Lech Walesa's article in the OpinionJournal is this morning's first read. The description of the two types of politicians is worth noting.. it is the difference between people.

I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.

posted by Sherwin at 6/11/2004 08:20:46 AM

 
Thanks, guys. It's an honor.

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 09:36:06 PM

 
Michael Totten's TCS article about racism at UC Berkeley asks whether political correctness has become the enablement of intolerance. (via LGF)

Most of the students who promote a free Palestine don't hate Jews, whatever they think of Israeli counter-terrorism. But they put up with hate in the ranks all the same. Even the more radical and racist Palestinian activists are "allies" in the campus cause du jour.

Meanwhile, Daniel Pipes, an articulate opponent of radical Islam and its armed terrorist factions actually was called a racist and worse at his campus speech in Berkeley, as the East Bay Express article reports. Mr. Pipes, who wisely said "militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution," is hardly an Islamophobe or a racist. It's just a back-alley libel against a historian of the Middle East because he doesn't toe the radical leftist line.

This is what Political Correctness has become. Mere opponents are falsely denounced as "racists" while virulently racist allies are given a pass by the very same people.

Our own blog post about Berkeley is here.

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 07:49:05 PM

 
"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend." -Ludwig van Beethoven

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 05:55:55 PM

 
Donald Sensing has an excellent and serious post discussing Left and Liberal.

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 05:50:36 PM

 
A link by Solomonia to an excellent post by Eve Garrard: A Sense of Proportion.

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 03:41:27 PM

 
Wow. There weren't people in line for 4+ hours to say goodbye to Nixon, or to Truman or Eisenhower for that matter according to people who were paying attention (I was paying attention to Underdog cartoons in the early 70's and not to Presidential funerals).

I think this says it all about the public's perception and appreciation of Reagan. No further comment necessary.

posted by tonecluster at 6/10/2004 10:19:01 AM

 
Over at Trudeaupia, some thoughts regarding a woman's right to choose.

posted by Mich at 6/9/2004 09:29:57 PM

 
Canadian Elections: Maybe, just maybe, this will be the one time I vote for a winning candidate? A Reformer Conservative living in downtown Toronto must get used to disappointment, as the line from the Princess Bride goes, because this city invariably elects centre-left candidates (more left than centre) in municipal, provinical and federal elections.

My riding is Toronto Centre, and the among the eight choices are Liberal incumbent Bill Graham, who is also Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and NDPer Michael Shapcott, a radical left-winger best known for working against Toronto's Olympic bid. My choice, unsurprisingly, is Conservative Megan Harris. I am hoping that, against all odds, there will be a Conservative majority government when I wake up on June 29th.

posted by Mich at 6/9/2004 07:07:28 PM

 
Whatever the price we have paid for the Security Council blessing, the
fact that France, Germany, Russia and China agreed tells me that some real
fear of the Mid East Theofascists is taking hold. France and Germany
are starting to take serious notice of Iran and its nuke program, a sign
that they are slowing grasping the threat. The Europeans have the habit
of appeasing first and surrendering later.

The sudden cooperative stance of Arafat gives credence to the report
that he was bluntly told by Egypt to shape up or Sharon can take him
out. Very early on in this war it was my theory that Egypt would take
Gaza back and Jordan the West Bank. It may not be a total return to the
1948-1967 situation, but their presence should have a salutory effect.
As Arafat's history in Jordan and Lebanon shows, he starts fires and
leaves wreckage until he is stopped. I would also speculate that he
has been sending operatives into Iraq to squeeze the US, or so he thinks.

The danger presented by Assad in Syria is not getting the attention it
deserves, at least not publicly. Using his Hizballah proxie, along with
Iran, he is pushing for a wider war with Israel, and by extension the US.
The spur for his increased activity may be the Egyptian intervention and
deal with Israel in Gaza, which he would see as capitulation to the US.
He could conclude that an opportunity to seize control of the pan-Arab
dream has been presented. So, I expect more bluster from him as he
probes the US. There should be lots of military actions in the Mid East
in the coming months if he is not restrained by the same kind of
argument that Egypt made to Arafat.

posted by Sherwin at 6/9/2004 08:47:52 AM

 
Moxie has a plan, capitalist pig that she is, and it'd reduce housing prices in my neighborhood among other things.

I think I know who I'm voting for in November. . .

posted by tonecluster at 6/9/2004 08:47:26 AM

 
I like some liberals; this guy*, for example, who said the following about Reagan:

And for my own personal comment? I can say that after 3 years of GW Bush I have a newfound appreciation of what a great leader president Reagan was. He absolutely believed in his convictions, and perhaps more than any president of the modern era, he governed from those convictions above politics.

That I never shared a single one of his convictions is no reason to be in denial about the fact that Ronald Reagan loved his country and did all in his power to serve the nation and its citizens. May he rest in peace.

*Brian Linse, who ain't no bad dude.

posted by tonecluster at 6/8/2004 04:00:53 PM

 
Let's begin by saying there are no journalists in America. What exists are the self-important and self-righteous who happen to have gone to some School of Journalism where their prejudices are encouraged, the taste for the good life refined. They not only consider themselves witnesses to history (or any disaster worthy of exploitation) but dream of someday having an expense account and an endless supply of interns. Once having been certified by an Institution of Higher Learning (don't even ask about the curriculum) they go forth to undermine the American democracy and to call every bomb throwing murderer a "militant" (quotation marks theirs) or an "insurgent" (quotation marks mine). Never, never, ever call them terrorists, unless they blow up one of yours (see BBC) at which point metamorphosis takes place. Rarely have so few held so many in such contempt. Of course there are many who hold them in contempt (see the layoffs coming to the LA Times as ad revenue goes south).

Frankly, the interesting part of my paper is Dilbert. What a guy.

posted by Sherwin at 6/8/2004 01:45:46 PM

 
Something occurred to me while I was pondering about the way the media has tarred the entire occupation of Iraq with the brush of Abu Ghraib. If the behavior of seven miscreant soldiers can be used as an example of all failings of an endeavor, then why not use the behavior of a few journalists as an example of how the entire media operates?

In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, the story is this: a bunch of journalists got a phone call from some "militant" thugs regarding an impending attack on U.S. soldiers. The journos lined up, cameras at the ready, and did nothing but shoot video when the soldiers walked into an ambush. Now, kids, these weren't al-Jazzoo journos, these were good old made-in-America journos. You know, like from Northwestern and stuff. They sat there, safe, and filmed the attack on our (and their) soldiers.

And I don't know about you, but "We don't make the news, we only report it" and "Its our job to be objective." sounds an awful lot like "We were only following orders". Sorry, guys, lack of a moral compass is still lack of a moral compass. Of course, for all of the moral relativists out there in media-world, this isn't true, but for the rest of us non-elitists and members of the great unwashed masses, it certainly is. And we're the ones who tune in, watch the live feeds, and suffer through the commercials.

I figure it this way: painting with a really broad brush is kinda easy, and why let some J-school babies have all of the fun? Try it yourself.. grab a really wide brush, dip it in the stupidity, foolishness, amorality and disgusting behavior of a bucketful of cretins. Got it? Not so heavy as it looks, is it? Now all you have to do is lazily aim the brush in some general direction somewhere and WHAP!! cover everything you see in the same tenor of self-important outrage, disgust, and hypocritical righteous indignation. Now go out for an expensive latté and complain about the food.

Damn, that was easy. No wonder so many people go to J-school. It's a hell of a lot easier than Computer Science or History.

(I'd like to say that the journalists who do this kind of thing have the intelligence of a garden hoe and the moral certitude of a wiffle ball in a wind tunnel. But that's too easy, and its unfair and inaccurate. These people aren't dumb, and are certain in their morals; what they lack is moral fortitude).

So I think it is only fair to take the actions of these few fools and color the entire media as biased, pro-Sadr & anti-soldier partisans who want the Iraqi mission to fail, fail, fail. Let's say that the media has failed miserably and completely in its mission to report objectively. Let's also say that the media is anti-American (hey, they didn't assist Americans under attack by enemy forces, now, did they? They waited quietly to watch the bomb go off), not to be trusted, and lets do our best every day to post stories about the abject, miserable failures of reporters. Every day - come one, I know we can do it! It's eaaassy!! Just like they do on cable, we'll spin each and every post to be anti-media and we'll ignore and/or bury any story that shows journos doing positive things.

Who's with me?!?!!??

posted by tonecluster at 6/8/2004 06:45:52 AM

 
Jerusalem, Tomorrow: Well, no, not exactly tomorrow. That's just the title of an Emmylou Harris song found on this cd, and it makes a nice title for a blog post. Jerusalem, mid-August, is more accurate. It is also a mere nine (9!) weeks away.

I'm off to pursue an M.A. at Hebrew U, and I have nine measly weeks to sort through my library [what was I thinking when I bought all these books?], to decide what to do with my furniture [why do I have a dining room table? who needs a dining room table? wouldn't it have made more sense to eat at the kitchen counter all these years?], to find a place to live in Jerusalem [near a gym with a squat rack would be nice - I know how to say push-up, but how do you say squat in Hebrew, anyway?], and to research the purchase of and actually buy a laptop [Sony, Toshiba or Dell, I'm told].

I am looking forward to this adventure, but getting everything in order so that I can begin the adventure is going to be an adventure in itself...

posted by Mich at 6/7/2004 08:56:40 PM

 
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into" -Jonathan Swift

posted by tonecluster at 6/6/2004 06:13:49 PM

 
Of the men I've met who fought in WWII, I've met none who hit the beaches of Normandy on this day, 1944. I used to hang out at a bar in Chicago owned by a British RAF navigator and his son; it was a place frequented by a German submariner, a couple of U.S. First Army soldiers, and a couple of U.S. Marines who fought in the Pacific. My landlord at the time was a Marine veteran of Tarawa, among other battles. And I used to date a woman whose father was a U.S. bomber pilot over Germany.

For them, the beginning of the end of that war was D-Day. Listening to those folks talk about their experiences of D-Day from their individual perspectives was like eavesdropping on history.

And though some people have forgotten about the soldiers of those beaches, we on this blog haven't. Click and read around the b'sphere, others have said it better than I can.

posted by tonecluster at 6/6/2004 03:46:13 PM

 
Ronald Reagan has died.

Love him, or hate him; his Presidency changed America and changed the world. Read around the blogosphere for words much better than these...


posted by tonecluster at 6/5/2004 05:41:02 PM

 
The Grey Lady doing what it does best...spinning and screwing up.

Note the gap in the Kerry history, where he goes from campaign manager for
Father Drinan in one paragraph, and then is replaced by someone else in the
next. No explanation of the gap and why Kerry was replaced. This is what is
becoming characteristic of the Kerry campaign: gaps and ignoring the
contradictions. There is still no accounting of how he gets 3 purple hearts
in 4 months and never loses a duty day, and I bet there will not be. Out of
21 guys on the swift boat, 19 say he should not be Pres. Not really
encouraging.

posted by Sherwin at 6/5/2004 08:27:39 AM

 
The Curmudge writes:

At the social gathering we attended, I had a conversation with a Prof of New Testament scripture who teaches at [a certain Midwestern University]. She is in anguish over the Church and its imperial ways (her description); she nearly lost it when talking about the reward the Pope gave Cardinal Law whom she described as belonging in jail... and the [Chicago] Trib just goes on with treating the Pope as if he were a moralist.

posted by tonecluster at 6/5/2004 08:18:08 AM

 
RE: Pope lectures Bush over Iraq.

Isn't it odd? The same people that scream about Church - State separation are looking to the Pope for validation of anti-Bushism.

We're just sayin'

posted by tonecluster at 6/5/2004 08:15:49 AM

 
A good point from Powerline:

It is disgusting to see Congressional committees casting blame on the CIA. To my knowledge, none of the terror-related "investigations" have looked into the role of Congress. What did Congress do about the threat of terrorism between 1979 and 2001? Little or nothing, other than cut the CIA's budget and try to prevent the agency from carrying out any but the most antiseptic operations.

posted by tonecluster at 6/4/2004 07:31:38 PM

 
Rant.

What the hell? What the [expletive deleted] hell? To quote Adrian Belew, "What in the world Has happened to the world?" Look, I believe that women and men should be treated equally in society and under the law, believe that someone's sexual preferences are their personal business, that the government doesn't belong in religion, or bedrooms, or looking over the shoulder of a physician. I reject discrimination in any form. I love freedom, maybe a part of this is because my Dad (the Curmudge) is the first guy in a long line of people not to have been born under tyranny. Ditto for my maternal Grandparents. No one chased the Curmudge into a jail, or worse, just because he's a Jew. That can't be said of his father. No one came to my door when I was 18 and marched me into the army at gun- and swordpoint or killed my sister and mother because they were Jews in the wrong place at the wrong time. That can't be said of two of my great-uncles.

I believe in lots of liberal ideas, and I can give a good goddam whether or not you agree with me. I'm not going to force my beliefs on you, and trust me: don't try yours on me.

And yet I'm told by some I live under tyranny. I'm told that the worst thing to happen to freedom is George Bush. I'm told that I am not free in America anymore. I'm told that Bush is a Nazi; a fascist; a tyrannical despot; a dictator. My response: Oh really, numbnuts? Why should I believe that nonsense? Because it makes you feel better if I drink that Kool Aid with you??

Not a [expletive deleted] chance, you [really expletive deleted]!

Lets see: what's it like to live under tyranny? Well, I have a photo of those two great-uncles, probably from around 1919. They're in their young 20s, but look much older. They're thin. Emaciated, haven't-eaten-much-in-months thin. They're leaning on the new gravestone of their sister. It's just after WWI, and sometime just after or during the Russian civil war. They'd been marched at gunpoint to serve in the Czar's army, were captured by Germans, spent time in a POW camp, and released back to Russia where they found their sister and mother killed.

Now, lets see.. when I was 18, no one marched me at gunpoint to serve in the Army and the government didn't kill my sister. Funny-odd kind of tyranny we have here, huh?

I have another cousin, on the other side of the family, with a nasty little tattoo on one arm; a serial number in nice Germanic handwriting he got when he was about 8. See, some Germans who were Nazis - I mean real honest-to-goodness Nazis, the real authentic no-hyperbole-required kind - gave his whole family each a free tattoo and sent them all off to summer camp. Not that they had a choice, mind you, as the Reich didn't have much of a 2nd amendment and besides it was a, you know, a dictatorship. Some camp, because the only one to come out of it at age 13 was my cousin, and that was after all the camp counselors ran for the hills and some guys in green uniforms who worked for a guy named Patton cut open the front gates.

Now, lets see: when I was 8, my siblings and I spent summers running around Lake Michigan beaches and the only tyranny was the feeling we got when school started again in the Autumn. Weird kind of tyranny we live in, innit? And now? My nephew and nieces? They play soccer and baseball and Playstation all summer. Say, what kind of tyranny are they running here anyway??

Got another relative, from way back, who had to run like hell from his home and traveled through Greece and Shanghai before he was chased outta there and ended up in America. What was he, you ask.. a criminal? Why, yes he was. His crime of course was that he was a Jew.

Got a friend who's father had the crap beaten out of him and put into a hospital. What'd he do to make them mad, you ask? He walked past a pair of other men at a brisk pace on the street one day, while hurrying to get to his mother's apartment. Why'd that make them mad? He must have done something to infuriate them.. you ask. Well, see.. he's a Jew and he passed two government religious officials on the street; something illegal in that country as no Jew is permitted to walk past a Muslim. I guess that infuriated the guys, huh?

Lets see: last I checked, the government could care less that I am Jewish. And they could care less about the two Muslim guys with whom I work, or about the Sikh who lives up the street from me, or about anyone else's religion for that matter. Now I know what you're gonna say: "Bush is doing to Muslims what used to happen to Jews in Germany." Ya know what? Bullshit! How is it, then, that none of the Muslims I know personally have been bothered, molested, investigated or anything else you claim? Not even a parking ticket, some of them! Proof? Gimme proof, you propagandist. Can't do it, can you? Where are the camps, fuckwit? Aren't any. You evil [really bad expletive deleted], how dare you compare this country to what my cousin went through from 8 through 13 years old?

So. Some tyranny we live in, huh?



I got a clue for you, you so-called liberal. You're not a liberal. You're an idiot. A fool. A disgusting moron demonstrating your inability to think. You're anything but liberal; you demand (demand!) that I agree with you and get very angry with me when I don't. You do not really believe in liberal ideas, because if you did you wouldn't be supporting people who want to kill you only because your last name ends in "berg". I don't know what you are, but you ain't liberal. Got it? You're a self-deluded moron, a selfish bastard, an inarticulate jerk. You scream and cry and moan and wail, and expect me to be convinced that I should do what you tell me to do. You're a bully, a punk, a spoiled child. And you can't be a liberal if you support fascists.



I'm told I have to vote for Kerry, he'll make things right again, and that we have to get rid of Bush. Well, just because you have the intelligence of a bag of gumballs and you drink that aforementioned Kool Aid does not mean I have to. I got news for you, fuckwit, I don't like Bush and I don't like Kerry, and unlike you I am experienced enough with politics to know not to fall in love with a politician, and not to believe that there is much of a difference between Candidate #1 and Candidate #2.

And yet you also tell me that our Army is as bad as the old SS because of 7 morons (currently and to be courts-martialed) at a prison? That our country is what you say it is? Whatterya, nuts?? You hope we are defeated; you hope the other side wins. You glorify their revolt, and you glorify them.

Remember that stuff at the top of this rant I said I believed? I got news for you, cupie-doll, those guys you're rooting for don't. They really don't. They want to see your gay friends dead, they want to see your daughters and sisters slaves in their own homes, they do not tolerate any religion not their specific sect. They want the word of a man in their religious courts to trump the word of any woman. They believe in the concept of racism: of second- and third-class people, and believe this "truth" comes from God. They want to strap your child to explosives and send your child into the homes of their enemies. They're not liberal. They're not poor and oppressed, they're wealthy beyond your feeble imagination and drive fleets of cars out of your pricerange. They're not oppressed underdogs yearning to be free. They're illiberal medievalists, and you think they're just dandy.

And yet you drool at the idea that they kill our Marines and Soldiers, and you hope they win because it makes Bush look bad. You, a so-called "progressive", a self-proclaimed Liberal, rooting and cheering for people as anti-liberal as you can get. You gleefully call Bush a Nazi while ignoring the real fascists. Nice going, slick. How the hell do you sleep at night, you brainless wonder?

Right - you're a brainless wonder. Nevermind.

Why do you cheer for monsters? What are you, sick? You think this is fun? You think I'm happy that this country is at war? You think that Bush made all of this up by himself and that Presidents Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton has nothing to do with it? You think this is all because of that Jooooo Wolfowitz? What, Dulles and Kissinger and Albright et.al. aren't culpable as well that we got to a point where war was the only option and a culture that respects strength thought our country hollow and weak? Are you that screamingly ignorant? Are you that disgustingly lazy that you won't pick up some books and read some history? You think I will be convinced just because you foam at the mouth about how eeevil Bush is and do nothing - absolutely, insultingly nothing - to compose a rational argument as to why I should vote one way or the other?

If you do, you're infinitely dumber that I thought you were, and I thought you were a fool to begin with.

I won't vote for Kerry just because he isn't Bush. That's stupid, and it is just as stupid as the idea that we should have voted for Dole because he wasn't Clinton. Remember that? The idea years ago that you told me you thought was stupid? Guess what, stupid.. it's still stupid!

I will vote for Kerry if I think he's the better guy for the job. I will vote for Bush if I think he's the better guy for the job. And ya know what, I won't tell you how I voted. None of yer goddam business unless I make it yer goddam business.



What my recent ancestors had to live under was tyranny and fascism. That's why I have to laugh, and then become angry, when I hear those words to describe this country. No one is knocking on my door and hauling me away when I criticize the Administration in this blog. See, not only do I remember stories from family about their lives under true tyrannies, but I have heard horror stories from friends who came to this country from Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, East Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Ramallah. (Yes, Ramallah. You know what he thinks of Arafat and the PA? He's thinks they're geniuses for pulling off the biggest political con job in modern history - and he'd like to see the whole lot of them, whom he calls "the Tunisians", hanged from every streetlamp available).

And so, in case you wondered, you're not invited to my next BBQ. But my Iranian friend is coming. See, he likes this country; it's a hell of a lot better than the one he used to live in. You know, one that's a real tyranny.


posted by tonecluster at 6/4/2004 06:10:46 PM

 
Via Sullivan.. these are the thugs [described by the Marine in his letter] that the left supports and makes apologies for..

[this is today's must-read. -ed]


posted by Sherwin at 6/4/2004 01:46:39 PM

 
Johnson's essay is also very good as usual, but he is also a victim of historical nostalgia. The folks now are not the folks then. Then was when journalists wore military uniforms; now is when they claim not to be real citizens.

The news item at the moment is that an important aide to al Zawakari was capture three days ago. So, somebody over there is selling and we are buying. Not making an announcement of the capture for 3 days is telling as it likely means we "tortured" the guy into telling us things he was supposed to die for... it also says the military types are not happy with the reporter types and will tell them things when they want to and not before.

posted by Sherwin at 6/4/2004 01:10:58 PM

 
Here is the Keegan article Krauthammer mentions in his column.

And, via Instaman, here's a historical article by Paul Johnson.



posted by tonecluster at 6/4/2004 09:59:01 AM

 
Note to readers:

Yes, we know there is more than one rational person writing in the media. Poetic license and all of that, you know...

And, in emails and on the blog, the Curmudge and I discuss the possibility of a "Bonaparte" rising to power here as each elected Administration spins into increasingly wild orbits of chaos. This doesn't mean tomorrow, or next week, or November, or 2008. We don't know when. Could take 50 years, could take 5 years. But after reading enough history, we came to the idea that it is very possible that someone from the Military could get elected, or assigned, a Consul-like position of power, and de-facto rule as a "Bonapartist" with plenty of public support.

For all of you hyperbole-loving misfits out there in blogreadershipland, we don't expect this person to call himself a "Bonapartist"; we find that term a decent metaphor with which to draw an historical comparison.

It also doesn't mean we expect someone to crown themselves Emperor in the National Cathedral! If that's what you infer from our scribbles, go read the comics or something and leave us the hell alone, because you miss the point entirely.

posted by tonecluster at 6/4/2004 08:39:09 AM

 
At least there is one rational man writing in the main media.

posted by Sherwin at 6/4/2004 08:26:58 AM

 
This is why I predict a Napoleon in our future...at some point of distress a strong man emerges for whom politeness does not count. Rich Lowry:

But the foundation for American values is America, and those values won't endure unless the nation withstands assaults by enemies who care nothing for Miranda rights or any other legal niceties. They have to be met in a dirty, shadowy war. The men waging it can't be looking over their shoulders at what publicity-hungry congressman might be second-guessing them next. Prior to 9/11, a chief obstacle in the way of our counterterrorist officials and operatives was fear - fear of running afoul of some rule, fear of being abused in front of a congressional committee, fear of being splashed on the front page of the Washington Post.

posted by Sherwin at 6/4/2004 08:26:58 AM

 
RE: Tenet resignation

They will put in an acting DCI for now and until the election. W will not risk sending someone before the Senate while the election is in bloom. What is coming through is just how messed up the Admin really is.. they have no clue as to what is going on. Chalabi has been saying that Tenet is behind his problems and has made stuff up. Ledeen is a big Chalabi supporter so expect revelations from him. The Confused Intelligence Agency [Can't Investigate Anything? -ed] is a disaster zone and is likely headed for the dust bin with a new type MI5 put in its place amidst fanfare. The announcement was timed when W is headed to France for D day, so I hardly think this is a sudden personal reason.

posted by Sherwin at 6/3/2004 11:26:52 AM

 
We have been posting this concept for the last month or so.

After nearly a decade of aiming its heaviest blows at distinctly American targets, al Qaeda is operating closer to home. Its two most important terrorist attacks in May were on foreign workers at Saudi oil installations, in Yanbu and then Khobar. Those atrocities followed two bloody suicide bombings in the kingdom last year, as well as other skirmishes there, and al Qaeda-style attacks in Morocco, Turkey and Spain

posted by Sherwin at 6/3/2004 08:40:37 AM

 
Wow!!!

Tenet Resigns.Too busy to comment right now; check back later today.

posted by tonecluster at 6/3/2004 08:02:44 AM

 
There are a few things to note after reading VDH's article. One, Patton's disciple is realistically Sharon and the reality being created on the ground due to arms is what is forcing change in that conflict. Just reading that Egypt is telling Arafat "get with it or we will stop protecting you and leave you to Sharon" is evidence enough. Add the importance of humiliation to an enemy's thought process and the prison fiasco takes on a little different meaning.

Two, the Chinese are rethinking their military after watching the US performance in Iraq and addmit that they are inferior on the battlefield. That understanding will not be lost on the Europeans who consistently get in the way just to get in the way. Bush did show a willingness to use arms but lacks the foresight to use our power to shake all the tyrants running around to their core.

posted by Sherwin at 6/2/2004 10:52:25 AM

 
And speaking of VDH, here's his essay in TNR. His first paragraph alone is worth the price of admission:

Most of the time in war, diplomatic machinations don't create enduring realities--events on the battlefield do. After World War I, the defeated, but not humiliated, German army that surrendered in France and Belgium provided the origins for the "stab in the back" mythology that fueled Hitler's rise to power. After World War II, by contrast, the shattered and shamed Wehrmacht in Berlin was unable to energize a Fourth Reich. George S. Patton, snarling to head for Berlin and beyond in 1945, grasped the importance of "the unforgiving minute," when military audacity can establish a fait accompli on the ground that diplomats quibble over for decades. His unfulfilled wish to take Prague meant a blank check for a late-arriving Red Army that would help ensure a half-century of totalitarianism in Eastern Europe.

The second paragraph is worth quoting as well:

In our current postmodern world, we tend to deprecate the efficacy of arms, trusting instead that wise and reasonable people can adjudicate the situation on the ground according to Enlightenment principles of diplomacy and reason. But thugs like Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and Saddam Hussein's remnant killers beg to differ. They may eventually submit to a fair and honest brokered peace--but only when the alternative is an Abrams tank or Cobra gunship, rather than a stern rebuke from L. Paul Bremer. More important, neutrals and well-meaning moderates in Iraq often put their ideological preferences on hold as they wait to see who will, in fact, win. The promise of consensual government, gender equality, and the rule of law may indeed save the Iraqi people and improve our own security--but only when those who wish none of it learn that trying to stop it will get them killed.

posted by tonecluster at 6/2/2004 08:31:42 AM

 
There is some story waiting to be told on this one: Chalabi Warned Iranians, U.S. Says

I seem to be in agreement with the great one in determining al q's intent in Saudiland.

posted by Sherwin at 6/2/2004 08:13:01 AM

 
The last paragraph from Rachel Ehrenfeld's column this morning:

Clearly, Saudi Arabia is considered an ally. The rising oil prices, their oil reserves, and the recent increase in production all assure that. Evidently, Saudi oil is thicker than our blood. Nevertheless, a radical change in the ground rules of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is needed. Stability in the Kingdom and in the region is dependent upon the Saudis's willingness and ability to make critical economic and social reforms without compromising their religious legitimacy, and Washington should assist to formulate and pursue a reasonable policy to facilitate that. However, if the U.S., the U.K. and their allies do not acknowledge the Saudis's role in funding terrorism and hold them accountable until they stop, the war on terror can go on indefinitely. The funders of terrorism cannot be freed from responsibility now because a new political initiative is underway. Are we willing to capitulate and settle for an ongoing Wahhabi-inspired war, funded by a group of elite Saudis? Or, should we fight the war on terror on another front by exposing the funders who facilitate terrorism's cash flow and who are now also threatening lawsuits in the U.K. courts to silence and intimidate the media?

posted by Sherwin at 6/1/2004 08:27:50 AM

 
The NYT just cannot help itself. While slipping in the brief mention that protests and blockades took place when gasoline prices rose in 2000 they go on and on about how the Europeans are just so non-chalant about prices at the moment. And, of course, the wise Euros have been really been going green and finding alternative energy sources. We Americans are just so hysterical when the numbers jump at the pump.

posted by Sherwin at 6/1/2004 08:27:50 AM

 
As the pre-market price of crude oil rose today (one can only imagine the market price rise) to record highs, our ally Saudi Arabia promised to raise production levels in order to assure global oil stability--while laughing all the way to the bank. Of course they want oil prices to remain stable as the idea of Eurarabia is now open to serious doubt.

Send the prices atmospheric and the multinationalism of which the left dreams may become a reality. Only it will take form in Saudiland. It is not historically inconceivable that the French would be the first to call for a multinational force to safeguard the Saudi oil fields from al Queda and company as the Saudi royals run for the hills of the Riviera. All sanctioned by the UN of course.

The French attempt to create an Europe-Arabia axis in order to block US power now teeters on the edge of oil prices and the fall of the House of Saud. No matter which way they twist, the French are infidels just like us and not likely to get lower oil prices from bin Laden or whomever Wahhabi gets the kingdom. It is also becoming a bit clearer that the Saudi security forces are not loath to a bin Laden takeover of the place and are cooperative with the killers as three out of four escape, and the one who didn't was too hurt to run.

posted by Sherwin at 6/1/2004 08:03:58 AM

 
The WaPo editorial mentions Bush's lack of a multilateral policy, something I find to be incorrect. It seems that the laterals Bush chose, Poland, U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, etc., were not the laterals the media and Bush opponents recognize as acceptable. The only laterals acceptable to them are the French, Russian, and German ones.

If Kerry wins, he may find himself in the same situation: a multilateral policy perceived as unilateral. French, German, and Russian leaders won't ignore their own national interests for the pleasure of phone calls from a Kerry administration.

posted by tonecluster at 5/30/2004 08:11:23 AM

 
A honest appraisal. Kerry will be stylistically different from Bush, but the goals remain the same as do the problems.

SEN. JOHN F. KERRY'S 11-day mini-campaign on the theme of national security appears unlikely to produce sensational headlines or seize the country's attention -- which is, on balance, to his credit. At a moment when the crisis in Iraq dominates the national discussion, Mr. Kerry is resisting the temptation to distinguish himself from President Bush with bold but irresponsible proposals to abandon the mission, even though that course is favored by many in his party. Nor has he adopted the near-hysterical rhetoric of former vice president Al Gore, who has taken to describing Iraq as the greatest strategic catastrophe in American history and calling U.S. handling of foreign detainees an "American gulag."

Instead, Mr. Kerry is in the process of setting out what looks like a sober and substantial alternative to Mr. Bush's foreign policy, one that correctly identifies the incumbent's greatest failings while accepting the basic imperatives of the war that was forced on the country on Sept. 11, 2001. In his opening speech on the subject Thursday, Mr. Kerry reiterated one of the central tenets of Mr. Bush's policy: Lawless states and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction present "the single greatest threat to our security." He said that if an attack on the United States with unconventional weapons "appears imminent . . . I will do whatever is necessary to stop it" and "never cede our security to anyone" -- formulations that take him close to Mr. Bush's preemption doctrine.

posted by Sherwin at 5/30/2004 08:08:14 AM

 
Tired of high gas prices? Just you wait. The insurgency now
underway in Saudi Arabia is guaranteed to send crude prices up, up and away
starting Monday when the markets reopen. While the fat ones dithered and
wrote checks to bin Laden, bin Laden designed their demise. And if anyone
still thinks this is not a religious war just catch the report that says the
hostage holders asked who was Christian and who was Muslim; The Muslim gets
to go home.

There should be so much analysis of this attack in the coming days as to make
one dizzy. The salient point is one made in Tonecluster a bit back where it
was noted that the real prize for bin Laden is Saudi Arabia, its oil and its
weaponry. With the oil he can really shake the West to its knees and the
weapons can give him the kind of regional threat he dreams of.

Even though the Kingdom is unstable and the bets on its falling are being
made there will be Princes who will continue to fund and support bin Laden
(certain to be a Sunday talking point on cable news) as they jockey to be
the new King and leader of Wahhabi Islam. There are Americans being held
hostage and the likelihood of more beheadings looms as to be sure this group
of Islamofascists have no intention of simply negotiating their release.
Paradise awaits and the line of eager recruits grows longer.



posted by Sherwin at 5/29/2004 04:13:28 PM

 
Another example why the NYT cannot be trusted. Note the number of times an unnamed senior official is used to justify a statement and the reliance on the word "hint" to polemicize an editorial agenda. This in a paper that just the other day published an admission of false and misleading writings.

posted by tonecluster at 5/29/2004 08:51:47 AM

 
News

VDH quotes Al Davis. (That's Al Davis of Oakland, not Al Davis of Thebes).

Caroline Glick writes "What Europe Wants". She is unhappy, as she should be: Europe wants Israel to fall off of the map.

The realpolitick of Iraq. We will ultimately wind up with another Saddam.

posted by Sherwin at 5/28/2004 08:15:47 AM