Saturday, August 21, 2004

You's Fancypants. Awl uh ya's.


David's Medienkritik had a great post this morning about what they are calling Eurolateralism. Hee hee hee. Here are some excerpts:


What is the definition of the term multilateral? If you look at the dictionary the term is defined as: “Involving more than two nations or parties: multilateral trade agreements.” But in Germany and France, multilateral has taken on a very different meaning. To be more precise, a clear definition of what is not multilateral has emerged. If Germany and France do not approve of an action carried out by the United States, whether it is with ten, twenty, fifty or even one hundred partner countries, then that action is NOT multilateral…it IS unilateral.

This fascinating new form of Euro-centric multilateralism was on display in a current
ZDF article on the Presidential election and US-German relations entitled “Everything Different Under Kerry?” Here are two excerpts:

“The US administration under Bush has recently made more gestures towards the European allies, it has made efforts at somewhat more multilateralism.”

“…Bush has taken certain lessons away from recent times that made clearer to him than ever before the concrete costs of the unilateral path, and he really is going about adjusting his policy to new realities.”

In other words, the article claims that Bush now supposedly realizes the costs of acting without German and French approval…i.e. of acting "unilaterally." Now he his attempting to draw closer to the European allies, which is the absolute epitome of "multilateralism."

It would appear that, over the past few years, the Germans and French have appointed themselves the keepers of the holy grail of multilateralism. This would certainly explain some of their feelings of moral superiority towards Bush and the US. If Americans act against the wishes of the Franco-German axis then they can simply be written off as self-interested, unilateral, blood-for-oil hegemons. By contrast, the gallant, selfless Europeans, in their infinite wisdom and benevolence, are the inherent defenders of multilateralism and the interests of the international community. Only with their seal of approval can an action be considered truly multilateral.

But since when did one or two nations have the exclusive ability to define what is multilateral and what is not? And doesn't that represent something that is not logically possible: A monopoly on multilateralism? The quiet acceptance of this glaring paradox on the part of European journalists and politicians is a fundamental part of the current transatlantic communication problem.


What David is neglecting to understand is, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. And since Europe is functioning that means they are smart and we are stupid.

But, of course, when Fitzgerald said that he was probably only thinking about how he loved Zelda and yet, at the same time, wanted to kill her.

Kind of like how we 'murikins feel about Europe. Hey, maybe we are smart after all.




Friday, August 20, 2004

Newsflash - Dateline: Saudi Arabia
Jews Responsible For All The Evil In The World


It's in all the official government and military press in Saudi Arabia:


A journal titled "Al-Jundi Al-Muslim" (The Muslim Soldier), which is published by the Religious Affairs Department of the Saudi armed forces, published an antisemitic article in its "Know Your Enemy" section. The article was written by Ma'ashu Muhammad and was titled "The Jews in the Modern Era." The following are excerpts from the article:

'The Majority of Revolutions, Coups D'etat, and Wars … are Almost Entirely the Handiwork of the Jews'

"The majority of revolutions, coups d'etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the 'Protocols [of the Elders of Zion'], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.

"In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. They own property and gold and they control the banks and other financial institutions, which [in turn] control the economies of the powerful countries. In this way they controlled the most [influential] people in the world, in whose power it was to entangle their countries in wars that resulted in benefits only for the Jews. Among the enticements [which the Jews used] were: 1) cash incentives; 2) offering jobs; 3) the introduction of religious elements into terrorism.

"World Jewry has Established a Shadow Government Run by 300 Satans Who Call Themselves 'Elders'"

"World Jewry has established a shadow government run by 300 Satans who call themselves 'elders.' They always choose one man who is considered to be a king and to be the successor to King David and [King] Solomon. They do not reveal his name in public, and each time he dies they appoint another of the rabbis in his place. The Jewish millionaire Walter Rathenau told the German newspaper The Weiner Press [meaning the Wiener Freie Presse ] on December 25, 1909: 'There are 300 people, all of whom know one another. They have arbitrary rule over Europe's fate. They choose people to do their bidding from among those who surround them. These Jews have the means to annihilate any government that doesn't satisfy them.'"

The Jews and the Islamic Caliphate

"… Abd Al-Hamid's reign was under pressure from World Zionism, under the direction of Theodore Herzl, who came to visit him in the years 1901-1902. [Herzl] proposed that Abd Al-Hamid agrees to the immigration and settlement of the Jews in Palestine, in exchange for which he would receive large sums from the Jews, [but] Herzl found that the Sultan scorned the Jews' gold, their voracious appetite, and their insolence. Sultan Abd Al-Hamid said in this context: 'Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any serious steps in this matter. I can not relinquish a single inch of the land of Palestine, which is not my personal property … but rather the property of the Muslim nation. Let the Jews keep their millions. If the Caliphate is to come apart one day then they will be able to take Palestine for free…'

"When the Jews understood that the Sultan opposed their voracious appetites, they hastened their plot to dethrone him. They were aided by the forces of evil in the Arab homeland and in the world, who dedicated themselves to breaking off lands from [the realm of] Islam. The most important among [the forces of evil] are the Masons, the Dunmeh, [1] and the secret societies of the 'Committee for] Unity and Progress,' among whose principle members was Kemal Ataturk, the man who personally destroyed the Islamic Caliphate and deposed Sultan Abd Al-Hamid II in March, 1909…


Oh, for God's sake.

A reasonable culture ought to reject this kind of propoganda. Anyone who writes and publishes such inciteful crap ought to be summarily castigated and ostracized.

In Saudi Arabia, however, such writings are given the proud mantel of being published in the offical journal of the Armed Forces. As we have seen from earlier postings, this kind of Jew-hatred is common in the national press-corp, government dailies, national television, etc. in countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, and throughout the Middle East.

The only precedent for this kind of monolithic government ordained incitement is Nazi Germany.

There is something very evil afoot in our world.

Click here to read more at Memri.org.

A Parisian Court Weighs Whether To Ban Hate TV
And The Guardian Does A Good Deed


Thank you to Eursoc for making me aware of this BBC News article:


A top French court is due to decide on Friday whether a Lebanese-based Arabic channel should be banned in France.

The country's broadcast watchdog body wants al-Manar TV removed from satellite transmissions for allegedly airing anti-Semitic views.

The move follows a complaint by French Jewish groups over a programme entitled the Criminal History of Zionism, which they say incited hatred.

The proposed ban has drawn protests from Al-Manar and Lebanon's government.

The Higher Broadcasting Council (CSA) is seeking approval from the Council of State - France highest administrative court - to have al-Manar temporarily suspended.

The CSA says the Criminal History of Zionism - broadcast in late 2003 - quoted extensively from the discredited 1897 publication the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alluding to "Jewish ritual killings".

The channel denies the charge of anti-Semitism, saying the programme "depicted reality" and did not incite hatred.

Al-Manar Foreign Editor Ibrahim Mousawi told BBC News Online that the proposed ban result from "political pressure by the Jewish lobby".

The Beirut government has also criticised the CSA's decision.


Lebanese media quoted a letter from the foreign ministry to the French government arguing that the broadcast was a criticism of "the Zionist ideology and practices at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict", not an attack on Jews.


Now, here's an article from the Observer/Guardian which discusses the show in a little more detail:


In Berlin last weekend I saw clips from hideous films that portrayed Jews as (literally) bloodsucking murderers. In one episode 'rabbis' sliced up a Jew and poured boiling lead into his mouth because he had slept with a non-Jewish woman. In another, rabbis murdered a Christian child to use his blood to bake Passover matzos. The dialogue in the latter went like this:

Rabbi: 'Well, we have a mission from the leadership, and we must carry it out quickly.'

Young Jewish Man: 'What is it?'

Rabbi: 'Listen. We want the blood of a Christian child before Passover, for the matzos.'

The film then shows the terrified child, Joseph, being brought in to have his throat cut over a metal bowl. In the next scene the rabbi insists that another Jewish man eat some matzos.

Rabbi: 'You must eat this, if not for my sake, for the sake of God.'

Jewish man: 'Thank you.'

Rabbi: 'How is it? Tasty?'

Jewish man: 'Plain. Like all the matzos in the world.'

Rabbi: 'No. Make no mistake. This one is tastier and holier because it was kneaded with pure blood, the blood of Joseph.'

These films were horrifying and impossible to watch. But the worst thing was that they were not relics of Nazi propaganda, borrowed from a dusty Berlin archive. I wish.

No, these films were made recently in Syria, with the help of the Syrian government and were broadcast in 29 episodes last month by a Lebanese television station, Al-Manar, during Ramadan. According to a report on 11 November by the Syria Times, they are part of 'a Syrian TV series recording the criminal history of Zionism'.

The series is called Al-Shatat (diaspora) and it purports to show that the Jews have tried to dominate the world for centuries through a secret government led by the Rothschild family. Al-Shatat insists that it is presenting the truth, derived from Jewish sources such as the Torah, the Talmud, and the memoirs of Theodor Herzl.

Millions of people, not just in the Middle East but around the world, watch such anti-semitic horrors on satellite television. As Natan Scharansky, former Soviet dissident and Israeli Minister, said at the European-Israeli Dialogue in Berlin: 'The film is so awful and so normal. Children and their parents watch it at dinner day after day.' And this is the product of the 'mainstream' Arab media, not of Islamic fundamentalists.

With such inspiration, it is not surprising that anti-semitism is marching again across Europe.


I must say, I am very pleased to see the CSA of France, and the Guardian stand up to this anti-Semitism. I have written damning posts about France and the Guardian on other occasions. It's good to see that those two bodies have counterforces working within them. Let me make it clear that I have never thought that France or the Guardian are monolithic. It's just that they tolerate far more anti-Semitism than I am used to seeing in America.

Recently, America itself has been learning to tolerate more anti-Semitism in the press and, more often, on it's college campuses and that frightens me as well.

Anyway, a big thanks to the CSA of France and to the Guardian. It's a good day.

Of course, there's still the little problem of these kinds of broadcasts being completely acceptable in the Arab World.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Mahatma Gahndi Is A Sacred Cow
We Must Butcher Him


Thanks to IsraPundit for posting this damning article about Mahatma Gahndi. Here are some excerpts:


If Europe would have taken Gandhi’s advice as below, we’d all be speaking German and be part of a perfect Aryan race.

There would be no people living with disabilities or birth defects; the Roma (gypsies) would have disappeared into oblivion and there would be no homosexuality allowed. Communism and free speech would be considered crimes and there would have been no freedom of religion.

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

As far as Gandhi’s advice for Jews is concerned, if we’d have followed his practice of “passive resistance”, there would have been not even one Jew remaining in Europe:

"I am as certain...that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] adopt active non-violence. Human nature...unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."

Gandhi also advised the Jews of Europe to commit mass suicide, as our forefathers were forced to do at Masada:

"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"

Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."

It’s very lucky that Gandhi himself used passive resistance against the civilised British, because if he’d have used the same technique with the Nazis, there would be no people of Indian descent left in this world.


It's time for the world to grow up and realize that Gahndi was not a man of great vision. He was not an incarnation of God. I would not even call him a man of peace. The emotional devastation he was willing to lay on his wife gives the lie to his being a good man in private. For a person to deprive the one he supposedly loves of physical intimacy (and the emotional well-being that goes with it) because he believes he has some special relationship with the universe is an abominable sin.

Gahndi was a snake oil salesman who won a P.R. battle against British imperialism. Thank God he did. He was the right schmuck at the right time. His people owe him thanks.

However, his legacy is a burden on the whole human race. Unfortunately many naiive, but well-placed, people believe we can take Gahndian "principles" and apply them to all of reality. Gahndi's notion of applying his asinine philosophy to the fight against Hitler is not just laughable, it's arrogant to the point of megalomania. It shows he was willing to let the whole human race go down with the ship because of his own belief in his special relationship with his stupid pantheistic universe.

And to sum it up, let me pose this question:

When Gahndi says,

"the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife,"

How exactly does his philosophy, in practice, differ from Hitler's?

Le Monde Says Vichy Officers Headed Up D-Day Fight


Thanks to No Pasaran for posting this article on French Media's ability to rewrite history. It really is astounding:


Six weeks after France hosted an international celebration for the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, in which Jacques Chirac managed to hold a speech in which the words "America", "Americans", and "the United States" were not mentioned once, France hosted the commemoration of the second Allied landings in occupied France of 1944.
During
France 2's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.

During France 3's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.

During LCI's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.

The news stories on the commemorations all spoke in generic terms ("France paid homage to the soldiers who landed" in Provence in 1944; "a total of nearly 500,000 men"; "the 450,000 men who landed to liberate France").

As for the printed press, let's see… What do we have in Le Monde?

Wow, quite a lot. A full double spread with no less than five articles and two fillers.
The main article, by Yves Bordenave, is called
France honors the forgotten of the Provence landings. An article by Lilian Renard concerns the African veterans finding "a lost love" all over again. A rather surprizing article, by Nicolas Weill, concerns the fact that a French army of liberation was actually dominated by Vichy officers. (Click here to see the Le Monde article.)

Yet another, by Claudia Courtois, speaks of the Maroccan veterans' bitterness. And the two fillers concern attempts to reevaluate African veterans' pensions and the soldiers who understood orders in French, yet spoke to each other in Arabic.

Wow… that's quite impressive… In all those articles, there are only two mentions of American troops. (Not counting a paragraph mentioning the absence of President Bush.) Quite a feat, eh? But wait a minute… That's not quite true… I told you there were five articles, and in the paragraph above, and I only mentioned four. Turns out there is an article where the word "American" is mentioned throughout the text. In fact, the word keeps returning again and again. It happens to be a straight historical just-the-facts-ma'am article, replete with maps, that tells the story, day by day, hour by hour, of the Provence landings. I guess Bordenave told Le Monde's editors it would be rather difficult to pen that article without including the Yanks…

Ah, the compromises one has to make to work in the printed media…



There must be some rational explanation for this idiocy. Isn't there?

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Boogie To Baghdad - The Saddam/Osama Road Movie


The 9/11 Commission Report says Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had a working relationship, although that doesn't necessarily mean there was collaboration on 9/11 itself. FrontPageMag.com has the sccop:


In a revealing sidelight, the report quotes Richard C. Clarke — yes, the former counterterrorism chief who has been claiming Osama bin Laden had no connection with Saddam's regime.
Yet Mr. Clarke opposed a U-2 flight to track down Osama in Afghanistan because the Pakistanis would need to be apprised of it and they, in turn, might let Osama know the Americans were about to bomb him.


"Armed with that knowledge," Mr. Clarke warned, "old wily Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

Once there, warned Clarke, he would put his terrorist network at Saddam's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to track him down. It's all there on Page 134 of the commission's report. (Osama's actual meeting with one of Saddam Hussein's senior intelligence officers in late 1994 or early 1995 is mentioned earlier, on Page 61.)

If that's not enough to establish a Saddam-Osama connection, (ask) Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the September 11 Commission.

When the usual suspects in the media (the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, et al.) tried to give the commission's report the same spin Mrs. Lincoln did, Mr. Hamilton said: "There were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq going back clear to the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think there's any dispute about that."

Even the New York Times, not exactly a Republican organ, eventually caught on. ("Iraqis, seeking foes of Saudis, contacted bin Laden, file says" — New York Times, June 25.)



And yet the media allows supposedly credible people to get away with their "Bush lied" chorus over and over again.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

The Incredible Yin And Yang Mystery Of John Kerry And John Ashcroft


The soft-in-the-head one overcomes the hard-headed one and vice versa, via Instapundit and Reason Online:


This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.

But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.


As Regis Philbin would be likely to say, "Well, well, well."

The Incredible Yin And Yang Mystery Of John Kerry And John Ashcroft


The soft-in-the-head one overcomes the hard-headed one and vice versa, via Instapundit and Reason Online:


This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.

But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.


As Regis Philbin would be likely to say, "Well, well, well."

Patriotism And Dissent Defined - Definitively And In A Very Definate Manner
Such That We May Leave Behind All Undefinateness


The anonymous genius over at TheIraqWarWasWrongBlog is really doing some of the most important work on the subject of the Iraq War. Today he posted a definition of terms which goes a long way toward explaining why we are so polarized in this country:


Another ongoing update in my Terminology primers, defining terms as I we use them here on this my our blog. The following terms are hereby defined thusly.

patriotism (n.) dissent

dissent (n.) patriotism

The astute reader will have noticed that these (my) definitions of these terms as I we use them differ somewhat (slightly) from the commen dictionary usage. That is correct and it is intentional.

Remember, I am defining these terms as I we use them (for better understanding). (Of me by you).As you can see, I use the two terms patriotism and dissent essentially interchangeably. There is areason for this, which is.

Because, my Philosophy admits of no significant distinction between the two concepts.So now that you know. And we will have a better shared understanding (as, result).


I'm sure you see what I mean when I say his work is important.

A Game We Are Determined To Lose
Thoughts and Jottings On Our Collective Suicide Note



Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of this New York Post article by Ralph Peters:



Our unwillingness to target even a derelict neighborhood mosque packed with ammunition, weapons and terrorists is not only militarily foolish — it’s based upon the assumption that Muslims are so stupid that they don’t know the rules of their own religion. That’s nonsense. They know that mosques aren’t supposed to be used as bunkers. But they’re not going to shout it from the rooftops to help us out.

Were we to destroy a series of local mosques used by terrorists throughout Iraq, there would be an initial outcry — which the media would exaggerate. But it would blow over with remarkable speed. The only lasting effect would be to put the terrorists on notice that we won’t let them make the rules any longer.

Make no mistake: It’s our folly and moral cowardice that encouraged our enemies to make widespread use of mosques. We created this monster, as surely as our timidity inflated Sadr. Prime Minister Allawi may yet summon the courage lacked by President Bush (and certainly by that human weathervane, John Kerry). But if Allawi folds and lets Sadr walk again, it means our troops are merely pawns in a game we’re determined to lose. Our troops deserve better. We need to let them win.


Belmont Club has this to say about our collective suicide note:


It will eliminate the threat until the nihilism of the West creates yet another. Surely it is fair to ask, whether the Left, having taken down the poster of Che Guevara and replaced it with Osama another false idol to worship the moment he is dead. The greatest tragedy would be to find that after the last Islamist has been destroyed, and one hundred thousand illiterate men annihilated by the greatest fighting force on earth, that yet another new "destroyer" anointed by the Left is in its stead.


Goodbye Cruel World.

Hee hee hee. Just kidding.

While we're out making war on ideologies, maybe we should declare war on the Left.

Hee hee hee. Not kidding this time.

Hee hee hee. No, I was only kidding, but Dennis Prager is not:


Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.

Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.

In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.

Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:

The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.

The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.

The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty.


etc. etc. etc.

Bush Lied - Abdullah Lied - Blair Lied - Mubarak Lied
Everybody Lied


In the runup to the Iraq War George Bush and Tony Blair seemed to be convinced, and convinced most of us, that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. From National Review comes this:


"Bush lied" is still gospel for Bush critics, even though it has become such a tattered article of faith that it is near total disintegration. The faithful want to believe that President Bush made up his charges about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities in order to "mislead" the country into war. The latest shredding of this argument comes courtesy of Gen. Tommy Franks's new book, American Soldier.

Perhaps the true believers should amplify their charge to "Franks lied," since he believed exactly the same thing about Saddam as the president. Actually, to be consistent, the charge would also have to be "important Arab leaders lied" — indeed, "most everyone with some knowledge of Saddam's regime lied," in a conspiracy so vast it included war skeptics and everyone up and down the chain of command of the American military.

Franks recounts a meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in January 2003. Abdullah told Franks, "General, from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons." Perhaps Abdullah, an opponent of Saddam, wanted to bait us into invading Iraq — and so presumably "Abdullah lied."

Franks, however, heard the same thing from skeptics about the U.S. policy of toppling Saddam. Days later Franks met with Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Mubarak said: "Gen. Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops."

Mubarak's warning illustrates how Saddam's alleged possession of WMD could be taken not just as a reason for action, but as a caution against it. Even though he supported it, Franks worried that the initial U.S. strike against what was thought to be the compound where Saddam and his sons were staying would precipitate a retaliatory WMD strike. "We had been receiving," Franks writes, "increasingly urgent intelligence reporting that Republican Guard units in Baghdad had moved south to the city of Al Kut — and that they had been issued mustard gas and an unknown nerve agent." Franks put U.S. forces in Kuwait on high alert.

Ah, but perhaps the high alert was part of the ruse? If so, it was an astoundingly elaborate one. Saddam's potential use of WMDs haunted Franks during the entire military operation. In their march into Iraq, U.S. Marines discovered Iraqi chemical-biological protection suits and field-syringe injectors filled with a nerve-gas antidote. The "Marines lied?" Brig. Gen. Jeff Kimmons, Franks's intelligence director, told him that one communications intercept from a Republican Guard commander "may be the authorization order to begin using WMD." "Kimmons lied?" In the middle of this blizzard of deception was Tommy Franks. "I didn't know on April 2 when our forces would be hit by chemicals or biologicals," he writes, "but I was certain it would be soon."


The only major voice who didn't lie, apparently, was Scott Ritter.

Europe Is Building A Wall To Keep Migrants Out


Just a couple weeks after Europe led the way in condemning Israel for it's separation fence, the EU has decided they need a wall, and they are hiring and Israeli firm to build it. From WorldNetDaily.com:


Just one month after the U.N. and EU launched a furious campaign against Israel's security fence, culminating in the International Court of Justice ruling that the fence is illegal, the EU announced it's planning to build a separation fence of its own, and invited Israel to participate in the construction.

The fence is being built to separate recently added EU members Poland and Hungary from their new neighbors – Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The EU said the fence is necessary to "prevent the free movement of migrants seeking to enter" EU territory.

Israeli companies that specialize in the construction of fences and security systems will participate in tenders to build hundreds of miles of fences along the EU's new eastern border.
"It's incredible the EU has no problem building a fence just to keep illegal immigrants out, but when the Jewish State builds a security fence as a last resort for the purpose of keeping terrorists out and saving Israeli lives, we are blasted by them and the U.N.," a spokesman for Ariel Sharon told WorldNetDaily. "Makes you think, doesn't it?"



It doesn't make me think about anything I haven't already thought about Europe. As Daniel Pipes said when asked about Europe's fence:


"European hypocrisy is as rank as it is blatant, and the EU wall is not even for security reasons, just economic ones."


I've listened to numerous highly nuanced lectures from my European friends about how racist America is. Meanwhile, they neglect to take responsibility for the fact that just 60 years ago almost the entire continent went on a Jew-killing spree the likes of which had never been seen previously. And, of course, they lecture us on war, neglecting to remember that we had to pull them out of two world wars last century. And, of course, they lectured us on military spending and the nuclear arms race, neglecting to even try to understand the strategy that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. Also, neglecting to realize that the reason they don't need to spend much on military is because we do almost everything for them.

Now, they lecture about our "economic imperialism" in Iraq, neglecting to acknowledge that when France, Germany, and Russia say,

"No War For Oil,"

they mean "We want no war, so we can see our oil contracts with Saddam Hussein through to fruition."

So, no Mr. Spokesman-for-Ariel Sharon, that didn't really make me think, it's just part of a repeated cycle of confirmation.