Cato the Youngest

WarBlog Central Additions

I've added some new blogs to the WarBlog Central list. The following blogs are on the list:

Cato the Youngest
A Small Victory
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
The Greatest Jeneration
Instapundit
Little Green Footballs
Neolibertarian News Portal (Robert Prather)
No Replacement For Displacement
Patio Pundit
Right Wing News
ScrappleFace
The Truth Laid Bear
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Winds of Change.NET

Your positive response to the new page has been great. I've even found a couple of blogs that have blogrolled the new page but don't blogroll Cato the Youngest. That's cool, because they're obviously new readers, and attracting new readers was a major reason for creating the page.

Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach

Chirac got pummeled by his counterparts at the EU summit. The Hearald has this report (link via A Small Victory, via Warblog Central).

AMID the mocha coffee and the petits four, Jacques Chirac lost the argument. Shortly afterwards at his press conference, he lost his temper too.

Sources keeping a delicate diplomatic distance in the grand European Council dining room reported that Monsieur le President was steadily being forced into a corner.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, fully aware that the international body's future is on the line, began by appealing to the 15 EU leaders to act together. The international community, he said, demanded that their leaders unite around a common line.

He also told it to the heads of government straight: that if Saddam Hussein continued with his defiance, then the security council would have no option but to face up to its responsibilities - confront the Baghdad regime with military force.

At Mr Annan's hawkish stance, Mr Chirac stood up and, with Gallic passion, began a defence of the French position.

Flinging his arms up and down, he declared that war was a terrible thing and that thousands of innocent people would lose their lives in a second Gulf war. "It is a question of life and death," he said.

It was suggested that, at this point, the most dramatic moment of the evening occurred. Silvio Berlusconi, the diminutive Italian premier, eyeballed Mr Chirac and insisted: "I'm just as concerned about life and death as you are."

He asked the French president to consider what happened to innocent people in Bali and in New York's twin towers.

Then, the normally mild-mannered Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, interjected and pointed out that the only person getting away with defying the will of the international community was Saddam.

He added that the weapons inspectors could not go on indefinitely.

By this time, Mr Chirac was positively steaming at the pro-American forces reigned against him. But there was more.

Indeed, there was more. The Spanish, Dutch, and British heads of governments also took swipes at Chirac. Go read the story, we'll wait.

Liberal Radio Is Planned by Rich Group of Democrats

The Democrats are out to give Rush some competition. The NY Times has this report (link via ScrappleFace via WarBlog Central).

A group of wealthy Democratic donors is planning to start a liberal radio network to counterbalance the conservative tenor of radio programs like "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

The group, led by Sheldon and Anita Drobny, venture capitalists from Chicago who have been major campaign donors for Bill Clinton and Al Gore, is in talks with Al Franken, the comedian and author of "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot." It hopes to enlist other well-known entertainers with a liberal point of view for a 14-hour, daily slate of commercial programs that would heavily rely on comedy and political satire.

The plan faces several business and content challenges, from finding a network of radio stations to buy the program to overcoming the poor track record of liberal radio shows. But it is the most ambitious undertaking yet to come from liberal Democrats who believe they are overshadowed in the political propaganda wars by conservative radio and television personalities.

Atlanta-based radio executiveJon Sinton, who will head the new network, had this to say:

This side has failed by going at Rush, and trying to be Rush — you're not going to beat him at his game... What really makes this work is tapping into Hollywood and New York and having a huge entertainment component, where political sarcasm is every bit as effective as Rush Limbaugh is at bashing you over the head."

I thought there already was a liberal talk radio network, called National Public Radio. The hard fact of life in the talk radio business, is that liberal talk shows don't sell. It's not just a matter of packaging, although Diane Rehm is no fair match for Rush Limbaugh.

The problem is, that to last, as a talk show host, you have to have more than a mere disdain for your opponents. And you also have to have at least some of the facts on your side. Just as an example, take James Carville (please) -- he's good at sneering at his enemies, but he wouldn't recognize a fact, if it bit him on the ass. Getting a bunch of has-been and second-string actors, comedians, and politicians together in a studio isn't going to excite anyone but their familes, and maybe their creditors (assuming they get paid for their appearances).

Rome Mayor Cancels Talks With Iraq's Aziz Over Snub to Israeli

Three cheers for Mayor Veltroni! Bloomberg.com has this report.

Rome, Feb. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Walter Veltroni, the mayor of Italy's capital, Rome, canceled talks with Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz because the minister refused to answer a question from an Israeli journalist at a news conference, Agence France-Presse said.

The mayor said he told Aziz in a letter he was canceling their meeting scheduled for yesterday after the minister told a news conference in Rome last week it wasn't on his agenda to answer questions from the Israeli media.

"Rome is a city of dialogue and peace where the Israelis and Palestinians have met numerous times,'' Veltroni said late yesterday. "It is unacceptable to tell an Israeli journalist `I will not answer your questions because you are Israeli.'"

Shades of Rudy Giuliani and Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal. You remember Talal? The jackass who offered Rudy Guiliani a $10 million check and a lecture on US foreign policy? Rudy told him what to do with his lecture and his check. Mayor Veltroni, it appears, has a similar attitude toward offensive Arabs.

ScrappleFace: Exclusive: Chirac Advises Bush How to Avoid War

ScrappleFace has an excellent interview with President Chirac (link via Warblog Central). Here's a few excerpts:

What evidence would justify war? It's up to the inspectors to decide. When we assigned them this work, we deputized them as de facto rulers of all the nations in the Security Council. In reality, Hans Blix is the President of the United States, France, Germany, Russia and the others. We trust them to make war and peace decisions for us.

***

We understand you told Time Magazine that you have a plan to allow President Bush to pull back from war without bringing eternal disgrace upon the United States? Yes, indeed. President Bush should just order the troops to come home and tell the American people, 'It looks like the U.N. has everything under control over there, so we'll just be moseying along now.'

Have you ever used LSD?Why do you ask?

Leave it to ScrappleFace to get his subject to answer so honestly and openly, and ask the tough questions everyone wants answered. He's a much better interviewer than Barbara Walters, or even Oprah.

NATO breaks deadlock on Iraq

This is the way to deal with France. MSNBC has this report from Brussels.

NATO OFFICIALS say after France was shut out, the other two holdouts -- Germany and Belgium -- dropped their objections to starting planning for Turkey's defense immediately.

Belgium insisted at the last minute on linking any eventual NATO deployment to developments at the U.N. Security Council.

But the final statement says: "We continue to support efforts in the United Nations to find a peaceful solution to the crisis."

For the past month, Belgium, France and Germany blocked a NATO decision to begin planning to help defend Turkey -- the only NATO ally bordering Iraq -- against any potential reprisals for a U.S. attack. They argued that such a move was premature and would undermine U.N. efforts to avoid a war.

NATO, trying to end the stalemate, put the issue Sunday to its Defense Planning Committee, which excludes France. Paris left NATO's military command structure in the late 1960s and participates only in political consultations.

Simply lock the doors, and don't let'em in. What a marvelous way of dealing with the French! My only question is why this wasn't done weeks ago.

If we declare the entire French diplomatic corps in America persona non grata, they wouldn't be able to veto an Iraq resolution. Lock'em out, and send'em home. It works for me.

Fisk of Redundancy

Robert Fisk (aka Fiskus Assholicus) has this load of swill in today's Arab News. I've always been reluctant to fisk Fiskus, because it seems redundant, to me. But this one's bad, folks. So bad, that once more Cato will summon forth the powers of his Iron Fisk Technique.

<bad martial arts movie dubbing>
Fiskus Assholicus! You have o-fend-ed United States. You have o-fend-ed Tony Blair. You have o-fend-ed Cato. (not to be confused with Kato). Now you feel Cato's Iron Fisk Technique.
</bad martial arts movie dubbing>

In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with World War II jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as "intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George W. Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.

Given the volume of bullshit that you spew at the world, Fiskus, you don't have a great deal of moral standing to complain about being lied to, even if the arguments for disarming Saddam by force were lies (and they are not). As for being talked down to. It's hard to imagine anybody in either the US or British governments who is stupid enough to talk up to you. What's really sad, is that you're so pathetic that even "little men" can insult you. "Plotting to change the map ... to their advantage", is part of a president/prime minister's job, Fiskus. They're paid to do unto our enemies before they do unto us, you twit.

No wonder, then, that Hans Blix's blunt refutation of America's "intelligence" at the UN on Friday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the untrustworthy "allies" they have become.

I guess that every country has traitorous scum whose hearts are warmed by every setback to its policies. While Blix was not as hard on Saddam as i would have been, his "blunt refutation" was hardly an endorsement of Saddam's record of obstruction of the inspectors. Indeed, Blix has an incentive to prolong the inspection process as long as he can. Prior to this round of inspections, Blix was virtually unknown to anyone not involved in weapons proliferation issues. Now he's a celebrity, and people not only recognize him, but they actually care what he has to say. When the inspectors leave Iraq, Blix returns to nobodyhood.

The British don't like Saddam any more than they liked Nasser. But millions of Britons remember, as Blair does not, World War II; they are not conned by childish parables of Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain and appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.

The reason the parables of Hitler, Chamberlain, and Churchill seem childish, is that they are an attempt to communicate in terms that even the likes of you can understand, Fiskus. Granted that it was a long shot that you would ever understand that tyrants are not restrained by giving in to their demands, but at least they are trying. It's not their fault that you're too stupid to pour piss out of a boot.

Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, is now sending America’s poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of Sept. 11. Jack Straw, the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain sustained when Saddam was “one of ours”. But he and Blair cannot discuss the dark political agenda behind George Bush’s government, nor the “sinister men” (the words of a very senior UN official) around the US president.

First, a war with Iraq will not be endless. In fact, I'll be surprised if it lasts a month. President Bush is not sending our forces to destroy Iraq, but to liberate it. In fact, if published reports are at all accurate, Iraq will suffer less destruction of its infrastructure in the coming war than it did in the Gulf War. It should also be noted that the "poor" that President Bush is sending to Iraq are all volunteers. There are no conscripts in the US armed forces, nor are there likely to be, anytime soon. And if we helped keep Saddam in power, due to the unfortunate circumstances of the Cold War, then we must also have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made.

Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they’ve biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included — though we play down the RAF’s use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons — and many Americans — are a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in “A Man for All Seasons,” tales to frighten children.

Then why do you persist in telling such tales, Fiskus? Every time we have gone to war against Muslim forces, we have been regaled with cautionary tales of doom and destruction. And every time, we have triumphed, usually in rather spectacular fashing. Indeed, the parable of the little boy who cried wolf may soon be replaced by the tale of the left-wing asshole who cried quagmire.

Perhaps Henry VIII’s exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: “Do they take me for a simpleton?”

Fiskus, everybody takes you for a simpleton. That's because you act like a simpleton.

The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.

The British are European, Fiskus. However, they are not French, William the Conqueror's bastards' descendants not withstanding. Indeed, by modern French standards, William the Conqueror wasn't French (he didn't surrender fast enough at the Battle of Hastings, and the Saxons surrendered first).

Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US policy in the Middle East.

It's true that a cutoff of Iraqi and other Persian Gulf money to the Palestinian terrorist organizations might help bring about an end to the fighting in Israel/Palestine, but isn't that a good thing? Why aren't you as angry about Arabs murdering Israeli civilians as you are about American soldiers killing their Iraqi counterparts? Could it be that the Israeli murder victims are mostly Jews, you antisemitic son of a bitch?

We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a burning, fearsome wound to which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union speech — but even Blair can’t get away with that one; hence his “conference” for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take part via video-link because Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refused to let them travel to London.

If Bush and Blair played down the effect that Saddam's removal would have on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it's because they didn't want to set off Jew-bashers like you, Fiskus. Anyone with enough brains to pour piss out of a boot (oops, I forgot that excludes you, Fiskus) knows that if you shut off the flow of money to the murderers, they won't be able to murder as many innocent people.

So much for Blair’s influence over Washington — US Secretary of State Colin Powell “regretted” that he couldn’t persuade Sharon to change his mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon — war criminal though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres — treated Blair with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an office in Baghdad.

Actually, Fiskus, we aren't trying to hide the connections between Saddam and the Hamas murderers. You left-wing assholes are the ones who think that ending the murder of Israeli civilians is a bad thing.

Just as he told us about the mysterious Al-Qaeda men who support violence in Chechnya and in the “Pankisi gorge”. This was America’s way of giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder against the Chechens, just as Bush’s odd remark to the UN General Assembly last Sept. 12 about the need to protect Iraq’s Turkomans only becomes clear when one realizes that Turkomans make up two-thirds of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq’s largest oil fields.

The fact that Chechen terrorists think Allah tells them to murder Russians doesn't mean the Russians should have to tolerate their mayhem. Most of my sympathy for any Muslim terror gang died on 9/11. The rest of my sympathy for the Chechens died when they siezed a theater full of people and threatened to blow it up. As far as the Muslim murderers are concerned, I'm with Vlad.

The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush’s most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George Bush was elected — if he was elected — US president. And they weren’t doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (http://www.israeleconomy. org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by — yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel’s monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

The "men driving Bush to war" are pro-Israeli, because they are disgusted by the murderous gangs that run "Palestine". Only a fool, or a Jew-hating thug could see Yassir Arafat as anything but a murderous thug. He might be a little smarter than the average thug, and he's certainly better funded. But he is still, and only, a murderous thug. If removing Saddam from power weakens Arafat's position, I call that a two-fer. And by the way, I thought you left-wingers didn't believe that Saddam's building nukes.

Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us — a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices — Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organizations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris River to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell’s UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations’ objections to the war might — yet again — be ascribed to “anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent.” This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

Bush and Blair don't talk about the benefits to Israel of removing Saddam, because there are enough other reasons to remove Saddam that they don't need to invoke Israel.

The slur of “anti-Semitism” also lies behind Rumsfeld’s snotty remarks about “old Europe”. He was talking about the “old” Germany of Nazism and the “old” France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the “new” Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the “old” America; not the “new” America of freedom, the America of F.D. Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolize the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is “old” America we are being asked to fight for — linked to a new form of colonialism — an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to NATO.

Fiskus, if it weren't for the "old America" that you sneer at, there wouldn't be the "new Europe" that you claim France and Germany represent. The fact is that France and Germany's policies make them look like antisemites. They have consistently sided with anyone who opposed Israel, for any reason. Why? It's all about oilll! The Arabs have it. The French and Germans want it, and they're willing to see the Jews thrown into the sea, to get it.

This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for NATO. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by its friends as well as her enemies.

This is actually true. If America backs down from Saddam, the Germans, and the French, nobody will ever take us seriously about anything.

In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-sought-after second UN resolution. UN permission for America’s war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union’s abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean War under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that — after a quick US military conquest of Iraq and providing “they” die more than we die — there will be plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along. The first pictures of “liberated” Baghdad will show Iraqi children making victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of this conflict will become evident as soon as the “war” ends, when our colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.

There are about 48,000,000 South Koreans, and the ones with the brains that God gave bastard geese are glad that somebody fought "the savage Korean War" on their side. Otherwise South Korea would be just as fucked-up as North Korea, a place so bad that its people would rather be illegal immigrants in China than remain under the rule of Kim Jong Il.

And therein lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a “man of peace”. But Sharon fears he may yet face trial over Sabra and Shatila, which is why Israel has just withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I’d like to see Saddam in the same court.

A court made up of Euro-antisemites would give Saddam a better deal than they would Sharon. Sharon is an "uppity" Jew, who believes that Jews have a right to fight back against those who would kill them. A Jew who is willing to repay the Arabs' savagery, in kind. Saddam provides money to people who kill Jews. In the court of Euro-antisemitism, that alone would give Saddam a pass for anything he could do.

Actually, Sharon is a "man of peace", but the peace he seeks, is the peace of the conqueror, not the peace of the slave. The quickest way to peace, in any conflict, is to utterly crush the enemy. Then give them a deal that they know is better than anything they could ever win on the battlefield. They will then keep the peace, because they have too much to lose.

Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an eternal war against “terror”. And the British and most Europeans don’t believe him. It’s not that Britons wouldn’t fight for America. They just don’t want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the prime minister, they don’t want to fight for Blair either. (The Independent)

Israeli and US ambitions in the Middle East are very similar. We both want the oil riches of the region controlled by people who will not use them to sponsor the murder of innocents. No oil for blood, is our motto. And if Britons can't see that as a worthy goal, than they should stay home. We can handle Saddam without their help.

New Service Alert!!!

Cato the Youngest is proud to announce a new service to my readers. It's called WarBlog Central. WarBlog Central is a web page containing the 5 most recent posts from selected blogs. I will be updating the page several times a day, but I haven't finalized the schedule, yet.

3 Countries' U.S. Criticism Brings Anger in Congress

The NY Times has this report.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 -- Pausing briefly in their attacks on each other, members of Congress from both parties joined today in a vigorous chorus of condemnation of France, Germany and Belgium, accusing the three nations of abandoning their moral obligations to the Western alliance.

Years of frustration with European criticism of American foreign and domestic policies seemed to bubble over on Capitol Hill, with legislators lashing out at things like European military weakness and trade policies. A spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said the European refusal to import genetically modified American foods might prompt a campaign against French wines and bottled waters.

***

"The Lord said the poor will always be with us, and the French will be with us too," said Mr. McCain, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is part of a continuing French practice of throwing sand in the gears of the Atlantic alliance."

If France continues to thwart the will of NATO, he said, it may be time to restructure the alliance to allow the majority of its countries to act in concert.

A few members went even further. Representative Peter T. King of New York, who this week called France a "second-rate country" that should be dismissed from the Atlantic alliance, said today that the United States should evaluate whether to continue stationing troops in countries that act against its interests. When countries like Germany and South Korea begin criticizing the United States, he said, the nation needs to ask whether "we're not being played for suckers."

Perhaps the French are of some use after all. They have managed to give our Senators and Representatives someone they can hate even more than they hate their political opponents. Not even Saddam has managed that feat.

Perhaps I have been too hasty in my criticism of the French. Perhaps, like the fungi that produce antibiotics, the French serve a useful purpose in this world. Perhaps I should be nicer to them... naaah.

Japan threatens force against N Korea

BBC News has this report.

Japan has warned it would launch a pre-emptive military action against North Korea if it had firm evidence Pyongyang was planning a missile attack.

Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it would be "a self-defence measure" if North Korea was going to "resort to arms against Japan".

Mr Ishiba said it would be too late if a North Korean missile was already on its way.

It seems that, contrary to French belief, the US is not the only nation in the world that reserves the right to preempt an aggressor. Of course, the French believe (or at least claim to believe) that Saddam has no prohibited weapons. They also believe (or at least claim to believe) that more inspectors will succeed in disarming Saddam. They also believe (or at least claim to believe) that they are a major world power. They also believe (or at least claim to believe) that Americans give a shit what they believe. French belief, as far as Americans are concerned, is nothing but a source of amusement (and occaisionally, amazement).

Experts Confirm New Iraq Missile Exceeds U.N. Limit

The NY Times has this report.

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 12 -- A panel of arms experts convened by United Nations weapons inspectors has confirmed that a missile Iraq has developed exceeds range limits set by the Security Council.

***

The panel of independent missile experts at the United Nations reached its conclusion on Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles after meetings Monday and Tuesday in New York. The panel, including one American, was convened by Mr. Blix to provide additional technical support in analyzing the missile.

Mr. Blix has already told the Council that the missiles, with a range of about 180 kilometers, or 114 miles, appeared to be a "prima facie" case of a violation by Iraq of the range limit of 150 kilometers, or about 90 miles, established by the Council. The missiles have already been given to the Iraqi armed forces, he said. The panel did not reach a conclusion about a second missile, Al Fatah, but said it required further study.

Looks like Saddam is busted. So much for the, "There is no evidence of prohibited weapons in Iraq" bullshit. The missiles in question exceed the maximum permitted range by more than 25 percent. This is not some engineer misplacing a decimal point. It is a deliberate violation of the Gulf War peace agreements.

Enough lies. Enough excuses. Enough delay. It's time to take Saddam down. If the French don't like it, fuck'em. Ditto the Germans and the Russians.

Jack Straw, on Iraq

Epolitix has the text of Jack Straw's latest speech. Here's a small sample.

At the present count, Saddam has failed to comply with 23 out of 27 separate obligations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This Charter is a robust document. It provides for mandatory decisions taken by the Security Council under various Chapter VII resolutions.

If we fail to back our words with deeds, we follow one of the most catastrophic precedents in history. The descent into war in the 1930s is a searing reminder of the dangers of turning a blind eye whilst international law is subverted by the law of the jungle.

The League of Nations ultimately failed because its members lacked the courage and foresight to defend its founding principles with force. Good intentions were no match for aggression in Manchuria and Abyssinia.

If the UN refuses to act decisively against Saddam it will have chosen the same coward's path that destroyed the League of Nations. The difference between now and the 1930s is that the United States, Britain and a small group of courageous nations is willing to step into the breach and end the threat to civilization that Saddam poses. Unlike the French and Germans, we have learned that the best cure for an aggressive tyrant is a JDAM through his bedroom window.

Continued weapons inspections serve no purpose except to delay the inevitable, and necessary, end to this crisis. The only circumstance in which weapons inspections can be effective is when the government wants to show that it is disarming. This happened in South Africa. The South African government cooperated eagerly with weapons inspectors, because it not only had nothing to hide, but much that it wanted the world to see.

Iraq is not South Africa. Saddam is desperate to preserve his weapons programs, not destroy them. He has systematically deceived the inspectors, using every means at his disposal to hamper their efforts. There is no reason to believe that 100 times the number of inspectors currently operating in Iraq would be more successful, because the problem is not insufficient numbers of inspectors. The problem is chronic interference and deception by Saddam's government.

As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, we will never know the true state of Iraq's arsenals.