OLDIES, BUT GOLDIES

The Lifecycle of a news story.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Andrew Apostolou:

A year ago, most Iraqi soldiers fled rather than fight advancing Coalition forces. Today, however, Iraq is a country that Iraqis are willing to voluntarily defend and die for.

BUSH ON WoT

(via LGF) You really should read Bush's speech. Excerpt:

There is no dividing line--there is a dividing line in our world, not between nations, and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life. On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, "We choose death, while you choose life." We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love live, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life, tolerance and freedom, and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending. There is no neutral ground--no neutral ground--in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.

Try to get past the odd style that almost every Presidential speech is written in, the very thing that makes them sound like just another speech. Once you do that, you realize that it's not just another 'speech'. He's talking about real things. He's making a point, and it's a damn good one.

LE BIG MAC

Big deal. I've never understood what people have against burgers. The ads for exercise equipment and whatnot where people say 'now I go and have a Big Mac whenever I want'.. hello? Bread. Meat. Cheese. Vegetables. What's the big deal? French fries I understand, but there's nothing unhealthy about a frickin burger.

BLOG POWER

People in the US government read blogs. Iraqi blogs. Paul Wolfowitz:

His name is Ali and his Web log said this about the terrorists and their allies: "They are spitting in the face of the wind."

One of the interesting developments in post-Saddam Iraq is the appearance of amateur Web sites, where Iraqis are taking advantage of modern technology to give voice to their newfound freedom.

The Ali he's talking about can be found here.

Update: by the way, over at Iraq The Model they are re-posting their year-old blog entries. Here's something that caught my eye from the March 18th, 2003 post.

Why is the world standing against the war? Don’t they know what’s happening here? I wish I’d survive to see an end to this tyranny.

POKER, 5-CARD AL-QAEDA

Scott Wickstein over at Samizdata has an interesting theory about the Madrid bombings. He suggests that things didn't go Al-Qaeda's way at all. It's certainly thought-provoking, but one thing didn't feel right:

The massacre in Madrid was expected to cause support to rally to the government - that was the view of bloggers in the West, as evidenced by the surprise at the victory of the Socialist Party. The enormous rally that Spanish people flocked to in their millions, surely, pointed that way; to the anger of the people, and a desire to strike back. However they voted for the Socialists.

I think this assertion is flawed. He seems to be overestimating the certainty that people had that Spanish voters would be angry and vote for the pro-war government. That certainty chiefly arose only after we saw the reaction of Spaniards in the days following the attacks. I for one don't remember any such strong predictions immediately following the attacks.

Remove hindsight from the picture. Were people really that sure that Spain wouldn't falter if a terrorist attack occurred there? Did the terrorists really plan it that way? It seems like one of those 'You're bluffing about knowing that I'm bluffing so I'll bluff because I know you're bluffing about my bluffing your bluff' things. Attributing endless nuances to situations where the straightforward explanation already makes sense is not necessarily a good idea.

...

Bill Whittle once relayed to us something James Lileks had mentioned to him in an e-mail about writing: "When we chase the rabbit down the hole we never know where it’s going to come out again"

Well, Lileks' rabbit either lost his sense of direction or is very drunk. Go read.

APPEASEMENT

Anti-appeasement cartoons. From the 40's. By Dr. Seuss.

ALONG COMES A POLL

(via Instapundit) ABC Poll of Iraqis:

On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year. . . .

Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war.

Update via Instapundit: cautiosly optimistic news on Iraq's economy.

OVERVIEW

Spanish voters have made their choice. The new government has said it will pull out from Iraq. Al-Qaeda has won? The War on Terror has suffered a setback? Well, yes, but not quite.

The Iraq war was always tricky, mostly due to the fact that alot of people failed to realize that it is an integral part of the War on Terror. Even if they are supportive of the War on Terror (as such as they perceive it to be), they incorrectly viewed Iraq as being a separate campaign.

Afghanistan was simple. It was the home base of Al-Qaeda, a country festering in a brutal theocracy that openly allied with terrorists. For some, the fact that it was right after 9/11 meant it was revenge. The Americans will retaliate and go back to eating burgers.

But the US had other plans. They weren't as short-sighted as that. The straightforward, conventional war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was not in fact 'the War on Terror'. It was the opening move. The WoT itself is about transforming the entire Islamic world from the terrorist-breeding swamp it is today, into a free and prosperous, full-fledged member of the civilized world. Steven Den Beste has written at length about this.

So it is still possible (even if only remotely) that the new Spanish government, while still pulling out of Iraq, will not in fact 'surrender' to Al-Qaeda. That depends on what happens after Iraq. If they continue to support the WoT in whatever shape it takes in the future, their abandoning Iraq will not matter in the long run.

But Spain has given a victory to Al-Qaeda nonetheless. Al-Qaeda has been shown that they can dramatically affect elections with a handful of well-placed backpacks of explosives. There isn't much doubt that they will try this again. But where they try it, and if it succeeds a second time, is what's important. Even if they can do the same in any number of countries in the Coalition, it doesn't mean the WoT is lost.

There is only one thing that can mean the failure of the WoT. If someone like John Kerry is put into the White House. The US is the backbone of the West and the driving force in the WoT. If necessary, they could finish the job on their own. But not if they lose sight of the goals president Bush has set.

With Kerry in the White House, there's a good chance that the WoT will stall and possibly revert. Returning to the pre-9/11 notion that terrorism is a law-enforcement issue is the only thing that means defeat in the WoT.

But in the end, the democratic nature of the Western world is the very thing that will ensure it's survival. If what happened in Spain happens elsewhere and the terrorists break up the alliance that has been forged against them, then what? Then they'll continue to do the only thing they know: kill and maim. And people will realize that the only way to appease someone that wants you dead is to die.

There will be new elections and new governments will be elected that will once again be prepared to take the fight to the enemy. Perhaps after a while they'll forget what they learned the hard way and decide to give appeasement a try again and the cycle will begin anew.

The question is, who will survive? I think we will.

BLAME WHOM?

(via RNS) A Victor Davis Hanson must-read.

Two-and-a-half years after September 11, on a similar eleventh day of the month, 911 days following 9-11, and on the eve of Spanish elections, Al Qaeda or its epigones blows up 200 and wounds 1,400 Spaniards. This horrific attack follows chaotic months when Turks were similarly butchered (who opposed the Iraq War), Saudis were targeted (who opposed the Iraqi war), Moroccans were blown apart (who opposed the Iraqi war) and French periodically threatened (who opposed the Iraqi War).

...

Since most interviewed on the street expressed greater anger with the United States than they did with Islamic terrorists, let us hope that their pique extends to asking American air and naval forces to leave their shores as well—but then so far that has not been one of the mass murderers’ demands.

At about the same time, the Greek government, after receiving various terrorist threats and finding a bomb at a Citibank office, assured potential Olympic visitors that NATO will, after all, participate in ensuring its security. This is Orwellian. Both the government and the citizenry since September 11 have displayed nothing but opposition to American and NATO efforts in Afghanistan (no need to mention Iraq), and expressed real venom toward the United States itself—part of the ongoing fallout for its NATO-led operations against fellow Orthodox Slobodan Milosevic and his reign of terror in Bosnia and Serbia.

...

I can sympathize with the administration diplomats when they insist that we are not alone in Iraq. But they are only right to a degree. We, with the exceptions of some English-speaking allies and eastern Europeans, are in fact absolutely alone in our larger struggle for Western civilization and have been all along well before Iraq, which was merely the latest excuse for ongoing European appeasement.

HELL ON EARTH

(via Andrew Sullivan) How twisted that they think they'll go to Heaven by creating Hell on Earth.

"There were pieces of flesh and ribs all over the road," [one witness] said. "There were ribs, brains all over. I never saw anything like this. The train was blown apart. I saw a lot of smoke, people running all over, crying. I saw part of a hand up to the elbow and a body without a head face down on the ground. Flesh all over. I started to cry from nerves. There was a 3-year-old boy all burnt and a father was holding him in his arms, crying."

Update: from the transcript of the videotape claiming responsibility for the bombings:

You love life and we love death, which gives an example of what the Prophet Muhammad said.

There it is in a nutshell. That's what we're up against.

HEH, INDEED

Ali over at Iraq The Model makes an excellent point:

The people who claim that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, strangely are the same who say that the war in Iraq had enraged terrorists. Now I wonder why were the terrorists enraged by toppeling Saddam and liberating Iraq if it wasn't directed at them as well!!?

Update via Tim Blair: Andrew Sullivan says ditto:

If the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection?

DON'T GROW UP.. JUST GROW OLDER

w00t. I am now 21 years old. Next stop: retirement.

I WANT I WANT I WANT

(via RNS) I'd better start saving, if I'm ever gonna buy this.

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES

(via Silent Running) I can't believe the world is letting this happen. Again.

United Nations nuclear inspectors have found traces of extremely highly enriched uranium in Iran, of a purity reserved for use in a nuclear bomb, European and American diplomats said Wednesday.

Among traces that inspectors detected last year are some refined to 90 percent of the rare 235 isotope, the diplomats said. While the International Atomic Energy Agency has previously reported finding "weapons grade" traces, it has not revealed that some reached such a high degree of enrichment.

I just can't seem to understand why European nations don't seem to care about Iran getting the Bomb. Do they think it's in their best interests? Do they think it'll be used on Israel, and hey, that'll solve the 'Jewish question'?

If you want to know what kind of a person someone is, watch what they do as well as what they say. If applied to European states and the IAEA, there seem to be only two answers. Either they are monumentally stupid or they have some private interests at play.

THE IRAQI INTERIM CONSTITUTION

Read Den Beste's analysis of the Iraqi Interim Constitution. Here's the text of the Constitution itself. I think he's rightly (cautiously) optimistic. At this point, I'm more optimistic about Iraq than I am about Afghanistan.

I AM RUBBER, YOU ARE GLUE

John Kerry is turning into Comical Ali and the media is letting him get away with it.

Turns out, I didn't know the half of it. Check out the sheer vitriol in Kerry's words today at a Chicago rally:

"Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Kerry said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

Kerry's spokesman, David Wade, then turned around and accused Kerry's opponents of being over the top:

"The Republicans have launched the most personal, crooked, deceitful attacks over the last four years," Wade said. "He's a Democrat who fights back."

How much longer is he going to get away with it? It's not that long till november..

BBC WATCH

Maybe I should change the title of this blog to BBC Watch.

BBC Newsticker:

Israeli troops shoot dead five Palestinian men in Jenin, West Bank.

From the story:

Meanwhile, Israeli troops shot dead five Palestinian gunmen in the West Bank city of Jenin on Wednesday.

The story itself being 80% about a meeting between the Israeli and Palestinian PMs, why they those to put that particular line in the newsticker in the first place, is beyond me.

BLIX BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Paul Reynolds at the BBC writes about Hans "Clouseau" Blix and his new book. It's all pretty much rubbish, but one thing stands out. Reynolds, who supposedly knows a thing or two about what happened last year with regards to Iraq, either doesn't know shit or is purposely misleading readers.

Towards the end he reveals a rush by the UK Government to make a last minute breakthrough, by getting Iraq to commit itself to a series of "benchmarks" which would demonstrate its good faith.

...

The benchmark plan came to nothing, but it showed that Britain might have harboured some late doubts about military action.

This is no 'revelation' by Blix. Tony Blair described this in his speech before the Commons last year, before the war. Either Reynolds didn't know this, in which case what the hell is he doing writing on the subject for the BBC, or he intentionally twists it so the myth that 'the Coalition didn't do enough before the war' is perpetuated.

The rest of the article is, to put it simply, shit.

RANDOM BIT OF TRIVIA

Google returned 63 results of 'angry Palestinians' on news.bbc.co.uk.

BACK AND BETTER THAN EVER

Looks like that hiatus did some good. Den Beste's latest is another must-read. Money quote:

The Democratic strategists have been doing the best they can for their party and candidates, as they should. It's the press I'm disappointed with.

Word.

UGH

The "Iraq Body Count" project just keeps on producing valuable, objective, scientific information.

I recently noticed that the February 14th death of an American missionary is listed in the IBC database. Reverend John Kelley went to Baghdad to help build the first Baptist church in Iraq, and wound up being killed in a drive-by shooting... now Kelley's corpse is being used by these anti-war kooks as part of their sick propaganda.

To be taken with this.

DISGRACEFUL BBC

What does this say to you? Does it seem like a story about evil Zionists shooting defenseless pebble-throwing Palestinians?

Well, let's see:

Palestinian witnesses say two jeeps disguised as Israeli military vehicles drove up to Erez crossing point.

One exploded near a Palestinian checkpoint, killing the driver and two Palestinian police. The other reached the Israeli position before exploding.

Details are confused, but the attack was claimed jointly by three groups.

What a difference a conveniently excluded "in a suicide attack" and picture selection make.

Update: Jesus christ. The local TV news made it sound like the cars exploded because of gunfire from Israeli forces, that 'Israel claims they were suicide bombers' and that no groups have claimed responsibility for the attacks.

MORE

(via Instapundit) Weasel proves even weaselier.

A group of Russian engineers secretly aided Saddam Hussein's long-range ballistic missile program, providing technical assistance for prohibited Iraqi weapons projects even in the years just before the war that ousted him from power, American government officials say...

Because some of the Russian experts were said to have formerly worked for one of Russia's aerospace design centers, which remains closely associated with the state, their work for Iraq has raised questions in Washington about whether Russian government officials knew of their involvement in forbidden missile programs. "Did the Russians really not know what they were doing?" asked one person familiar with the United States intelligence reports.

This is to be taken with this.

MEDIA BIAS? WHERE?

When reading this repulsive story about people 'offended' by the use of two images of 9/11 in Bush's campaign ads at the BBC, it strikes me again. And again. Each and every time.

How they jump at something like this, how they can print a story like that, at the same time always talking about John Kerry like he's the fucking second coming. Absolutely nothing negative about Kerry.

Go through the BBC and tally up all mentions of Bush and Kerry. Compare. And while you're at it, do the same for Israel and Palestinians. And then tell me why the BBC is considered anything other than a leftist, anti-semitic propaganda machine?

I'm gonna love it when he comes crashing down. I just hope he takes the Big Media down a notch with him, when people start to wonder why they haven't heard any of this before.

See LGF for more on how the US media displays its bias.

Update: more at Instapundit.

HANS "CLOUSEAU" BLIX

Andrew Apostolou heaps more ridicule on Blix.

Taking up the banner of the antiwar movement, Blix accused President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of exaggerating the Iraqi threat and that they should have shown "a bit more sincerity." The difficulty for Blix, however, is that his own statements in 2003 justified the war to liberate Iraq.

More on Blix here.

I SEEM TO HAVE MISSED IT

I watched the Academy Awards broadcast in it's entirety and I'm somewhat surprised by comments such as this:

While Hollywood did everything it could to underscore its disdain for the War in Iraq at the Oscar's...

And this:

Billy Crystal's wry anti-Bush jibes are seen as preferable to a Michael Moore rant...

The only two examples of anti-war outbursts I remember are Penn making a fool of himself and the documentary winner babbling about going down a rabbithole.

The Michael Moore bit in the opening sketch was more about making fun of Michael Moore himself, and I'm surprised he agreed to it.

Ofcourse I may have missed some lines as the idiotic commentators (that accompany any english-language live broadcast here) seem to think none of the viewers speak english and they have to translate every sentence. But all in all I thought they (the Academy) did a pretty good job of avoiding political statements.

Penn looked foolish and the documentary winner looked like he just escaped from a mental institution, so they just added to the entertainment level. And Billy Crystal was excellent, in my opinion.

HEH

So, Kerry is going to win the nomination. That means Bush will win in november. Right now Kerry is getting a free ride, and that will end once he gets the nomination and the election draws closer.

Mr Flip-Flop will get pounded and he'll have to take a stand, one way or the other. Up until now he's had it both ways.

If the choice is between Kerry and Bush, the answer is Bush. And I don't think it'll be a close call either.

Even if you don't like Bush, look at the alternative.

LEXICONICALLY CHALLENGED

Still, they call them militants.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines militant as:

1 : engaged in warfare or combat : FIGHTING
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : COMBATIVE [militant conservationists], [a militant attitude]

Warfare is defined as:

1 : military operations between enemies : HOSTILITIES, WAR; also : an activity undertaken by a political unit (as a nation) to weaken or destroy another [economic warfare]
2 : struggle between competing entities : CONFLICT

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion. Terror has this definition:

4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands [insurrection and revolutionary terror]

Tell me, is what happened in Iraq today warfare, or is it terrorism? Are the perpetrators militants, or terrorists?

Proper use of the English language does not imply support for one party or the other, as the BBC has said in it's defense of not using the word 'terrorist'. When in doubt, check the fucking dictionary.

Note that they don't contest that they are terrorists, only that the BBC doesn't call them that because it would imply they're taking a position. And god forbid, you imply disapproval of people you yourself said are terrorists.

And ofcourse the obligatory Have Your Say comment, picked objectively out of the 'balance of opinions'..

Many of those who protested against the war saw this coming

Christian, Liverpool

Update: the word militant has been removed from the story and replaced with insurgent.

Let's check Merriam-Webster for insurgent:

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party

Nope, still not right.

Update: Natalie Solent catched the BBC television coverage. It's not as easy to edit TV footage as it is articles:

I noticed one thing. The reporter called the perpetrators "terrorists."