some people. I'm even more mystified that some people are so oblivious to reality that this never even seems to enter their "thought" stream.
What am I ranting about? The value of will in times of war.
It's a truism of war that the entire point of war is to convince your enemy that it is in his own best interest to quit. In other words: the point of war is to break your enemy's will to fight. Do that, and, by definition, you've won.
You don't have to be a military genius (I'm certainly not) to know this. And many non-geniuses know it quite well. That principal was instrumental in our capitulation during the Vietnam War, though our enemy knew that it wasn't his task to break the will of the American military: his task was to break the will of the American People. Ho Chi Minh made no secret of his task. Hell, he explained it to anybody (e.g. Western media) who would listen. And he was indisputably successful in demoralizing a vocal percentage of the American People. He barley had to try: a certain group of our fellow citizens were all too ready to be demoralized. And little has changed since then.
And that's one of the things that drives me right up the wall here. A basic tenet of defeating an enemy in general, and it's particular application when your target is the United States, a basic rule-of-thumb that every shabby insurgent and tin-pot dictator on the planet knows, is simply not understood by a segment of the American population. This is especially alarming since that principal is frequently deployed against us.
Like it is now. In Iraq.
The Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda itself understand that they would have no chance of success at all if they were to form up divisions and take the field of battle openly against the American military. They're bastards, but they're not stupid bastards. They know that their achievable goal (and the only one that has any chance of success) is to demoralize the American people so that we will accede to their demands (get out of Iraq, get out of Saudi Arabia, etc.).
So, simply (and accurately) put: The War on Terrorism is a war of wills between the people of the United States of America and the forces of international terrorism.
A war of wills: a test to determine who will give up first.
By definition, we will have lost this war at such point as we decide to allow the enemy to impose his will on us. That said, I now turn to the other end of this problem (and the other thing that leaves me in frustrated stupefaction): The enemy already has a leg up on his goal because there is in America a consistent and pervasive group of people who are willing to take the side of an enemy (any enemy) of America. People all too willing to give the enemy that leg up he’s getting.
Some of these people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. Now, I know what you're thinking: Uh oh! Now he's gone right round the bend with this "Enemies Within" paranoia. But think about what I wrote. If it is the goal of our enemy to break our will to fight, to impose their will on us, then one of their necessary tools is psychological warfare. They want to shape what we think, and one of the most obvious ways of doing that is by influencing what we see on TV, hear on the radio and read on the Internet.
An example of that was when Al Qaeda struck the WTC and the Pentagon. At the time of the attacks the media were focused on the event to the exclusion of all else for days. Obviously, the attacks had a military value to Al Qaeda; they hit our economy in a way that cost billions of dollars and deepened and prolonged an existing recession. But, primarily, the attacks were meant to terrorize. The attacks were designed and executed with the explicit goal of scaring us back to our shores, of imposing their will on us. Changing our minds.
Of course, the media had no choice but to show us all what was going on in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. I even think I could make an argument that they showed not enough of what had happened. I am merely pointing out that one of the most important weapons available to Al Qaeda is the ability to put before our eyes and ears information that they believe will cause us to decide to do what they say.
You, I, and every American we know were the real targets of 9/11. And the reason Al Qaeda's attack was successful in at least one of its goals (propagandizing about how they are strong and we are not safe) is that it was reported. Thus, as I said, some people do not realize that the enemy is actively using them. In this circumstance I refer to the US media. No fault should be laid upon them for this, of course. But it's a fact worth noting for future reference.
Some people, however, are unaware of their being used by the enemy, but most certainly are to be blamed for their complicity with him. Of these I direct your attention to people like Barbara Streisand (and other left-wing Hollywood elites), most of the Democratic presidential candidates, leftist columnists (and Tokyo Rose wannabes) like Paul Krugman, news editors and reporters who distort the news by manipulating the balance of stories (pro-US vs. anti-US), and other advocates of US retreat and submission. I grant them the charity of believing that they are not knowingly aiding and comforting the enemy because I have a hard time believing that they would actively help him. However, they are active participants in doing the exact same thing as is Al Qaeda: trying to convince the American People that they should not be confronting our enemies, but should, instead, run back home, hide under the bed, and count on the kindness of Osama bin Ladin to assure our safety.
Other people who are willing to take supporting roles for America's enemies are even more pernicious, and intentionally so. These people so hate what America stands for and America's military might, influence and will to act that they intentionally take actions that are designed to negatively impact our efforts in the War on Terrorism. I include among these people the journalists and columnists who intentionally misquote public officials so as to heap scorn upon them (i.e. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who truncated a quote from President Bush to give the impression that he was callous towards our troops who have died in Iraq) and intentionally misreport in order to negatively affect US or allied public opinion about the success of our war efforts (i.e. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan, who dramatically and emphatically reported that we had not taken Baghdad Airport when, in fact, we had hours before). But there are others in this group as well.
Another recent example of these people's actions that forward the goals of our enemies was seen when a few thousand reservists were activated and were ordered to report to Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Washington. Somehow the anti-American group known as Not In Our Name, along with several other organizations, found out the time that the reservists were to report.
These groups organized a "protest" at the gate where most of the reservists would enter the fort. Some of the signs held by the "protestors" urged the reservists to not report for duty, or to "resist" their officers by refusing to obey orders. Now, I put quotation marks around "protest" and "protestors" for a very specific reason: those were not protests, nor protestors; they were enemy actions by active enemy collaborators.
Am I being extreme? Hardly. If, as I've already said, the very essence of this War on Terror is a test of wills between America and her enemies then the state of mind (e.g. morale, good order and discipline) of our military and the strength-of-will of our citizenry are strategic national resources. Attempts to destroy or damage those resources further the direct goals of our enemies. That was the clear intent of the "protestors," whether they say so or not. That they may not see themselves as enemies of the United Stats proves only their ignorance, not their nobility.
There are, of course, more extreme examples. During the build up to the war in Iraq several people attempted to interfere with the military domestically by trying to foul the shipping of materiel. That was an enemy action. I have read at least one post on a leftist website wherein the poster openly advocated the assassination of the President. That is a direct, intentional enemy action. There are now instances of people posting on the web, stating on the radio, and writing in publications an explicit desire to see more and more of our own military personnel killed in Iraq. They want this so that American public opinion will turn against the Iraq war in particular and the War on Terror in general. This, too, is a direct, knowing, enemy action.
These people are not merely engaging in the exercise of freedom of speech. They're not merely engaging in sedition (which is permissible). They are both advocating and actively engaging in actions that facilitate and forward the enemy's goals. They are enemies of the United States.
One other thing should be considered: the will of the enemy to continue the fight. If they are trying to break our will to fight, it is also true that we are trying to break theirs. Like I said, the whole point is to get the enemy to believe that it's in his own best interest to quit. What do you think goes through the mind of the enemy when he sees BBC and CNN reporting that his efforts against us are not only successful on a military basis, but also are having the result of demoralizing the American People? What does he think when he watches our entertainment elites criticizing the conduct and possibility of success of this war? What is he to make of the leading Democrat candidate openly speculating that the President knew in advance about the imminent slaughter of 3,000 American citizens?
Given all this, and all the other indicators of US public opinion available to our enemy, do you think he is more convinced that we will continue the fight? Or, as I see it, is he more likely to conclude that our will is finally breaking, and if he keeps up his fight just a while longer then he will finally reach his goal of having the American will broken, soon to be followed by our Somalia-like retreat. Do the actions of these people I've described forward our goal of breaking our enemy's will? Or, do they forward his perception that he is actually succeeding? The longer our enemy thinks victory is possible for him the longer he will carry on the fight, and the longer our people will be at risk.
Because these people encourage our enemy with their actions, the war will last longer, and more of our military personnel (and perhaps more of the citizenry) will die. It can be difficult for some people to believe that something so insubstantial as "the will to fight" can actually affect the real world, and the lives of real people. But affecting that little idea, the will to fight, is the whole point of war, which is a very real-world thing indeed.
Do I advocate the jailing of all these people? Well, not all, no. Clearly those who advocate assassination, and those who interfere with military operations should be jailed (though, admittedly, I'd opt for launching them off the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, unaccompanied by an aircraft). Those who actively try to erode our national will to survive, attempt to incite mutiny in our military, engage in intentional propaganda in support of our enemies and intentionally distort the reporting of front-lines news to further that same goal should be known for what they are: agents of enemy aid and comfort; prolongers of war; people who's actions directly result in American deaths.
No matter how much they whine and rage to the contrary, no matter how many times they shriek "McCarthyism!" no matter how often they strip off their (no doubt) unwashed clothes and spell "PEACE!" with their shriveled naked bodies - agents of enemy aid and comfort they are. Even if some of them don't know that they are such agents, they are just the same.
(0) comments
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
From USA Today:
"Eventually, he [Saddam - ed] will be quizzed more specifically about chemical and biological weapons, countries that may have helped Iraq with its weapons programs and Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, they said." (emphasis added)
Reports that Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are constructing Spider Holes cannot be confirmed.
(0) comments
"Eventually, he [Saddam - ed] will be quizzed more specifically about chemical and biological weapons, countries that may have helped Iraq with its weapons programs and Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, they said." (emphasis added)
Reports that Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are constructing Spider Holes cannot be confirmed.
(0) comments
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
UN “Security” Council Takes It In The, er..., Eye
Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister gave what for to the UNSC today in what was a highly unusual upbraiding. And it was freakin’ awesome!
But here, let me get out of the way and let mister Zebari give you The Word:
“Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people.”
Can you imagine poor, poor (French foreign minister) Dominique de Villepin being faced with such rudeness? Such insolence? Such insubordination?
Yeah. So can I!
It gets better:
"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."
"One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable."
(Don't you just love it? Ahhhhh, that word! "Appease." Heh heh.)
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
"The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."
Damn straight.
Oh, but wait! UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has a well-thought-out and pithy rejoinder:
"Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers."
And "nah, nah, nah naaah nah." (okay, that was mine)
What horse shit. Now is precisely the time to pin blame and point fingers. Approximately 300,000 fingers. So far.
(0) comments
Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq’s foreign minister gave what for to the UNSC today in what was a highly unusual upbraiding. And it was freakin’ awesome!
But here, let me get out of the way and let mister Zebari give you The Word:
“Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people.”
Can you imagine poor, poor (French foreign minister) Dominique de Villepin being faced with such rudeness? Such insolence? Such insubordination?
Yeah. So can I!
It gets better:
"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold."
"One year ago, the Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable."
(Don't you just love it? Ahhhhh, that word! "Appease." Heh heh.)
"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."
"The U.N. must not fail the Iraqi people again."
Damn straight.
Oh, but wait! UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has a well-thought-out and pithy rejoinder:
"Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers."
And "nah, nah, nah naaah nah." (okay, that was mine)
What horse shit. Now is precisely the time to pin blame and point fingers. Approximately 300,000 fingers. So far.
(0) comments
Monday, December 15, 2003
"Saddam Hussein's continued life is more of a problem than Osama bin Laden's. Because if we look at what has been happening with the insurgency [in Iraq] and stories in the last few days [about] funds that Saddam Hussein somehow has access to ... in many ways he has a lot of levers he was used to pulling. The question is whether the strings are attached... His continued life is creating huge problems. And while the [Bush] administration is basically saying none of this matters any more, I think it does matter." - Madeleine Albright - Former Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, December 08, 2003 (emphasis added)
"But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." - Howard Dean, M.D., December 15, 2003 (psychosis in original)
(0) comments
"But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." - Howard Dean, M.D., December 15, 2003 (psychosis in original)
(0) comments
That this story in the Telegraph has not been immediately dismissed by US and/or British intelligence agencies lends an increasing credence to the story. Now Deroy Murdock puts together an interesting and informative piece reviewing the previous evidence and how it fits with this new document.
Just for a taste, here's former chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti (who wrote the memo) telling Saddam about the progress of Mohammed Atta's training in July, 2001:
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him...He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.
Get that? "...attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."
Remember that when you hear the Palestinians crying over our capture of Saddam (damn, it feels good writing that last bit!!!). Also remember that when you hear the Howard Dean supporters crying likewise. Not that I'm drawing a line of comparison between the two. Nooooooo. Never.
(0) comments
Just for a taste, here's former chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti (who wrote the memo) telling Saddam about the progress of Mohammed Atta's training in July, 2001:
We arranged a work program for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him...He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.
Get that? "...attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."
Remember that when you hear the Palestinians crying over our capture of Saddam (damn, it feels good writing that last bit!!!). Also remember that when you hear the Howard Dean supporters crying likewise. Not that I'm drawing a line of comparison between the two. Nooooooo. Never.
(0) comments
Colin Powell Has Surgery for Prostate Cancer
Wonder if anybody suggested that, well, maybe the docs could remove his head from up there while they're in the neighborhood.
Just askin'.
(0) comments
Wonder if anybody suggested that, well, maybe the docs could remove his head from up there while they're in the neighborhood.
Just askin'.
(0) comments
Well, well, well. Lookie what Mike found on a Democrat message board.
Well, tha capture of Sadaam takes the 'failure to capture' issue off the table.
Now that the economy is picking up (mall was packed yesterday), Iraq is getting better, prescription drugs on the way, education spending at an all-time high, no further terrorist attacks--what is left?
Oh, yes, the capture of Bin Laden.
If that happens, we are completely sunk.
Posted by Erik Latranyi :: 12/14/03 08:57 AM
Somebody then responded to our clear-thinking Erik (hey, despite being an anti-American asshat, you can't argue with his dark logic).
Marsh - I do not believe one single US life was worth the capture of this guy. He did nothing to the US - and the Iraqi people have shown they would prefer to have him there, than to have US occupation for years to come.
Erik: I do not believe that the capture of Bin Laden will sink us. Bush has cooked his own goose with Economy, Deficit, Corporate deals, Education cut-backs, etc.
Posted by Pam Bergren :: 12/14/03 09:01 AM
Gawd. Where do I start? "He did nothing to the US" Hmm... How about this? Or, more importantly, this?
"and the Iraqi people have shown they would prefer to have him there, than to have US occupation for years to come." Uh, I don't mean to interrupt her asinine LSD-like roiled delusion, but I think I remember seeing a poll taken in Iraq that shows just the frickin' opposite. But hey, what's reality got to do with it?
Bush "cooked his own goose" with the Economy? Oh really?. Heh heh. You know, they should at least try to make this difficult to counter, much less make fun of.
(0) comments
Well, tha capture of Sadaam takes the 'failure to capture' issue off the table.
Now that the economy is picking up (mall was packed yesterday), Iraq is getting better, prescription drugs on the way, education spending at an all-time high, no further terrorist attacks--what is left?
Oh, yes, the capture of Bin Laden.
If that happens, we are completely sunk.
Posted by Erik Latranyi :: 12/14/03 08:57 AM
Somebody then responded to our clear-thinking Erik (hey, despite being an anti-American asshat, you can't argue with his dark logic).
Marsh - I do not believe one single US life was worth the capture of this guy. He did nothing to the US - and the Iraqi people have shown they would prefer to have him there, than to have US occupation for years to come.
Erik: I do not believe that the capture of Bin Laden will sink us. Bush has cooked his own goose with Economy, Deficit, Corporate deals, Education cut-backs, etc.
Posted by Pam Bergren :: 12/14/03 09:01 AM
Gawd. Where do I start? "He did nothing to the US" Hmm... How about this? Or, more importantly, this?
"and the Iraqi people have shown they would prefer to have him there, than to have US occupation for years to come." Uh, I don't mean to interrupt her asinine LSD-like roiled delusion, but I think I remember seeing a poll taken in Iraq that shows just the frickin' opposite. But hey, what's reality got to do with it?
Bush "cooked his own goose" with the Economy? Oh really?. Heh heh. You know, they should at least try to make this difficult to counter, much less make fun of.
(0) comments
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Palestinians Mark 'Black Day' of Saddam Capture
I can’t say anything to heighten my distain for these people. I truly hope they’re having a manifestly miserable day. I hope they’re crying in sorrow and humiliation. I hope their hearts are breaking. I hope they’re abysmally despondent. Perhaps they’ll do us all a favor and whip up a batch of Kool-Aid.
(0) comments
I can’t say anything to heighten my distain for these people. I truly hope they’re having a manifestly miserable day. I hope they’re crying in sorrow and humiliation. I hope their hearts are breaking. I hope they’re abysmally despondent. Perhaps they’ll do us all a favor and whip up a batch of Kool-Aid.
(0) comments
