Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry. It seemed as if Bush didn't want to go for the jugular. I don't know why.
Kerry is clearly a superior debater, though he too didn't score any knock-out punches. He at least spoke more freely, used anecdotes and facts more readily. Bush didn't nail Kerry on any of the things that I was waiting for. A brief summary might include asking Kerry what he would do regarding Iran and the PDRK. If Iraq is the wrong war, if it's not the war against al-Qaeda, if nuclear proliferation is a problem, if all of the world's intelligence services thought that Saddam's Iraq was nuclear capable, then what is the difference with a nuclear Iran or PDRK? Neither of them are al-Qaeda, nor are they likely to accept some sort of diplomatic solution. Just what would Kerry do? If this war is not right, then how would he handle a conflict in Iran or PDRK? Why Bush left that choice morsel on the table strikes this ex-debater as a mystery. Others might criticize Bush or Kerry for other issues, but I found this one more important.
There is much more to say about the debate, but I want to think about it and blog more in the morning. Send some feedback. I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Belmont Club's Take on Khalil's Assasination
Ordinarily, I don't quote large sections of other blogs or even newspapers. I will make an exception here because the point is so well made: entitled "The Road to Damascus."
Hats off to The Belmont Club.
Hamas' hesitation is evidence that the cellular structure of militant Islamism, meant to provide immunity against counterintelligence is also exacting a high strategic price. The decentralized command and control structure which freed cells to choose their own targets also allowed them to make their own enemies. And make enemies they did. Attacking the United States, seizing the Indian Parlaiment House, blowing up discos in Bali, smashing trains in Madrid and beheading people of every nationality has had the practical effect of multiplying the foes of radical Islam and enabled President Bush to build a global coalition against it. While it has arrogated to itself the power to ignore every civilized limit, Islamic terrorism itself is ironically dependent on their maintenance. Assymetric warfare relies on being able to do what your enemy is forbidden. Terrorism, being militarily weak, relied upon legal restraints, inviolate borders and traditional respect for noncombatants and holy places to provide the shelter that concrete could not. Khalil lived in an unguarded compound in Damascus, in an ordinary residential neighborhood, free to plot the deaths of Jewish civilians. His armor was neither Kevlar nor steel but the certainty -- until now -- that Israel would not attack him across an "international" border. Hama's eagerness to limit the response to Israel proper betrays a growing fear that borders no longer provide sanctuaries. In the weeks following the masscre of schoolchildren in Beslan, the Russian strongman Vladmir Putin announced his intention to strike pre-emptively at terrorist targets all over the world.
The reader may judge for himself how respectful Russia might be of "international law". But both Putin's warning and the Israeli carbomb attack in Damascus are a warning that Golda Meir may have been wrong. She once said, "there will be no peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews". She forgot the alternative which Putin may even now be thinking of. 'that there will be peace in the Middle East when every Arab school is as secure as Belslan; and the Kaaba as inviolate as any synagogue in Jersualem.' America must win this war before it is too late -- for Islam.
Hats off to The Belmont Club.
Hamas' hesitation is evidence that the cellular structure of militant Islamism, meant to provide immunity against counterintelligence is also exacting a high strategic price. The decentralized command and control structure which freed cells to choose their own targets also allowed them to make their own enemies. And make enemies they did. Attacking the United States, seizing the Indian Parlaiment House, blowing up discos in Bali, smashing trains in Madrid and beheading people of every nationality has had the practical effect of multiplying the foes of radical Islam and enabled President Bush to build a global coalition against it. While it has arrogated to itself the power to ignore every civilized limit, Islamic terrorism itself is ironically dependent on their maintenance. Assymetric warfare relies on being able to do what your enemy is forbidden. Terrorism, being militarily weak, relied upon legal restraints, inviolate borders and traditional respect for noncombatants and holy places to provide the shelter that concrete could not. Khalil lived in an unguarded compound in Damascus, in an ordinary residential neighborhood, free to plot the deaths of Jewish civilians. His armor was neither Kevlar nor steel but the certainty -- until now -- that Israel would not attack him across an "international" border. Hama's eagerness to limit the response to Israel proper betrays a growing fear that borders no longer provide sanctuaries. In the weeks following the masscre of schoolchildren in Beslan, the Russian strongman Vladmir Putin announced his intention to strike pre-emptively at terrorist targets all over the world.
The reader may judge for himself how respectful Russia might be of "international law". But both Putin's warning and the Israeli carbomb attack in Damascus are a warning that Golda Meir may have been wrong. She once said, "there will be no peace in the Middle East until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews". She forgot the alternative which Putin may even now be thinking of. 'that there will be peace in the Middle East when every Arab school is as secure as Belslan; and the Kaaba as inviolate as any synagogue in Jersualem.' America must win this war before it is too late -- for Islam.
America's Underbelly
First they were deported from Costa Rica then they were deported from El Salvador. Where are they now? They said they were going to Canada.
This is a little-reported piece that reminds me that terrorists are trying to enter the US through our soft southern underbelly. If the large number of illegal aliens that come from Mexico are able to cross our border without aid of paramilitary training, how many guys fresh from training camps in the NWFP named Abdullah can do the same?
According to this story in the WP these guys had excellent quality fake passports. Maybe their names gave them away: Maximilien O. Regout L.R.M and Sylvain Marcel Hurel Yannic. Really.
This is a little-reported piece that reminds me that terrorists are trying to enter the US through our soft southern underbelly. If the large number of illegal aliens that come from Mexico are able to cross our border without aid of paramilitary training, how many guys fresh from training camps in the NWFP named Abdullah can do the same?
According to this story in the WP these guys had excellent quality fake passports. Maybe their names gave them away: Maximilien O. Regout L.R.M and Sylvain Marcel Hurel Yannic. Really.
Libya's Quest for Importance
Yes, I'm thankful that Gaddafi gave up any nuclear ambitions. But he's acting like a child who did one good thing and now thinks he deserves a Ferrari for Christmas. According to the BBC, Libya demands permanent UN Security Council seat.
Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalghem listed a series of Libya's achievements as reasons for inclusion, including abandoning its WMD programme.
He also highlighted Libya's key role in Africa and the influence of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.
Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalghem listed a series of Libya's achievements as reasons for inclusion, including abandoning its WMD programme.
He also highlighted Libya's key role in Africa and the influence of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.
al-Qaeda Tea Time
In Guinea, anyway. According to the BBC,
The local non-alcoholic beverage has people pouring into the night-time drinking holes of the country's capital, Conakry, for what clientele call the tea's explosive and restorative properties.
Aziz Mouna Camara, a proprietor of one drinking establishment, says the fermented concoction gets its name from its volatile nature.
"When the beverage has boiled to a certain level, it sparkles and gives explosive-like rumbling sounds when you open the pot.
"This is why some call it B52, American bombardment, Bin Laden and others call it al-Qaeda," he says.
Some trends I just don't understand.
Explosive al-Qaeda brew hits Guinea
The local non-alcoholic beverage has people pouring into the night-time drinking holes of the country's capital, Conakry, for what clientele call the tea's explosive and restorative properties.
Aziz Mouna Camara, a proprietor of one drinking establishment, says the fermented concoction gets its name from its volatile nature.
"When the beverage has boiled to a certain level, it sparkles and gives explosive-like rumbling sounds when you open the pot.
"This is why some call it B52, American bombardment, Bin Laden and others call it al-Qaeda," he says.
Some trends I just don't understand.
Explosive al-Qaeda brew hits Guinea
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Kerry's Assault Rifle
[Ed's note: Angrisano wrote this last week and I just found it to post. My fault.]
In the October issue of Outdoor life, Kerry admits to owning a "Communist Chinese Assault Rifle" as a reminder of his service. I want to know where it is, since that would be illegal in Mass or DC, and how he got it into the country (war trophies like that are illegal), and if it is fully auto, is it registered? (Can't be in Mass or DC... where is the gun?)
I find it amazing that a public SERVANT is completely above the law. If a "regular" citizen said something this amazingly foolish, the ATF would be attaching C4 to his front door RIGHT NOW.
Whether you are pro gun or anti-gun, Kerry is no friend of yours. He has voted for every piece of gun control legislation put before him - yet he owns a "Communist Chinese Assault Rifle".
Article Here
In the October issue of Outdoor life, Kerry admits to owning a "Communist Chinese Assault Rifle" as a reminder of his service. I want to know where it is, since that would be illegal in Mass or DC, and how he got it into the country (war trophies like that are illegal), and if it is fully auto, is it registered? (Can't be in Mass or DC... where is the gun?)
I find it amazing that a public SERVANT is completely above the law. If a "regular" citizen said something this amazingly foolish, the ATF would be attaching C4 to his front door RIGHT NOW.
Whether you are pro gun or anti-gun, Kerry is no friend of yours. He has voted for every piece of gun control legislation put before him - yet he owns a "Communist Chinese Assault Rifle".
Article Here
Patriot Act Illegal?
[Ed's note: Vaughn sent this.]
This federal judge is the husband of my coworker, V. W., who is herself an attorney by training and a former Deputy Commissioner in the City. . . . she just mentioned his case about the PATRIOT Act this morning and then I saw the ruling. . . .
Federal judge rejects part of Patriot Act
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday found unconstitutional a part of the anti-terror Patriot Act that allows authorities to demand customer records from businesses without court approval.
Article Here
This federal judge is the husband of my coworker, V. W., who is herself an attorney by training and a former Deputy Commissioner in the City. . . . she just mentioned his case about the PATRIOT Act this morning and then I saw the ruling. . . .
Federal judge rejects part of Patriot Act
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday found unconstitutional a part of the anti-terror Patriot Act that allows authorities to demand customer records from businesses without court approval.
Article Here
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
CIA Elections in Iraq
CIA and the Iraqi Elections -- An idea that's bound to erode trust. Or is it?
Knowing that Iran and neighboring countries have no fetters on their intelligence services' influence on the Iraqi elections, why on Earth would Nacy Pelosi explode at the notion that we should not try to influence them as well? It's a silly idea to let Iraq slip away into Tehran or Damascus' orbit because we hog-tied the CIA with rules that no other nation in the region follows. Fairness is a less well understood concept in some places than in others. Have you ever seen a single-file line in the Middle East? I haven't. Try arguing about fairness to keep people there from pushing to the front: they'll look at you like you had three heads. While elections are not lines, the comparison does show that some of the values that we assume in everyday life in the US are absent in other countries. Fairness is a concept whose shape can and must change to suit the circumstances. In this case, fairness in the cause of democracy means playing by the (lack of) rules that Syria and Iran use.
While I understand some degree of hesitancy from people who fear that the US will seem to be manipulating the elections, that fear is not necessarily justified when influence can extend from overt support of a candidate to covert action of various shades.
I must ask our dear leftist readers to square with me the idea that different cultures have different values and understandings (one of which is that other nations, such as Iran and Syria, are interfering in the election) with the idea that our (the US's) notion of democratic fairplay is the ideal one for Iraq.
I think Pelosi is dangerously wrong on this. The question of democracy in a newly democratic state is not a theoretical thought experiment with abstract notions of fairness dancing in someone's head. Syria and Iran want to control Iraq's future. To have any real hope of a democratic Iraq, it is not enough to speak grandly about democracy -- or scream loudly about the CIA, a la Pelosi -- we must act decisively to secure a friendly government. That doesn't mean fix the election, but it does mean influence it for the better. Pelosi should know this.
Knowing that Iran and neighboring countries have no fetters on their intelligence services' influence on the Iraqi elections, why on Earth would Nacy Pelosi explode at the notion that we should not try to influence them as well? It's a silly idea to let Iraq slip away into Tehran or Damascus' orbit because we hog-tied the CIA with rules that no other nation in the region follows. Fairness is a less well understood concept in some places than in others. Have you ever seen a single-file line in the Middle East? I haven't. Try arguing about fairness to keep people there from pushing to the front: they'll look at you like you had three heads. While elections are not lines, the comparison does show that some of the values that we assume in everyday life in the US are absent in other countries. Fairness is a concept whose shape can and must change to suit the circumstances. In this case, fairness in the cause of democracy means playing by the (lack of) rules that Syria and Iran use.
While I understand some degree of hesitancy from people who fear that the US will seem to be manipulating the elections, that fear is not necessarily justified when influence can extend from overt support of a candidate to covert action of various shades.
I must ask our dear leftist readers to square with me the idea that different cultures have different values and understandings (one of which is that other nations, such as Iran and Syria, are interfering in the election) with the idea that our (the US's) notion of democratic fairplay is the ideal one for Iraq.
I think Pelosi is dangerously wrong on this. The question of democracy in a newly democratic state is not a theoretical thought experiment with abstract notions of fairness dancing in someone's head. Syria and Iran want to control Iraq's future. To have any real hope of a democratic Iraq, it is not enough to speak grandly about democracy -- or scream loudly about the CIA, a la Pelosi -- we must act decisively to secure a friendly government. That doesn't mean fix the election, but it does mean influence it for the better. Pelosi should know this.
Iraq Foreseen
Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions proclaims the New York Times.
Fair enough. Most armchair generals would have guessed much the same outcome: namely, that Iraq had a chance of splitting apart, of staying together with difficulty forever, or of becoming a functional democracy within a few years.
The analysis here may have strong empirical foundations, coming from defector interrogations or expert interviews, but the primary outcomes are not much different than a shoot from the hip estimate of Iraq's future. Why has this document become a lightening rod for Democratic anger? Surely I can see these scenarios and -- in spite of potential obstacles -- agree to invade Iraq, arguing instead that the risks outweigh the rewards? Right?
Why then the Sturm und Drang? Is it really a scandal, an example of poor judgement, or of sheer stupidity on Bush's part to invade because a document exists that shows intelligence analysts and academics outlining fragmentation as a potential outcome of the Iraqi war?
Besides the already-so-angry-I-could-spit types, who is bothered by this document's existence? Did I miss something about probability that should alter my view? Help me out.
Fair enough. Most armchair generals would have guessed much the same outcome: namely, that Iraq had a chance of splitting apart, of staying together with difficulty forever, or of becoming a functional democracy within a few years.
The analysis here may have strong empirical foundations, coming from defector interrogations or expert interviews, but the primary outcomes are not much different than a shoot from the hip estimate of Iraq's future. Why has this document become a lightening rod for Democratic anger? Surely I can see these scenarios and -- in spite of potential obstacles -- agree to invade Iraq, arguing instead that the risks outweigh the rewards? Right?
Why then the Sturm und Drang? Is it really a scandal, an example of poor judgement, or of sheer stupidity on Bush's part to invade because a document exists that shows intelligence analysts and academics outlining fragmentation as a potential outcome of the Iraqi war?
Besides the already-so-angry-I-could-spit types, who is bothered by this document's existence? Did I miss something about probability that should alter my view? Help me out.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Florida isn't fit for these United States
At least if you listen to ex-President Carter. The BBC reports that he fears Florida vote trouble during this year's election.
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.
To me, this smacks of political opportunism of the worst kind, namely playing on the fears of the least well educated that there is a systematic attempt to keep them from voting. A man at Starbucks told me yesterday that Bush stole the election and hated blacks. I started to argue, but then thought it would be better to agree, as an ironic joke. He didn't get it. Maybe we should do that here too -- just agree that the election procedures in Florida do not meet minimum international requirements and let our Mugabe-type instruments of electoral repression out into the open. Surely our ex-POTUS is correct? I have thought that Florida was a masquerading 3rd world abomination within the US for some time now.
Now where did I put those war veterans' phone numbers? They have to get in shape for the, umm,...campaigning down there.
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.
To me, this smacks of political opportunism of the worst kind, namely playing on the fears of the least well educated that there is a systematic attempt to keep them from voting. A man at Starbucks told me yesterday that Bush stole the election and hated blacks. I started to argue, but then thought it would be better to agree, as an ironic joke. He didn't get it. Maybe we should do that here too -- just agree that the election procedures in Florida do not meet minimum international requirements and let our Mugabe-type instruments of electoral repression out into the open. Surely our ex-POTUS is correct? I have thought that Florida was a masquerading 3rd world abomination within the US for some time now.
Now where did I put those war veterans' phone numbers? They have to get in shape for the, umm,...campaigning down there.
Getting the Sound-bite Generation to the Polls
[Ed's note: Windrem wrote this.]
MTV is, once again, using its “non-partisan” political sway among the nation’s youth to influence the upcoming presidential election. MTV’s “Choose or Lose” campaign looks like a Red, White, and Blue tribute to a college protest. The website’s banner depicts a sea of young people in the classic revolutionary pose—a raised arm with a closed fist. Another student is holding a bullhorn. Below, the banner, there is a photo of a young girl and her question about attacking a country not responsible for 9/11. Site visitors are encouraged to register for MTV’s “PRElection.” And, there are prize incentives for registering and voting in MTV’s poll. Some prizes include a “star-studded party at the Esquire House LA” and an “Election Day bash at a mystery US location.” I wonder which celebrities MTV will have ready to party with the winner, should that person be a Bush supporter. Britney Spears? Jessica Simpson? Kid Rock?
Another campaign, closely associated with Choose or Lose, is Rock the Vote. I wrote a critical piece on this group last July where I noted their contempt for young minds with this quote from their site:
“You don’t have to be a genius or even politically oriented to be qualified to vote. Really, you just need to have an opinion.”
A cursory inspection of Rock the Votes’ “non-profit, non-partisan” site reveals a virtual mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. This campaign reminds me of Fahrenheit 911, with Michael Moore guiding his viewers in the direction he wants them to go without uttering a false word. Again, the protest theme is noticeable with a large fist plastered to the side of the “Rock the Vote” bus. Hip apparel is available, such as t-shirts that read, “fcuk [sic] you, I’m voting” and “Give a Sh*t.” Non-partisan or not, the net effect is that of a left-wing political action committee.
MTV is, once again, using its “non-partisan” political sway among the nation’s youth to influence the upcoming presidential election. MTV’s “Choose or Lose” campaign looks like a Red, White, and Blue tribute to a college protest. The website’s banner depicts a sea of young people in the classic revolutionary pose—a raised arm with a closed fist. Another student is holding a bullhorn. Below, the banner, there is a photo of a young girl and her question about attacking a country not responsible for 9/11. Site visitors are encouraged to register for MTV’s “PRElection.” And, there are prize incentives for registering and voting in MTV’s poll. Some prizes include a “star-studded party at the Esquire House LA” and an “Election Day bash at a mystery US location.” I wonder which celebrities MTV will have ready to party with the winner, should that person be a Bush supporter. Britney Spears? Jessica Simpson? Kid Rock?
Another campaign, closely associated with Choose or Lose, is Rock the Vote. I wrote a critical piece on this group last July where I noted their contempt for young minds with this quote from their site:
“You don’t have to be a genius or even politically oriented to be qualified to vote. Really, you just need to have an opinion.”
A cursory inspection of Rock the Votes’ “non-profit, non-partisan” site reveals a virtual mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. This campaign reminds me of Fahrenheit 911, with Michael Moore guiding his viewers in the direction he wants them to go without uttering a false word. Again, the protest theme is noticeable with a large fist plastered to the side of the “Rock the Vote” bus. Hip apparel is available, such as t-shirts that read, “fcuk [sic] you, I’m voting” and “Give a Sh*t.” Non-partisan or not, the net effect is that of a left-wing political action committee.
Background Reading
Good article describing Zarqawi's path to the present in Iraq and differences between his group and al-Qaeda. I think the NYT had a similar article over the summer. I might be able to find it and post a link, if anyone is interested. In that article, Zarqawi comes across as a thug with only marginal religiosity -- but one helluva hatred against Israel.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Schwarzenegger for President?
On September 15, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) offered an amendment to the Constitution allowing naturalized citizens to serve as President of the United States. Rep. Rohrabacher has been outspoken against illegal immigration, but says this amendment is "fully consistent with my long-held support for a generous policy of legal immigration..."
To his opponents who might doubt the Congressman's motives, considering GOP celebrity and Austrian immigrant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's naturalized status, Rep. Rohrabacher had this to say:
"There are those here today who will interpret this constitutional proposal permitting a naturalized citizen to serve as President as a political ploy designed to permit a prominent California elected official who immigrated to the United States from Central Europe and who still speaks with a thick accent to be eligible to be elected President of the United States.
This is no ploy. I honestly believe that Tom Lantos [Hungarian born California Democratic Congressman] should be allowed to seek the highest office in the land just like any other elected official from California."
Congressman Rohrabacher is a surfer from California and an advocate for human rights around the world. His motto: "Fighting for freedom and having fun."
To his opponents who might doubt the Congressman's motives, considering GOP celebrity and Austrian immigrant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's naturalized status, Rep. Rohrabacher had this to say:
"There are those here today who will interpret this constitutional proposal permitting a naturalized citizen to serve as President as a political ploy designed to permit a prominent California elected official who immigrated to the United States from Central Europe and who still speaks with a thick accent to be eligible to be elected President of the United States.
This is no ploy. I honestly believe that Tom Lantos [Hungarian born California Democratic Congressman] should be allowed to seek the highest office in the land just like any other elected official from California."
Congressman Rohrabacher is a surfer from California and an advocate for human rights around the world. His motto: "Fighting for freedom and having fun."
US 'will not free' Iraq scientist
Most murders are committed by someone known to the victim. Is the current campaign to free the only two women in Coalition custody any different? In fact, the terrorists' demands to release the two women may be the best clue that we have about Decapitation Inc's membership. The women are probably related by blood or influence. Start your social networking diagrams.
Also, the two Iraqi bloggers, Iraq The Model and Healing Iraq, point out that it is likely the same group of people carrying out these abductions and decapitations, but under different names to give the appearance of multiple groups with widespread membership. In one example, Ali at Iraq the Model noted that one of the men removed his mask to show his face and was recognized as an ex-Saddam loyalist guard who is masquarading as a servant of Allah. The men are generally the same size, use the same stage set-up and roughly the same language in their rantings. If the groups are different, then the various groups are good copy-cats or have read the same training manual, "Decapitation and Staged Executions for Dummies."
Also, the two Iraqi bloggers, Iraq The Model and Healing Iraq, point out that it is likely the same group of people carrying out these abductions and decapitations, but under different names to give the appearance of multiple groups with widespread membership. In one example, Ali at Iraq the Model noted that one of the men removed his mask to show his face and was recognized as an ex-Saddam loyalist guard who is masquarading as a servant of Allah. The men are generally the same size, use the same stage set-up and roughly the same language in their rantings. If the groups are different, then the various groups are good copy-cats or have read the same training manual, "Decapitation and Staged Executions for Dummies."
Colonial Nostalgia By Africans?
Thabo Mbeki's brother in the BBC Online today states that Africa was 'better in colonial times.' It's not an uncommon expression in Africa, though you would never hear it in a Divinity School, for example. The real picture of Africa during and post colonialism is a mixed bag that should hold lessons about the value and difficulty of the Iraqi occupation.
Is it fairer to compare Iraq to Nigeria or Botwsana, examples respectively of corrupt and efficient African governments? Do Iraqi attitudes toward freedom in general veer towards South Africa or Egypt? These are important questions that highlight the importance of a country's readiness to fight for the demoocratic ideal and not drift into kleptocratic tyranny.
Is it fairer to compare Iraq to Nigeria or Botwsana, examples respectively of corrupt and efficient African governments? Do Iraqi attitudes toward freedom in general veer towards South Africa or Egypt? These are important questions that highlight the importance of a country's readiness to fight for the demoocratic ideal and not drift into kleptocratic tyranny.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Iraqi Thinking
Fellow members of the Neo-Republican elite, my apologies for having had a slow blogging week. Unfortunately, my life does sometimes involve work that must be finished before my labour of love can be lavished with attention...
Anyway, Iraq. The fountain of organized religion, writing, culture, civilization and even government is now famous for beheading engineers and truck drivers, as succor for Islamic insurgents worldwide, and as a prism through which the larger ills of the middle east (poverty, tyranny and a general failure to adopt positively to modernity) show brightly. As much as I don't like to admit that Kerry has a point, he has a point: Iraq is a mess.
More than 130 foreigners have been abducted in recent months. Though most of them have been freed, others have been murdered, with at least 20 beheaded since July. The industry of kidnapping that has sprung up in this country has hobbled reconstruction efforts, sending waves of fear through the expatriate community and driving foreigners into the sanctuaries of fortified homes and hotels, away from the Iraqis with whom they are supposed to interact.
Mr. Zarqawi's group took responsibility in May for the beheading of Nicholas Berg, an American businessman, and a similar murder in June of Kim Sun-il, a South Korean interpreter. In both cases, the group distributed videotapes showing the decapitations. The one of Mr. Armstrong's death was similar — the victim sat bound, blindfolded and trembling in an orange jumpsuit at the feet of black-clad militants who sliced his head off after reading a diatribe against the American occupation.
I know that bloggers like Chrenkoff have found much good in the Iraq war. Bully for them. I, too, think that the Iraqis are ultiomately better off with Saddam gone from power. Yet, that argument does not require a continuing US presence in Iraq until the return of Nebuchadnezzar II (he's coming just before Jesus, btw). As Robert Kagan (and indeed, George Washington) recognized, the suffering of other people is not our problem -- unless you're the Princeton professor, Peter Singer, in which case you ought to send your surplus to anyone without such surplus, but I digress...
At the end of the day, we are in Iraq. We thought Saddam had powerful WMD that he couldn't be trusted with. We've looked and we can't find them; Saddam's out of power. Looks like mission accomplished to me. Democracy building? Good idea! Abdul, I think you take over from here.
You don't have to oppose the Iraq war or even the idea of Arab democracy to agree with th idea that we cannot fight the wars of Iraq's fathers. We cannot spill our blood to give them a sense of ownership of democracy. As harsh as it sounds, Iraq -- any country, really -- must bleed for itself in the struggle for liberty. We can help, but only to a point. Kagan states explicitly in Warrior Politics that we must learn to watch others die with equanimity. It's not pretty, and many Iraqis may hate us for destroying the rotten peace that produced stability. But, it gives them the liberty to pursue their own interests. Liberty is a great and good value, a gift that promises no salvation, just a real chance to choose one way or another one's future.
Whither Iraq? And the US?
Anyway, Iraq. The fountain of organized religion, writing, culture, civilization and even government is now famous for beheading engineers and truck drivers, as succor for Islamic insurgents worldwide, and as a prism through which the larger ills of the middle east (poverty, tyranny and a general failure to adopt positively to modernity) show brightly. As much as I don't like to admit that Kerry has a point, he has a point: Iraq is a mess.
More than 130 foreigners have been abducted in recent months. Though most of them have been freed, others have been murdered, with at least 20 beheaded since July. The industry of kidnapping that has sprung up in this country has hobbled reconstruction efforts, sending waves of fear through the expatriate community and driving foreigners into the sanctuaries of fortified homes and hotels, away from the Iraqis with whom they are supposed to interact.
Mr. Zarqawi's group took responsibility in May for the beheading of Nicholas Berg, an American businessman, and a similar murder in June of Kim Sun-il, a South Korean interpreter. In both cases, the group distributed videotapes showing the decapitations. The one of Mr. Armstrong's death was similar — the victim sat bound, blindfolded and trembling in an orange jumpsuit at the feet of black-clad militants who sliced his head off after reading a diatribe against the American occupation.
I know that bloggers like Chrenkoff have found much good in the Iraq war. Bully for them. I, too, think that the Iraqis are ultiomately better off with Saddam gone from power. Yet, that argument does not require a continuing US presence in Iraq until the return of Nebuchadnezzar II (he's coming just before Jesus, btw). As Robert Kagan (and indeed, George Washington) recognized, the suffering of other people is not our problem -- unless you're the Princeton professor, Peter Singer, in which case you ought to send your surplus to anyone without such surplus, but I digress...
At the end of the day, we are in Iraq. We thought Saddam had powerful WMD that he couldn't be trusted with. We've looked and we can't find them; Saddam's out of power. Looks like mission accomplished to me. Democracy building? Good idea! Abdul, I think you take over from here.
You don't have to oppose the Iraq war or even the idea of Arab democracy to agree with th idea that we cannot fight the wars of Iraq's fathers. We cannot spill our blood to give them a sense of ownership of democracy. As harsh as it sounds, Iraq -- any country, really -- must bleed for itself in the struggle for liberty. We can help, but only to a point. Kagan states explicitly in Warrior Politics that we must learn to watch others die with equanimity. It's not pretty, and many Iraqis may hate us for destroying the rotten peace that produced stability. But, it gives them the liberty to pursue their own interests. Liberty is a great and good value, a gift that promises no salvation, just a real chance to choose one way or another one's future.
Whither Iraq? And the US?
A Win for Kerry may be a Serious Loss for Racial Equality
There is more at stake this election than just the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. I fear that a win for the Democrats will bring to a screeching halt the unprecedented strides made in racial equality over the last four years by the Bush Administration. I have heard very little out of the Kerry camp to suggest a commitment to racial diversity, the hallmark of the Bush Administration. I fear a Kerry White House would return the typical white dinosaurs to Cabinet-level positions. So long progress, hello old-fashioned, status quo patriarchy.
As Americans, tired of one Democratic politician after another “celebrating” diversity, we have enjoyed this important era of GOP-led racial healing. It hardly needs reminding that President George W. Bush has appointed the first African-American Secretary of State, the first African-American Secretary of Education, the first African-American woman National Security Advisor (highest ranking African-American woman in American history), the first Asian-American woman to serve on a Presidential Cabinet, and an African-American Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. It seems the GOP is the only party committed to the dream of the first minority President of the United States. That is no surprise really; the Republicans have been on this track since the days of Abraham Lincoln.
It is true that other Presidents have had their success in promoting diversity. Ronald Reagan appointed the first Hispanic-American Secretary of Education and George H.W. Bush appointed the first woman and Hispanic-American Surgeon General. But, it is the current President who has stopped talking about diversity and started to do something about it. I cannot think of another President who has truly done more to empower minority communities and to give hope to the next generation of Americans. Can Mr. Kerry handle that much diversity or will he resort to the same old tired line that minorities need the help of liberal white men to provide them with government hand-outs because they cannot do it by themselves? Institutional racism is, sadly, still alive and well in the Democratic Party. Will Mr. Kerry commit to racial equality, racial diversity, and racial empowerment the way George W. Bush has? Or will the cleverly-disguised racism of the New England liberal rear its ugly head once again?
As Americans, tired of one Democratic politician after another “celebrating” diversity, we have enjoyed this important era of GOP-led racial healing. It hardly needs reminding that President George W. Bush has appointed the first African-American Secretary of State, the first African-American Secretary of Education, the first African-American woman National Security Advisor (highest ranking African-American woman in American history), the first Asian-American woman to serve on a Presidential Cabinet, and an African-American Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. It seems the GOP is the only party committed to the dream of the first minority President of the United States. That is no surprise really; the Republicans have been on this track since the days of Abraham Lincoln.
It is true that other Presidents have had their success in promoting diversity. Ronald Reagan appointed the first Hispanic-American Secretary of Education and George H.W. Bush appointed the first woman and Hispanic-American Surgeon General. But, it is the current President who has stopped talking about diversity and started to do something about it. I cannot think of another President who has truly done more to empower minority communities and to give hope to the next generation of Americans. Can Mr. Kerry handle that much diversity or will he resort to the same old tired line that minorities need the help of liberal white men to provide them with government hand-outs because they cannot do it by themselves? Institutional racism is, sadly, still alive and well in the Democratic Party. Will Mr. Kerry commit to racial equality, racial diversity, and racial empowerment the way George W. Bush has? Or will the cleverly-disguised racism of the New England liberal rear its ugly head once again?
Monday, September 20, 2004
Democracy for Democrats
This post comes to us via the Canadian Tory, Generation-X-Wing. At the New Republicans, we welcome guest editorials on the state of the world, America or even your own country, should you be from other lands not flying the stars and stripes.
Feel free to comment at will. I think he's on to something here.
Here's the post:
I love how the Democratic Party of the United States is mad
that Ralph Nader is getting on the ballot in lots of states. According
to a BBC online article, "In an angry reaction to Friday's ruling,
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said: "In state after state, Nader has become an extension of the Republican Party and their corporate backers."
Don't you love the irony in this situation? The "Democratic" party is
trying to stifle democracy in the United States. Talk about vote-splitting all you want (and as a conservative in Canada, I’ve been dealing with it for years), Ralph Nader has every right to be on the ballot. If he attracts supporters on the left who might otherwise vote for the Democrats, doesn't that tell them something? Maybe they should have chosen a candidate who appeals to that left wing?
Of course, that's the perpetual dilemma that centrist parties face:
they try to straddle the left and right and attract support from most people. Fair enough, it is a reasonable tactic. But what happens when more than one party, or credible candidate, enters the process on the opposite side of their traditional opponent? They run the risk of losing a core base of their support.
Whose problem is that? The Democratic Party’s. So rather than trying to adapt, they bitch about how unfair it is that someone else is exercising their democratic rights. This is what the Democrats have become: a disgrace with no respect for democracy. The Democrats say they risk losing to Bush with Nader on the ballot. Maybe they do. The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because defeating Bush is the most important thing for American right now. Well, how does this sound: the Democrats voluntarily remove themselves from the ballot so Nader can
run unopposed against Bush? Of course he stands no chance of beating the President. And without a doubt Democrats would laugh at the entire notion of being taken off the ballot.
Maybe they should think of it that way, and allow democracy to take its natural course in 2004. But let's face it, left-wing hypocrisy will prevent any notion of the Democrats allowing this to happen, and they'll blame him [again, ed.] if they lose in November.
Feel free to comment at will. I think he's on to something here.
Here's the post:
I love how the Democratic Party of the United States is mad
that Ralph Nader is getting on the ballot in lots of states. According
to a BBC online article, "In an angry reaction to Friday's ruling,
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said: "In state after state, Nader has become an extension of the Republican Party and their corporate backers."
Don't you love the irony in this situation? The "Democratic" party is
trying to stifle democracy in the United States. Talk about vote-splitting all you want (and as a conservative in Canada, I’ve been dealing with it for years), Ralph Nader has every right to be on the ballot. If he attracts supporters on the left who might otherwise vote for the Democrats, doesn't that tell them something? Maybe they should have chosen a candidate who appeals to that left wing?
Of course, that's the perpetual dilemma that centrist parties face:
they try to straddle the left and right and attract support from most people. Fair enough, it is a reasonable tactic. But what happens when more than one party, or credible candidate, enters the process on the opposite side of their traditional opponent? They run the risk of losing a core base of their support.
Whose problem is that? The Democratic Party’s. So rather than trying to adapt, they bitch about how unfair it is that someone else is exercising their democratic rights. This is what the Democrats have become: a disgrace with no respect for democracy. The Democrats say they risk losing to Bush with Nader on the ballot. Maybe they do. The Democrats want Nader off the ballot because defeating Bush is the most important thing for American right now. Well, how does this sound: the Democrats voluntarily remove themselves from the ballot so Nader can
run unopposed against Bush? Of course he stands no chance of beating the President. And without a doubt Democrats would laugh at the entire notion of being taken off the ballot.
Maybe they should think of it that way, and allow democracy to take its natural course in 2004. But let's face it, left-wing hypocrisy will prevent any notion of the Democrats allowing this to happen, and they'll blame him [again, ed.] if they lose in November.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Myth-Making
Mssr Annan ruled the Iraqi invasion illegal on the basis of the UN Charter recently. On the one hand, I want to respond to the charge in a very highbrow manner, something akin to "no laws exist in the relationships among states for their is no soverign to enforce them or from whom legitimacy flows." -- but that would ignore the practical reality that some international laws do exist, however imperfectly. On the other hand, I could become an echo chamber for the justifications for war, including Saddam's failure to adhere to the conditions given in the first Gulf War's cease-fire agreement, the collection weight of the NATO members and Russia's intelligence services that he had WMD, our fear of 9-11 II to the nth power, etc.
But I feel as if both of those arguments will go nowhere as a pernicious, persistant and pedantic myth has taken root in the minds of many educated persons to the extent that wars are seen to derive their legitmacy from international approval and the UN, rather than from the interests and security needs of the countries at issue. Unless and until the UN is given the power by its member states to be the sole voice of international political legitimacy, it is not the arbiter of value, but is and shall remain a forum where member states can attempt to influence of dissuade one another from actions that others may find undesirable.
I should note also that the UN does not make international law: it makes Resolutions. Some Resolutions provide for military or other means to ensure compliance, but some Resolutions do not. The UN passed no Resolution making the Iraqi invasion illegal, but it (the UN) did pass quite a few Resolutions (13, I believe) that held out the possibility of military force against Iraq if it did not comply. Who is acting illegally here, according to the UN's own formulations?
In a perfect world the UN might reduce to zero all international conflicts. In the world of real interests and goals, conflicting value systems and beliefs about justice, no forum for discussion will ever supplant conflict as means to an end.
A brutal realpolitik is at work in the world -- and it comes neither from wanton aggressiveness or arbitrary disregard of international laws. It comes from real differences in belief about the shape and structure of the relationships among the actors in the international area. Unless he gives concrete evidence to the contrary, Mssr Annan is incorrect to state categorically that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Although the UN charter respects the sovereign will of every country, it does not preclude conflict when a country feels threatened (or when the preponderance of evidence supports an an offensive war).
But I feel as if both of those arguments will go nowhere as a pernicious, persistant and pedantic myth has taken root in the minds of many educated persons to the extent that wars are seen to derive their legitmacy from international approval and the UN, rather than from the interests and security needs of the countries at issue. Unless and until the UN is given the power by its member states to be the sole voice of international political legitimacy, it is not the arbiter of value, but is and shall remain a forum where member states can attempt to influence of dissuade one another from actions that others may find undesirable.
I should note also that the UN does not make international law: it makes Resolutions. Some Resolutions provide for military or other means to ensure compliance, but some Resolutions do not. The UN passed no Resolution making the Iraqi invasion illegal, but it (the UN) did pass quite a few Resolutions (13, I believe) that held out the possibility of military force against Iraq if it did not comply. Who is acting illegally here, according to the UN's own formulations?
In a perfect world the UN might reduce to zero all international conflicts. In the world of real interests and goals, conflicting value systems and beliefs about justice, no forum for discussion will ever supplant conflict as means to an end.
A brutal realpolitik is at work in the world -- and it comes neither from wanton aggressiveness or arbitrary disregard of international laws. It comes from real differences in belief about the shape and structure of the relationships among the actors in the international area. Unless he gives concrete evidence to the contrary, Mssr Annan is incorrect to state categorically that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Although the UN charter respects the sovereign will of every country, it does not preclude conflict when a country feels threatened (or when the preponderance of evidence supports an an offensive war).
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Kerry's Online Spending Tanks
Kerry's campaign bought 72 million online ads (impressions) last month, but only 71 thousand this month.
What gives? Is Kerry giving up on online advertising?
Bush bought 9 million impressions this month.
This may be the one John Kerry flip-flop you won't hear about on conservative talk radio. Following a July online ad run of over 72.5 million impressions, the John Kerry For President campaign practically shut down its Web advertising efforts in August, running a relatively paltry total of 71,000 impressions according to Nielsen//NetRatings AdRelevance.
What gives? Is Kerry giving up on online advertising?
Bush bought 9 million impressions this month.
This may be the one John Kerry flip-flop you won't hear about on conservative talk radio. Following a July online ad run of over 72.5 million impressions, the John Kerry For President campaign practically shut down its Web advertising efforts in August, running a relatively paltry total of 71,000 impressions according to Nielsen//NetRatings AdRelevance.
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
In my last post, I neglected to talk about the source of the article. This group seems to be the lone voice of reason in a sea of conformist group-think. While my views on religion are certainly known by those who frequent New Republicans, I must also acknowledge some of the more beautiful concepts that are born out of a religious context: tolerance, love of one's neighbor, and yes, even pluralism. For a Muslim today to publicly express discontent with the status quo inflammatory rhetoric that is, unfortunately, the hallmark of modern day Islam, it takes much courage. Their cause is of dire importance to our collective future.
From the "Who We Are" section of their site:
The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism is a nonprofit organization made up of American Muslims and Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era.
The Coalition was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.
The Coalition promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. The Coalition’s efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
From the "Who We Are" section of their site:
The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism is a nonprofit organization made up of American Muslims and Arabs of all backgrounds who feel that religious violence and terrorism have not been fully rejected by the Muslim community in the post 9-11 era.
The Coalition was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.
The Coalition promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. The Coalition’s efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
Islamic leader hails Chechen attack Says similar operation would be justified in UK: Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
This article is from the website: Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism.
At one Al-Muhajiroun event at Queensborough Community College sponsored by the MSA and attended by WND, a Muhajiroun speaker working with Yousuf said, "We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
I sometimes wonder if our beloved freedom will be our own downfall. The sentiments expressed by these American Muslims are simply terrifying. It seems as if the well-known student group Muslim Students Association (MSA) is not all it claims to be. The brainwashed followers of these American jihadists are spreading their ideology through seemingly benign student organizations. When I hear American Muslims saying they would be "honored" to die in a "martyr operation" against American civilians, I wonder at what point, short of discharging a bomb, we kick him back to his corrupt, poverty-stricken paradise in the Islamic world?
Political correctness has gone way to far.
Just like fundamental Christian Alan Keyes, we cannot use reason and expect it to be embraced or even considered. It is in the mind of the extremist Muslim that America is evil and it is their duty to destroy us through violent Jihad. They have no choice because Americans won't convert to Islam. How could we? We've spent the last 300 years breaking away from primitive puritanism and witch hunts. Now we are supposed to embrace an archaic form of theism that would reverse human progress--essentially giving up human rights and free choice as we know it?
Where is the outrage? Where is the defiant confidence that threw the British back to Europe and brought the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire to it's knees?
There is a reason I don't like organized religion. Throughout history, religion has been responsible for countless deaths. There are religions that don't exist anymore where martyrs once went willingly to their deaths in its name. They believed then, as they believe now, that their religion is the "true" religion. They envisioned themselves as the righteous versus the wrong: The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi Concentration Camps, the Global Jihad. All in the name of God. I believe that in a hundred thousand years, when futuristic archaeologists are sifting through the ruins, they'll probably try to figure out our religions and our wars. It will simply be a matter of curiosity. The passion will have long died, perhaps replaced by other causes, perhaps not. Religion ultimately will morph as it has throughout time and the screaming Jihadists of today will share a page in the history books with mankind's endless supply of "righteous" warriors.
Islamic leader hails Chechen attack Says similar operation would be justified in UK: Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
At one Al-Muhajiroun event at Queensborough Community College sponsored by the MSA and attended by WND, a Muhajiroun speaker working with Yousuf said, "We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
I sometimes wonder if our beloved freedom will be our own downfall. The sentiments expressed by these American Muslims are simply terrifying. It seems as if the well-known student group Muslim Students Association (MSA) is not all it claims to be. The brainwashed followers of these American jihadists are spreading their ideology through seemingly benign student organizations. When I hear American Muslims saying they would be "honored" to die in a "martyr operation" against American civilians, I wonder at what point, short of discharging a bomb, we kick him back to his corrupt, poverty-stricken paradise in the Islamic world?
Political correctness has gone way to far.
Just like fundamental Christian Alan Keyes, we cannot use reason and expect it to be embraced or even considered. It is in the mind of the extremist Muslim that America is evil and it is their duty to destroy us through violent Jihad. They have no choice because Americans won't convert to Islam. How could we? We've spent the last 300 years breaking away from primitive puritanism and witch hunts. Now we are supposed to embrace an archaic form of theism that would reverse human progress--essentially giving up human rights and free choice as we know it?
Where is the outrage? Where is the defiant confidence that threw the British back to Europe and brought the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire to it's knees?
There is a reason I don't like organized religion. Throughout history, religion has been responsible for countless deaths. There are religions that don't exist anymore where martyrs once went willingly to their deaths in its name. They believed then, as they believe now, that their religion is the "true" religion. They envisioned themselves as the righteous versus the wrong: The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Nazi Concentration Camps, the Global Jihad. All in the name of God. I believe that in a hundred thousand years, when futuristic archaeologists are sifting through the ruins, they'll probably try to figure out our religions and our wars. It will simply be a matter of curiosity. The passion will have long died, perhaps replaced by other causes, perhaps not. Religion ultimately will morph as it has throughout time and the screaming Jihadists of today will share a page in the history books with mankind's endless supply of "righteous" warriors.
Islamic leader hails Chechen attack Says similar operation would be justified in UK: Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
Friday, September 10, 2004
The End is Nigh!
Or so al-Zawahiri wants us to believe. While the Iraq war is a mess, with funds and organizational support coming from Iran, probably Syria, non-state actors, such as ansar al-Islam, al-Qaeda and others, it is not yet lost. Afghanistan too may not look like the picture of domestic stability and bliss, but it is also a far cry from a place where the mujahid walk with impunity. This last claim by al-Zawahiri makes me wonder if he is reporting what his underlings tell him about the conflict. Since I doubt that he out inspecting fortifications and checking on troop morale, he needs people to tell him how things are faring. Just as Saddam's scientists and generals were too scared to tell him that something wasn't possible, might it be the case that al-Zawahiri is just parroting bad information that he believes to be true? Or is it just PR spin to incite fear in his enemies?
In any case, I read online from a number of sources [write to me if you're interested] about al-Qaeda having secured a fatwa that allows for the killing of between 4 and 10 million US citizens as retribution for our imputed oppression and killing of muslims around the world. As Mark Scheuer (author of Imperial Hubris) points out, al-Qaeda normally tells its enemies more or less what and when something will happen to them. Often, they precede or include within the threat a chance to convert to Islam to eliminate the chance of annihilation. They have offered that option to us already twice regarding something that is coming. Could this message be the beginning of a much larger (read WMD) assault on us or our allies? Al-Zawahiri says that an attack will come from where we least expect it.
Wal-Mart?
Another website that I found has a document posted by Suleiman al-Gheith, al-Qaeda's putative spokesman. In it, he does in fact criticize US values -- contra Sheuer and myself -- including separation of church and state, purported godlessness (does he read any political science or sociological literature?) and our decadence. I don't know how strongly that feeling is central or tangential to their movement, but the more central it is, the closer the President and his advisors come to being right about al-Qaeda's hatred for us. I don't believe that this secular values argument is as central to their mission, however, as do Bush and Co. The primary focus is US actions with which Osama and his ilk disagree, perhaps buttressed further by a belief that we are spawn of satan and should be annihilated as such.
I would really like to see a much more intelligent foreign policy come from the two campaigns regarding this problem -- and by this I mean a clear indication of success metrics, a dedication to apply ruthless covert and overt military force and a committment to change some aspects of policy that are marginal to US national security.
Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Mea Culpas, after thinking about it for a little while, Zell probably shouldn't have been a speaker in prime time at the convention. He was too angry to be a voice of hope in the future. Maybe he stirred up the party faithful in a way that I don't know, but he was less congruent with the other speeches than were Guliani et al.
In any case, I read online from a number of sources [write to me if you're interested] about al-Qaeda having secured a fatwa that allows for the killing of between 4 and 10 million US citizens as retribution for our imputed oppression and killing of muslims around the world. As Mark Scheuer (author of Imperial Hubris) points out, al-Qaeda normally tells its enemies more or less what and when something will happen to them. Often, they precede or include within the threat a chance to convert to Islam to eliminate the chance of annihilation. They have offered that option to us already twice regarding something that is coming. Could this message be the beginning of a much larger (read WMD) assault on us or our allies? Al-Zawahiri says that an attack will come from where we least expect it.
Wal-Mart?
Another website that I found has a document posted by Suleiman al-Gheith, al-Qaeda's putative spokesman. In it, he does in fact criticize US values -- contra Sheuer and myself -- including separation of church and state, purported godlessness (does he read any political science or sociological literature?) and our decadence. I don't know how strongly that feeling is central or tangential to their movement, but the more central it is, the closer the President and his advisors come to being right about al-Qaeda's hatred for us. I don't believe that this secular values argument is as central to their mission, however, as do Bush and Co. The primary focus is US actions with which Osama and his ilk disagree, perhaps buttressed further by a belief that we are spawn of satan and should be annihilated as such.
I would really like to see a much more intelligent foreign policy come from the two campaigns regarding this problem -- and by this I mean a clear indication of success metrics, a dedication to apply ruthless covert and overt military force and a committment to change some aspects of policy that are marginal to US national security.
Oh, and while I'm on the subject of Mea Culpas, after thinking about it for a little while, Zell probably shouldn't have been a speaker in prime time at the convention. He was too angry to be a voice of hope in the future. Maybe he stirred up the party faithful in a way that I don't know, but he was less congruent with the other speeches than were Guliani et al.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Memo from Osama
This memo comes from the computers taken from Kabul just as the Taliban were falling from power.
Here is Osama's plan:
Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:
(a) If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to US internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.
(b) On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union's only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration and contraction.
Thus our plan in the face of this campaign should focus on the following:
Serving a blow to the American economy, which will lead to:
(a) Further weakening of the American economy.
(b) Shaking the confidence in the American economy. This will lead investors to refrain from investing in America or participating in American companies, thus accelerating the fall of the American economy...
Conducting a media campaign to fight the enemy's publicity. The campaign should focus on the following important points:
Attempt to cause a rift between the American people and their government, by demonstrating the following to the Americans:
That the US Government will lead them into further losses of money and lives.
That the Government is sacrificing the people to serve the interests of the rich, particularly the Jews.
That the Government is leading them to the war front to protect Israel and its security.
America should withdraw from the current battle between Muslims and Jews.
This plan aims to create pressure from the American people on their Government to stop its campaign against Afghanistan, on the grounds that the campaign will cause major losses to the American people...
Note how much of this has come to pass. What do we do?
Here is Osama's plan:
Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:
(a) If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to US internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.
(b) On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union's only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration and contraction.
Thus our plan in the face of this campaign should focus on the following:
Serving a blow to the American economy, which will lead to:
(a) Further weakening of the American economy.
(b) Shaking the confidence in the American economy. This will lead investors to refrain from investing in America or participating in American companies, thus accelerating the fall of the American economy...
Conducting a media campaign to fight the enemy's publicity. The campaign should focus on the following important points:
Attempt to cause a rift between the American people and their government, by demonstrating the following to the Americans:
That the US Government will lead them into further losses of money and lives.
That the Government is sacrificing the people to serve the interests of the rich, particularly the Jews.
That the Government is leading them to the war front to protect Israel and its security.
America should withdraw from the current battle between Muslims and Jews.
This plan aims to create pressure from the American people on their Government to stop its campaign against Afghanistan, on the grounds that the campaign will cause major losses to the American people...
Note how much of this has come to pass. What do we do?
Leader of the World: Kerry?
The World 'wants Kerry as president' the BBC proclaims. Here are the results.
POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)
Norway: 74%-7%
Germany: 74%-10%
France: 64%-5%
Italy: 58%-14%
Spain: 45%-7%
UK: 47%-16%
Canada: 61%-16%
Mexico: 38%-18%
Brazil: 57%-14%
China: 52%-12%
Japan: 43%-32%
Indonesia: 57%-34%
India: 34%-33%
Philippines: 32%-57%
Nigeria: 33%-27%
Poland: 26%-31%
Thailand: 30%-33%
Source: GlobeScan Inc/University of Maryland PIPA
POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)
Norway: 74%-7%
Germany: 74%-10%
France: 64%-5%
Italy: 58%-14%
Spain: 45%-7%
UK: 47%-16%
Canada: 61%-16%
Mexico: 38%-18%
Brazil: 57%-14%
China: 52%-12%
Japan: 43%-32%
Indonesia: 57%-34%
India: 34%-33%
Philippines: 32%-57%
Nigeria: 33%-27%
Poland: 26%-31%
Thailand: 30%-33%
Source: GlobeScan Inc/University of Maryland PIPA
Middle Eastern Introspection and the Ghost of Righteousness
Yesterday, the New York Times had an article that described some editorials published in the Middle East in the wake of the Russian school massacre as sincere questionings about the role and nature of Islam in the world.
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.
One the one hand, it's about time that some of the poor, poor, pitiful me rhetoric that has been coming out of that region's papers shifts to a closer examination of how Islamic language is cloaking a political and military insurgency. On the other hand, however, the voices of a few, probably western-leaning or government influenced editorial writers represents the views of -- at best -- the region's middle and upper classes. The real problem lies in the hearts of the poor, the bored and the willing that roam the streets of Amman, Cairo, Damascus and Kabul, looking for a reason to live. Are they questioning Islam? Is their society willing to say strongly that Islam has no place in political or public life? The answer is that there is no answer to this problem for Middle Eastern governments. To oppose this insurgency on the grounds of some separation of religion and politics is bound to fail because Islam expressly inserts itself into political life. To not say anything against the militants is to give them de facto carte blanche to continue to act in the name of Islam.
It may be that the only real solution is a war for Islam from within Islam. May the Lebanese win (see picture).
Just look at how strongly feelings about righteousness have split the US over the issue of abortion. Now multiple that feeling by 1000 and raise it to the power of the 100 Years War in Europe. That's about the order of magnitude that any war across the Mulsim world for the soul of Islam would have to be to declare a true winner, with no remnant dregs scurrying about, waiting for the next round of fighting.
Their struggle (within Islam) ought not be seen as something alien to us. We wrestle with religion regularly in the courts and our own lives -- and this after more than one hundred years of historical critical method in scholarship have slowly eroded the previously sacrosant status of the written documents that form the evidentiary basis for our belief. How long will it take in the Muslim world without a historical critical method of Quranic analysis?
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.
One the one hand, it's about time that some of the poor, poor, pitiful me rhetoric that has been coming out of that region's papers shifts to a closer examination of how Islamic language is cloaking a political and military insurgency. On the other hand, however, the voices of a few, probably western-leaning or government influenced editorial writers represents the views of -- at best -- the region's middle and upper classes. The real problem lies in the hearts of the poor, the bored and the willing that roam the streets of Amman, Cairo, Damascus and Kabul, looking for a reason to live. Are they questioning Islam? Is their society willing to say strongly that Islam has no place in political or public life? The answer is that there is no answer to this problem for Middle Eastern governments. To oppose this insurgency on the grounds of some separation of religion and politics is bound to fail because Islam expressly inserts itself into political life. To not say anything against the militants is to give them de facto carte blanche to continue to act in the name of Islam.
It may be that the only real solution is a war for Islam from within Islam. May the Lebanese win (see picture).
Just look at how strongly feelings about righteousness have split the US over the issue of abortion. Now multiple that feeling by 1000 and raise it to the power of the 100 Years War in Europe. That's about the order of magnitude that any war across the Mulsim world for the soul of Islam would have to be to declare a true winner, with no remnant dregs scurrying about, waiting for the next round of fighting.
Their struggle (within Islam) ought not be seen as something alien to us. We wrestle with religion regularly in the courts and our own lives -- and this after more than one hundred years of historical critical method in scholarship have slowly eroded the previously sacrosant status of the written documents that form the evidentiary basis for our belief. How long will it take in the Muslim world without a historical critical method of Quranic analysis?
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Terrorism has a new enemy: Russia
Somehow, I don't see Russia as a nation preoccupied with world opinion. I have a feeling that America is about to appear soft in comparison.
Terrorists' video filmed inside Beslan school aired in Russia - PRAVDA.Ru
Terrorists' video filmed inside Beslan school aired in Russia - PRAVDA.Ru
Keyes Says Christ Would Not Vote For Obama
In a surprising and rare foray into Illinois politics, Jesus Christ, son of famed Lord Thy God, has made his first major partisan endorsement in centuries. Last night at a press conference in Springfield, IL, the Son of Man made his public endorsement of conservative senatorial candidate Alan Keyes while criticizing Keyes' opponent, Barack Obama.
"He who is without sin may cast the first stone, and that's exactly what I'm doing, at Obama," said the now-GOP Savior. Jesus further explained his decision to become involved, "Alan Keyes has been endorsing me for his entire adult life. His policies make sense to me as the Lord. Obama on the otherhand is like a Samaritan, but not the good kind of Samaritan, one of those filthy Samaritans that fulfill the old stereotype."
When asked at what point in the campaign He decided to get involved, Jesus replied, "When I realized that Obama was a Pharisee, not literally of course, but in that 'hey, that guy's a total Pharisee' kind of way. Besides, I could easily picture him reaching for "extra" bread at a supper, if you know what I mean."
Although he has commented in the past, Christ has not officially endorsed a political figure since the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne in 800 A.D.
According to most biblical scholars, Jesus may have been born in Bethlehem around 4 B.C. He held positions throughout the Galilee region of Israel including: carpenter, fisher of men, miracle worker, healer, and Messiah. He was sentenced to death for treason by the Roman Government, rose from death, and now resides with His Father in Heaven where he plans to stay until He "returns" at some undisclosed time in the "near future."
NBC5.com - Politics - Keyes Says Christ Would Not Vote For Obama
"He who is without sin may cast the first stone, and that's exactly what I'm doing, at Obama," said the now-GOP Savior. Jesus further explained his decision to become involved, "Alan Keyes has been endorsing me for his entire adult life. His policies make sense to me as the Lord. Obama on the otherhand is like a Samaritan, but not the good kind of Samaritan, one of those filthy Samaritans that fulfill the old stereotype."
When asked at what point in the campaign He decided to get involved, Jesus replied, "When I realized that Obama was a Pharisee, not literally of course, but in that 'hey, that guy's a total Pharisee' kind of way. Besides, I could easily picture him reaching for "extra" bread at a supper, if you know what I mean."
Although he has commented in the past, Christ has not officially endorsed a political figure since the coronation of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne in 800 A.D.
According to most biblical scholars, Jesus may have been born in Bethlehem around 4 B.C. He held positions throughout the Galilee region of Israel including: carpenter, fisher of men, miracle worker, healer, and Messiah. He was sentenced to death for treason by the Roman Government, rose from death, and now resides with His Father in Heaven where he plans to stay until He "returns" at some undisclosed time in the "near future."
NBC5.com - Politics - Keyes Says Christ Would Not Vote For Obama
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Impressionism
Thinking back on last night's convention speeches, they ranged from funny (Miller) to boring (Cheney), with Zell's speech being one of the highlights of the convention for its grandiose flourishes.
Zell's quasi-preacherish oratorical style probably has echoes of some old Georgian traditions that I'm not aware of, but it sounds interesting nonetheless. His accusations were harsh and probably exaggerated, but unintentionally the funniest speech of the convention. It wasn't the Southern part that was funny (hell, I'm Southern), but the way that a lifelong Democrat can feel so estranged from his party that he is willing to address the other side. In the Old South, didn't they hang people for less?
Anyway, Cheney was a bit boring by contrast. His speaking style reminds me of corporate Board meetings, where calm and precise cadences are spoken in terse sentence form. I didn't hear anything new from him.
I'm not going to analyze the content of the speeches any further because I'm Off to See the Wizard, who in this case is one of our major airlines on the verge of extinction. If I'm late, I may have to join the back of the unsecured creditors' line in court for a refund.
The next week's blogging may be a little light, but I'll try to post when I can.
Zell's quasi-preacherish oratorical style probably has echoes of some old Georgian traditions that I'm not aware of, but it sounds interesting nonetheless. His accusations were harsh and probably exaggerated, but unintentionally the funniest speech of the convention. It wasn't the Southern part that was funny (hell, I'm Southern), but the way that a lifelong Democrat can feel so estranged from his party that he is willing to address the other side. In the Old South, didn't they hang people for less?
Anyway, Cheney was a bit boring by contrast. His speaking style reminds me of corporate Board meetings, where calm and precise cadences are spoken in terse sentence form. I didn't hear anything new from him.
I'm not going to analyze the content of the speeches any further because I'm Off to See the Wizard, who in this case is one of our major airlines on the verge of extinction. If I'm late, I may have to join the back of the unsecured creditors' line in court for a refund.
The next week's blogging may be a little light, but I'll try to post when I can.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Corioli: An Open Letter to Nicholas Kristof
In response to Nicholas Kristof's column, "Crowning Prince George", today in the NY Times, my open response:
Mr. Kristof et al,
You may or may not remember me. More than likely, you won't. I write on occasion. I've been following you and your wife's writing since going to China in 1996, when I read your excellent book as an introduction to my wild adventure there. Today I am a Baruch School of Public Affairs MPA student, a nonprofit project leader, and . . . the founder of a new nonprofit, Shakespearean theatre company: GroundLinks.
On today's column, regarding Shakespeare, I welcome your literary discourse in the context of politics (being a political scientist). I even welcome your contemporary comparisons. However, I disagree with your raking of the President over the literary coals in the name of Shakespeare.
Coriolanus is, in my mind, one of the most complex and brilliant plays of the Bard--and also one of my favorites. Let me remind you that Coriolanus was a patriot. Despite the fact that he fights against Rome by the end, he does so only because he felt betrayed by his people, the Romans. He eschews politics: he hates the games of kowtowing to the masses. These reasons (and his mother!) are what drive him away from Rome, his beloved city-state. He was a warrior; he wanted to win. Yes, in this way, the President may be like Coriolanus (despite malapropisms to the contrary)! God-willing we will "win" in this fight for our survival! But President Bush is a politician. He is decisive and steadfast (even if you disagree with his decisions). He is a patriot (even if you disagree with the definition of such) . . . . And he would never fight for our modern Corioli: Iran, North Korea, (insert unstable state or terrorist group of choice here).
And regarding hubris, allow me to paraphrase: let him without sin cast the first stone. If we expect our "princes" to be perfect, then a fate far worse than that of Coriolanus, Hamlet, . . . or Rome itself awaits us. Such a fate might in fact befall us someday, but I would venture to say not because of our princes or our politics but because of ourselves, because of the hubris that we all innately embody and because of our collective missteps as a people disconnected from the Globe.
Respectfully, a groundling,
Jonathan Vaughn
President & Producing Director, GroundLinks Theatre Company
and
Senior Blogger, newrepublicans
http://newrepublicans.blogspot.com/
PS-Our first GroundLinks production is Halloween weekend. . . (respond if curious!).
Mr. Kristof et al,
You may or may not remember me. More than likely, you won't. I write on occasion. I've been following you and your wife's writing since going to China in 1996, when I read your excellent book as an introduction to my wild adventure there. Today I am a Baruch School of Public Affairs MPA student, a nonprofit project leader, and . . . the founder of a new nonprofit, Shakespearean theatre company: GroundLinks.
On today's column, regarding Shakespeare, I welcome your literary discourse in the context of politics (being a political scientist). I even welcome your contemporary comparisons. However, I disagree with your raking of the President over the literary coals in the name of Shakespeare.
Coriolanus is, in my mind, one of the most complex and brilliant plays of the Bard--and also one of my favorites. Let me remind you that Coriolanus was a patriot. Despite the fact that he fights against Rome by the end, he does so only because he felt betrayed by his people, the Romans. He eschews politics: he hates the games of kowtowing to the masses. These reasons (and his mother!) are what drive him away from Rome, his beloved city-state. He was a warrior; he wanted to win. Yes, in this way, the President may be like Coriolanus (despite malapropisms to the contrary)! God-willing we will "win" in this fight for our survival! But President Bush is a politician. He is decisive and steadfast (even if you disagree with his decisions). He is a patriot (even if you disagree with the definition of such) . . . . And he would never fight for our modern Corioli: Iran, North Korea, (insert unstable state or terrorist group of choice here).
And regarding hubris, allow me to paraphrase: let him without sin cast the first stone. If we expect our "princes" to be perfect, then a fate far worse than that of Coriolanus, Hamlet, . . . or Rome itself awaits us. Such a fate might in fact befall us someday, but I would venture to say not because of our princes or our politics but because of ourselves, because of the hubris that we all innately embody and because of our collective missteps as a people disconnected from the Globe.
Respectfully, a groundling,
Jonathan Vaughn
President & Producing Director, GroundLinks Theatre Company
and
Senior Blogger, newrepublicans
http://newrepublicans.blogspot.com/
PS-Our first GroundLinks production is Halloween weekend. . . (respond if curious!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
