John Kerry Won
I will not analyze the content of the first debate. I don't think debates of this nature are as much about content as they are about which candidate plays the strings of the broader consensi (sic?) better than the other.
Kerry, even when he veered into what I would call Michael Mooresque lunacy (Halliburton, soldiers without proper uniforms, etc.), still played those issues well. He did not look wild-eyed. He presented only plausible sounding ideas. He didn't say Bush went to war for Halliburton. Instead, he intimated that Halliburton has been a motivating factor in the Bush's decisions surrounding the War and it's aftermath. That sounds plausible and, really, how could Bush argue against the idea? It would be like
arguing against the accusation that one is gay. The more one protests the more one digs ones own hole, so to speak.
Similarly, with regards to the insufficient uniform assertion. It is not possible to deny Kerry's assertion that some parents of soldiers have come to him on the campaign trail and told him that they bought extra protection for their sons and daughters to wear while in Iraq. That sounds perfectly plausible. In fact, it sounds like something I would do if my kid was in Iraq. It doesn't mean that the uniform that the U.S. Armed forces provides is insufficient. It just means that there could be more that an individual could wear, if they choose, and if they are capable of carrying the extra weight.
Anyway, Bush was his usual self, seeming sometimes steadfast and self-assured, and sometimes in the grip of a petit mal seizure as he hunts for the words in the vast Texan deserts of his mind.
Kerry looked as Presidential as Bush tonight, if not more. Bush really only has his track record to prove he's more Presidential. But, a debate is won by the calm and concise articulation of one's track records and ideas, not by the track record itself. Kerry articulated well, and Bush articulated, uh, well, uh ... only half well.
Democracy Vs. Islamofascist Dictatorship
International Herald Tribune Has Trouble With The Distinction
From
HonestReporting.com:
Jonathan Power in the International Herald Tribune (9/22) compared the Iranian nuclear program to Israel's and concluded that 'It is the Arabs who should be worried by Israel's might, rather than the other way around.' Power, a foreign affairs columnist syndicated in dozens of papers worldwide, makes three main points:
1) The West applies a 'hypocritical' double standard by insisting that Iran stop its nuclear program while allowing Israel to have the bomb.
2) Power blames Israel for Iran's emerging nuclear program, asking: '[W]here is the source of the threat that makes Iran... feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel.'
3) Power claims that Israeli nukes never had deterrence value, and certainly don't today, as Israel faces no 'catastrophic' threat.
Power errs on each of his points:
1) RESPONSIBLE VS. IRRESPONSIBLE NUCLEAR PROGRAMS
Indeed, there is a double standard applied to Israeli vs. Iranian nuclear programs -- an entirely justified double standard.
Israel is a thriving democracy, where all citizens participate in government and have a voice, where even the most disenfranchised can climb the social ladder, and where injustice can be righted. Democratic nations are characterized by accountability, checks and balances, and recognition of fundamental human rights -- essential elements for responsible nuclear programs.
Iran, on the other hand, is a pure theocracy that institutionalizes dhimmitude (subjugation of non-Muslim peoples), engages in modern anti-Jewish witch hunts under the pretext of stopping 'Zionist conspiracies,' and hangs 'promiscuous' teenage girls in public squares with impunity.
Iran does not just happen to live in 'one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods,' as Power claims. Iran, along with Syria (see HR Special Report), has created this danger. The U.S. State Department recognizes that Iran has provided financial aid, arms, training camps, and safe haven to the deadliest terror groups -- Hezbollah (Iran's proxy in Lebanon), Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
And while the free world increasingly fears WMDs and 'dirty bombs' falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists (half of those surveyed in a recent AP-Ipsos poll say they 'have concerns that terrorists may be winning'), Iran maintains strong, supportive ties with those terrorists.
As a theocracy with a fundamental lack of accountability, Iran's nuclear program brings the free world's great nightmare -- WMDs falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists closer to reality.
2) ISRAEL - TO BLAME FOR IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM?
While Power cites an Israeli 'threat' as the motivation for Iran's nuclear program, in fact Israeli leaders had never challenged Tehran before that program advanced, nor did Israel ever contribute to an armed attack on Iran.
By contrast, the Iranian Mullahs have been clamoring for Israel's demise since the day they seized power in 1979. Witness the Iranians' more recent calls for the extermination of 'the Zionist Entity':
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenai explained in Jan. 2001 that 'the foundation of the Islamic regime is opposition to Israel, and the perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.'
Khamenai said in a recent sermon that 'the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.'
In Dec. 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani called the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' and declared his intention to decimate Israel, clarifying that 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'
Unfortunately, it's not just talk. Iran actively supports anti-Israel terror through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. And recall that in January 2002, Iran attempted to smuggle 50 tons of ammunition to Palestinians aboard the ship Karin A. Iran's nuclear program is clearly an extension of that aggression.
To claim, as Power does, that Iran is developing its nuclear program in response to an Israeli 'threat' is simply a fabrication of the historical record.
3) DETERRENCE AND ONGOING MORTAL THREATPower claims 'there is no evidence that Israel's nuclear weapons have deterred the Arabs from more limited wars or prevented Palestinian intifadas and suicide bombers. Nor have Israel's nuclear weapons influenced Arab attitudes toward making peace.' Power cites the 1973 Arab war against Israel and the 1991 Gulf War as cases in point.
But Gerald M. Steinberg, director of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University, indicates that over three decades
Israel's nuclear deterrent is widely credited with offsetting the asymmetries that encouraged major attacks, creating a degree of stability, and convincing some Arab leaders, including Sadat, of the need for peace.
Steinberg also credits the policy with forcing Egypt and Syria to limit their attacks in the 1973 war, and with deterring Saddam Hussein from using chemical warheads in the 1991 missile attacks against Israel (when 39 of Iraq's conventional Scud missiles actually landed in Israel).
Regarding today's threats, Power brushes them off, stating 'there is no evidence that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel.'
But as any student of the Mideast knows, the one issue that unites the Arab states -- the illegitimacy of 'the Zionist Entity' -- could at any time erupt. That eventuality must remain a cornerstone of responsible Israeli defense policy.
Praise Be To Allah, Creator of Worlds
For Showing Us How The Media Lies To Us
From
AllahPundit.com:
Here's a tip from the creator of worlds to the many new bloggers Rathergate hath wrought. Lean in close because this is important:
Whenever you see the mainstream media referring to someone as "Sheikh", you're duty bound to do a search for that person on MEMRI and LGF.
I'll show you why. Tonight in Loseweek, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball warn that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is radicalizing moderate Muslims. Moderate Muslims like "Sheik" Yusuf al-Qaradawi. To be sure, say M&M, Qaradawi isn't a moderate on every issue. For instance, he doesn't have a big problem with blowing up Jews. He's also suspected of having ties to terrorist financing networks. And yes, sure, he happens to be the "spiritual leader" of Egypt's most prominent fundamentalist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. But that doesn't mean he's not a moderate at heart:
In the days after September 11, for example, Qaradawi denounced the murders of innocent civilians and encouraged Muslims to donate blood to the victims. "Our hearts bleed" for those who died in the attacks, Qaradawi said at the time.
But in recent months, Qaradawi has become one of a growing number of Muslim clerics outside Iraq who have sided ever more forcefully with resistance fighters the Bush administration has presented as indistinguishable from the terrorists of Al Qaeda. Just last month, Qaradawi was among more than 90 leading Islamic clerics who issued a proclamation—released by the offices of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood—calling on Muslims to opposed [sic] American forces in Iraq as well as the U.S.-appointed government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, a Washington-based advocacy group, says he's not surprised by the radicalization of moderates such as Qaradawi.
Now let's see what turns up when we do our mandatory MEMRI/LGF search.
July 27, 2004: Muslim journalist Abdel Rahman al-Rashed: "When it comes to political matters, Al-Qaradhawi represents the utmost degree of extremism."
March 9, 2004: "We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America!"
June 27, 2003: Condemned the Al Qaeda bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca because "[n]ot everyone who was killed in Riyadh was American and not everyone who was killed in Casablanca was American or foreign."
Hmmm. Doesn't sound so moderate. On the other hand, these quotes all date from after the invasion of Iraq. Maybe, as Loseweek suggests, the occupation had him feeling grumpy.
Let's go back a bit further to those halcyon days before the crusade and see if his views of Americans were any rosier.
November 3, 2002: From a sermon at the Umar Bin-al-Khattab Mosque in Doha, Qatar. "O God, give us victory over your enemies, the enemies of Islam. O God, protect us from their evils, weaken them, wipe them out, destroy their power, and prevent them from committing aggression against your servants. O God, destroy the aggressor, treacherous Jews. O God, destroy the aggressor Americans. O God, destroy the fanatic pagans. O God, destroy the tyrannical Crusaders."
There's more. You can go read it for yourself at
AllahPundit.com.
Multilateralism
Now America Is Getting The Hang Of It
David Brooks wrote a scathing and satirical critique of U.N. multilateralism for the
New York Times. Here's an excerpt:
Another Triumph For the U.N.
By DAVID BROOKS Published: September 25, 2004
And so we went the multilateral route.
Confronted with the murder of 50,000 in Sudan, we eschewed all that nasty old unilateralism, all that hegemonic, imperialist, go-it-alone, neocon, empire, coalition-of-the-coerced stuff. Our response to this crisis would be so exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly that it would make John Kerry swoon and a million editorialists nod in sage approval.
And so we Americans mustered our outrage at the massacres in Darfur and went to the United Nations. And calls were issued and exhortations were made and platitudes spread like béarnaise. The great hum of diplomacy signaled that the global community was whirring into action.
Meanwhile helicopter gunships were strafing children in Darfur.
We did everything basically right. The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clearheaded, the U.N. ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress was united. And, following the strictures of international law, we had the debate that, of course, is going to be the top priority while planes are bombing villages.
We had a discussion over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance is sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide. For if it is, then the "competent organs of the United Nations" may be called in to take appropriate action, and you know how fearsome the competent organs may be when they may indeed be called.
The United States said the killing in Darfur was indeed genocide, the Europeans weren't so sure, and the Arab League said definitely not, and hairs were split and legalisms were parsed, and the debate over how many corpses you can fit on the head of a pin proceeded in stentorian tones while the mass extermination of human beings continued at a pace that may or may not rise to the level of genocide.
For people are still starving and perishing in Darfur.
Thanks to the dudes over in France (No Pasaran) for making me aware of this article, by the way.
Reason No. 2 To Vote For George W. Bush For President of the United States
From the
Persian Journal, all praises be to Allah:
Bush: Iran will not get nuclear weapon Sep 26, 2004, 17:06AFP
US President George W. Bush says "all options are on the table" for making sure Iran dismantles its nuclear program, and that Washington will never let Tehran acquire atomic weapons. "My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a three-part interview with Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor" program ...
The Bush administration has charged that oil-rich Iran does not need a civilian nuclear program for energy and that Tehran is actually seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Asked whether the United States would let Iran develop that capability, Bush replied: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."
I know. I know. You're wondering to yourself, "If that's Reason No. 2 then what's Reason No. 1?Reason No. 1 to vote for George W. Bush for President of the United States is
Kerry's ideas.
Christian Anti-Semitism?
Thanks to Jack Of Clubs for making me aware of
this report from the Institute for Religion and Democracy:
We analyzed human rights criticisms made by four mainline Protestant denominations (the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.) and two ecumenical bodies (the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches) over a period of four years (2000-2003) to determine which nations were criticized for human rights violations and why. We used the 2004 human rights assessments published by Freedom House as a benchmark for human rights in nations analyzed. A given church statement or document was considered to have criticized human rights in country X when, in the context of a discussion of human rights in country X, it passed negative judgment on specific current policies or actions of the government of X.
Results
Overall, criticisms of Israel amounted to 37 percent of the 197 human rights criticisms offered by the churches during those years, only slightly higher than the 32 percent of criticisms leveled at the United States. The remaining 31 percent of criticisms were shared by twenty other nations. For every one criticism of any other foreign nation, one criticism was made of the United States and one of Israel. Nearly all churches demonstrated this focus on the United States and Israel in their legislative actions, their statements, their news sources, or all three.
As a result, nearly three out of four human rights criticisms were made of nations designated as free (mostly the United States and Israel) by the Freedom House assessments. Those rated not free totaled 19 percent of criticisms, while partly free nations totalled only 8 percent of criticisms. Of the fifteen worst human rights offenders in the world, only five were criticized by the churches during the four year period studied.
Regions like the Middle East (apart from Israel) and Central Asia (former Soviet republics) were the most notable areas ignored by the churches in their human rights advocacy. Partly free nations, where church influence might be most effective in widening the limited civic space already open to indigenous Christians and other citizens, received the least attention.
Conclusions
The mainline churches are not adequately addressing the wide range of human rights abuses taking place in the world. Denominations are focusing on the United States and Israel as the primary perpetrators of human rights violations. Great attention to the United States may be expected from churches that find their homes there. But the dramatic focus on Israel as opposed to many more repressive regimes, including other U.S. allies known for human rights abuses (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt), must be challenged.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the churches made the mistake of supporting oppressive Soviet-sponsored liberation movements around the world. They largely ignored human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, instead focusing on U.S. policy as the primary source of abuse. It appears that mainline denominations may be making the same mistake today with the Arab and Muslim worlds, ignoring many of the most serious abuses while apparently laying heavy blame upon the United States and Israel not only for their own lesser abuses, but also for the abuses of others. . . .
Dare I call this anti-Semitism? Well, yeah, what the heck.
I have to acknowledge that the mainline churches are merely following, like sheep, behind the rest of the world. I mean I don't think they would come up with this all on their own. I wouldn't accuse them of that. No, they follow the lead of the U.N., and Europe, and the Islamofascists, just like all the other anti-Semites. It's just the tide of world opinion.
Far be it from me to accuse mainline church organizations of thinking for themselves.
What Would Jesus Do?
Clear out the temple? Hmm.
Saudi TV Does Man-On-The-Street Interviews
What Do You Think Of The Jews?
Praise be to Allah for making me aware of
this, from Memri.org:
Interviewer: "Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew?"
"Allah's wrath is upon them, as the Koran says. Allah's wrath is upon them and they all stray from the path of righteousness. They are the filthiest people on the face of this earth because they care only about themselves - not the Christians, not the Muslims, nor any other religion.
"The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… There is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet.
Uh, wow. The guy came up with that right off this top of his head. I mean the dude was ready.
Go, read the rest. There is much venomous quoting of the Koran and absolute dogmatic self-assuredness. It's a stunning display of hateful pyrotechnics.
There's Something Strange And "Suttle" Going On Over At
The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog
You know, I ask IraqWarWrong a simple question; "Am I a Neo-con", and he goes off on some ridiculous rant, accusing me of Freudian slips, and any other hippy-dippy effluvia that burbles to top of his psilocybin-laden brain.
And then he decides he has to go and pseudo-analize me. Whoops, I meant psychoanalyze. Jeez, that's disgusting, what a mess. Anyway, what was I saying? Oh yeah, well.
Listen, the only reason I asked IraqWarWrong if he thought I was a Neocon is because I've noticed an ever so "suttle" trend developing over there at
his blog. It seems that he sometimes uses the word Neocon as a synonym for Jew. Like when he wished a happy Rosh Hashanah to all his Neocon friends. Hmm.
I'd just like to know what exactly he means by that.
Does he mean that all Jews are Neocons, and all Neocons are Jews? And if that's what he means, then what's up with this recent
Clash Blogging post :
I think the [NeoCons] got a weather machine
I think they're planning a takeover scheme
Doin' a good job on our countryside
They want to be our friends, but it's an obvious lie
They buried [Fallujah] and they drowned [Najaf]
Sometimes I wonder if I'll see the next day
I know the [NeoCons] are behind this shit
No ones goin' to know it until it's too late
Takeover they're taking over
How long till they get everyone?
Takeover they're taking over
How can we be so dumb?
They asked us for our help to rip [Saddam's Iraq] down
They want to rule every city want to rule every town
Do I detect a brand new form of anti-Semitism here? A kind of parabolic prejudice.
Very dangerous. Very dangerous indeed.
Hitler 2004
It's fashionable to call President Bush "Hitler" and to imply that the U.S. and Israel are like Nazi Germany. But, do you want to see what Hitler Circa 2004 really looks like?
Click
here, then scroll down about a third of the page and click on the word "Sheikh".
That's from official Palestinian State TV.
Cat Stevens Ride On The Peace Train
From
The National Post:
TORONTO - Yusuf Islam, the British singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, was the guest of honour at a Toronto fundraising dinner hosted by an organization that has since been identified by the Canadian government as a "front" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
In a videotape of the 1998 event obtained by the National Post, Mr. Islam describes Israel as a "so-called new society" created by a "so-called religion" and urges the audience to donate to the Jerusalem Fund for Human Services to "lessen the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Palestine and the Holy Land."
Another peaceful Jihadi.
Islamic Writers Acknowledge What The Western Media Seems Incapable Of Acknowledging
From
Front Page Magazine:
... while Islamic terrorists intimidate Western Press agencies into not using the T-word and Arab and Muslim lobbies in North America agitate racism accusations at those journalists and media enterprises objective enough to call a cat a cat, a growing number of Arab journalists and intellectuals are not only calling Islamic terrorism by its name, but are courageously assessing its “root causes.” And far from shying away from the use of the T-word in connection with Islam, they go as far as explaining that Islamist terrorism is a result of the Islamic culture’s failures in the modern age.
Here are a few telling examples of the honesty which these leading Arab journalists use in taking a long, hard look at their societies without tip-toeing around semantics:
* In the aftermath of the Beslan tragedy, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, former editor of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote under the headline “The Painful Truth is that All of the Terrorists are Muslims” that “Islam has suffered an injustice at the hands of the new Muslims. We will only be able to clear our reputation once we have admitted the clear and shameful fact that most of the terrorist acts in the world today are carried out by Muslims.” (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, September 4, 2004)
* Under the title “Butchers in the Name of Allah,” Khaled Hamad Al-Suleiman wrote in the Saudi government daily Okaz: “The propagandists of Jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam, while the enemies of Islam did not succeed in doing this [even] in the course of hundreds of years. They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people.” (Okaz, September 5, 2004)
* More recently yet, Syrian scholar Mundir Badr Haloum wrote in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir: “Islam is in the names of all of the organizations that decapitate using knives, all the while saying the Fatiha [the first chapter of the Koran, said as a prayer] before the slaughter (...) Indeed, we as Muslims produce terrorism, succor it, and praise it. We condemn it only when forced to. Motivated by considerations of power, interests, and diplomacy, we wear a pained expression on our faces but in our hearts we rejoice at the brilliant success - a large number of casualties.”
* Journalist and former Kuwaiti communications minister Dr. Sa'ad bin Tefla said on Jordanian television: “Slaughter, destructive abuse, anarchy, and bloodshed in no way resemble Jihad according to Shari'a and resistance. These are anarchy and terrorism [and not Jihad ], and they are indications of frustration and of a culture of collective suicide reminiscent of whales (...) I maintain that we are all responsible for this culture, and that Zionism and imperialism have nothing to do with it (...) I maintain that there is, unfortunately, a culture of violence that existed before the Americans came to Iraq and the Gulf, even before the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and before the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.”
* Columnist Bater Wardam, wrote in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour that “It is always easy to flee to illusions and to place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists, and on American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case and that those who murder innocent civilians in Iraq after having kidnapped them, those who turned civilian airplanes into destructive bombs, those who exploded trains crowded with innocent civilians and those who fired on children in a school in Ossetia - they came from our midst. They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils, and call for the defense of Islamic causes.” (Al-Dustour, September 5, 2004)
It's nice to see an Arab writer, living and writing in the Arab world, to acknowledge what our Western has been incapable of acknowledging; that the Beslan Massacre was perpetrated by Arab Muslims.
A Must-Read Little Green Footballs Post On French Idiocy
I don't have anything to add to Charles' points on this one, so I will merely say,
Please click
here.
Islamic Terrorism? "It's The Jew's Fault," Say the Saudi's
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this, from the
Jerusalem Post:
Saudi Arabia on Monday announced it would host an international conference on combating terrorism, but warned that peace and security in the Middle East will fail if Israel holds on to policies "totally incompatible with the fundamental principles of the peace process."
Saudi Arabia's "strategy of pre-emptive actions to forestal criminal acts has been successful in the fight against this vile epidemic," Nizar Obaid Madani, Saudi Arabia's deputy foreign minister told world leaders and diplomats at the U.N. General Assembly's ministerial meeting.
While denouncing terrorism, Madani said terrorists' actions should not be used as a pretext for linking Islam with terror. (Editorial comment: Okey doke Nizar)
Madani said that the Saudi government will host the international conference to combat terrorism, from Feb. 5-8. It was unclear exactly which countries were invited or if any had said they would attend.
The aim of the conference is to "exchange information and experience in the field of combating terrorism" and to foster cooperation in the fight against "this universal threat."
But Madani, in language echoed by Arab countries and many others, said that mounting violence and extremism in the Middle East "are largely due to the Israel government's pursuit of policies that are totally incompatible with the fundamental principles of the peace process."
George Bush - Standup Guy
From
Reuter's:
The first presidential debate on Thursday in Coral Gables, Fla. will focus on foreign affairs and may be pivotal to the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.
At an Ohio campaign event, Bush referred to his practice sessions for the debate, which he has been holding at his Texas ranch over the weekend.
"It's been a little tough to prepare because (Kerry) keeps changing positions on the war on the terror," he joked.
"He voted for the use of force in Iraq and then didn't vote to fund the troops," Bush said. "He complained that we're not spending enough money to help in reconstruction in Iraq and now he's saying we're spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq and now he calls it the wrong war."
"He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself."
Boy, I'll tell ya, George Bush don't get no respect.
John Kerry Channeling Jim Morrison
For months now John Kerry's elevated public-speaking voice has been ringing in my head, and I keep thinking, "I know that voice."
Well, here it is.
Video from John Kerry's convention speech. Listen to just a bit of it, and then go
here and click on the audio for the poem
American Night.
John Kerry is channeling Jim Morrison. It's really magical and mystical, isn't it?
It shouldn't surprise considering his
Apocalypse Now fixation.
Can God Use Madonna?
Thanks to Jack, over at Jack of Clubs for making me aware of
this Madonna story:
Madonna's Flight to Egypt Cancelled
From al Bawaba:
Egyptian Parliament members have submitted an order to Government demanding that American singer Madonna be prohibited from entering Egyptian soil. Parliament members also included a number of other international singers on their list of people forbidden from entering Egypt and called on all their embassies abroad to not grant any of them visas into Egypt or be allowed to shoot any of their music videos on Egyptian soil.
The demand came after Madonna announced that she will celebrate the Jewish New Years in Israel and that she had converted to Judaism....
Then, Jack comments:
Nothing terribly new here. We already knew that you couldn't enter Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE or Yemen with an Israeli-stamped passport. Now Egypt jumps on the band wagon (at least for high-profile jews). Big surprise.
It might not be a big surprise to many of us, but it should come as a moral shock to our souls that there are entire countries, here in the 21st century, who are hanging a sign on their front door that says,
NO JEWS ALLOWED
I've always disliked Madonna's courting of controversial subject matter for the sake of publicity. It seems to me that Madonna has never really cared about the issues on which she speaks, but instead merely uses them like pawns in her game of world media domination.
Finally now, I can see a use for Madonna. I would imagine she's angry and disgusted by this situation. I'm guessing that maybe, even though Jack isn't surprised by the reality on the ground in the Arab world, Madonna might be almost wholly unaware of what's going on. Madonna probably thinks the Burkhas is a marvellous fashion statement.
Now that Madonna is a Jew, or whatever ever she is, she might recognize that this puts her in a real line of fire for the first time in her blessed life. All these years Madonna has ground her hips in protest against the oppression of women and minorities here in the United States, she's done so in complete freedom, with fabulous wealth and accolades for her efforts. In other parts of the world, Madonna would be showered with stones for her behavior, not riches.
Maybe this Jew thing will finally bring it home to her and her fame and fortune can be used by God to do what a thousand screaming blogger and the ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Holocaust Museum, etc. have not been able to do. That is, make people aware of the plain fact that the Arab world is possesed by the terrible evil of anti-Semitism and the situation is frightening.
Why Bill Clinton Was A Great President
A friend of mine, who reads my blog, wrote to me to take issue with my assertion that Bill Clinton was the greatest Peace-time President in the history of the United States. First off, let me say, I'm happy I have a friend who has read my blog and remained a friend. That would not be the case with most of my friends. Since 9/11, I have a new way of looking at world events and, unfortunatley, I've lost friends because of it.
Besides that, I can't say I blame my friend for taking issue with the assertion that Clinton was "the best Peace-time President ever." Let me clarify. It's actually absurd for me to make such an assertion considering my understanding of American history really only goes back to World War I with a little Civil War and American Revolution thown in. So, if there was a better Peace-time President before World War I, I wouldn't have any idea. Besides that, as my friend points out here, the idea seems absurd on it's face anyway:
I gotta say, I don't know if I would say Clinton was
the best peace time president ever. I would have to
go back to my history books to find a better one, but
what I think of Clinton is this...I can't really think
of anything he DID. He HAPPENED to be sitting pres.
when the internet, telecom, and, well, the stock market in
general, went skyrocketing upward, creating a vast
amount of wealth for the country. But, as in pool,
you gotta call your shot.
He needs to thank the Bill
Gates' of the country for that. I will give him
credit for reappointing Greenspan when he became
pres., but that's about it for that. Also, if Clinton
is going to take credit for such prosperity, why is he
not taking credit for the crash? That too happened on
his watch.
I just wish the record would show that he
was either responsible for both, or neither.
Especially since with an economy of our size, you
really won't see the affect of your policies until
late in your first term, or early second term.
Well, my friend, I believe you are correct. Bill Clinton was responsible for the Stock Market crash as well as the expanding economy. They both happened well into his Presidency and were the results of his policies. In addition, the Budget surplus was the result of his policies, as well as the fact that that Budget surplus has gone the other way under Bush. That it
has gone the other post-Clinton is the result of Clinton's policies themselves, as well as 9/11 and George Bush's policy of Tax Cuts during Wartime.
But, while I believe the economy is a positive part of Clinton's legacy (overall the Economy, including jobs, stock market, GDP, and budget, were in a much better place, even post stock market crash and post 9/11) I do not make the assertion that Clinton was a great Peacetime President because of the economy.
Here is a portion of a post from June, wherein I explain my reasons for why I believe Clinton was a great President.
Charles Krauthammer has written:
What appalled me then (about Clinton as well as his auto-biography), is the smallness of a man who granted equal valence to his own indulgences on the one hand and to the fate of nations on the other. It is the smallness that disturbs. It is that smallness that history will remember.
I partially agree with Krauthammer. However, the smallness is not the moral failing many of his critics claim. Clinton's vision was as large as the time required.
George Bush, whom I also like as a President came into office with a small vision. I recall the Presidential Debates of 2000 and the endless tedium about Prescription Drugs. I recall George Bush stating repeatedly that he was not into "nation-building." George Bush's vision grew because of Sept. 11th. In my opinion, George Bush has grown into a possibly great President on the order of magnitude of Reagan and Roosevelt. However, it remains to be seen.
I will not claim that Clinton would have grown as Bush did when challenged. We just don't know. Truthfully, I doubt it. However, I will claim this. Clinton just might be the greatest President we've ever had who was not challenged by a major event or set of events.
His legacy will lie in NAFTA, and the economy, for which Krauthammer rightly gives him the credit he deserves. However, there are two other larger, but subtle, things for which Clinton commonly does not get the credit he deserves. One Krauthammer mentions, but does not truly acknowledge. That is welfare reform.
Krauthammer comments that Clinton "signed" the welfare reform bill. You will often hear conservatives make the claim that Clinton did not want to sign the bill. In fact, if I am not mistaken, he did not sign it the first two times it was presented to him.
Now, I, obviously, am not a historian. In fact, I am a bit of a goofball. But, I do have a pretty decent memory. And, one thing I remember (but am unable to find on Google) is that, in 1992, Clinton gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine wherein he outlined his plans for Welfare Reform, including an idea he called "workfare" which meant that people would be exected to contribute something in return for the "hand-up" they were being given. The bill that Clinton eventually signed was almost identical to what he outlined in the interview.
It is my opinion, based upon my recollection of the Rolling Stone Interview, that, when Clinton did not initially sign the Welfare bill, he was playing the fox with Congress. Clinton knew that Congress would want to pass something even more stringent than what he wanted so he negotiated by offering something less stringent than he wanted. In the end, he got what he wanted.That's a pretty darn good President, even if it isn't huge vision.
I believe it is true that only under a Clinton Presidency could such a Welfare Reform bill been enacted. And that is because of the other, more important, legacy of the Bill Clinton Presidency. And this part of his legacy will probably not be recognized for some years to come, because it had nothing to do with policy, but instead it had to do with his personality, and his vision, and how they fit, and shaped, the zeitgeist of our nation.
Bill Clinton was the first American President who truly believed that all people who are citizens of America were truly equal human beings, whether they were black, brown, yellow, or white.
Clinton did have an unspoken equality intiative. His appointments to his cabinent included blacks, Hispanic, Jews, etc. However, that would have appeared to be bowing to the politically-correct era if it had not been for the fact that Clinton clearly looked comfortable with all these different people (Oops, I said "these people"). He actually liked them (oops, there I go again), not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character.
While Clinton's equality initiative did not have a direct effect on public policy, the power of his initiative can not be overstated. However rarely it is acknowledged.
Similarly, Ronald Reagan had a powerful impact on the attitude of the country. Reagan gave us hope, where there had been malaise. Reagan got people believing in the American Dream again. Just as with Clinton, this was not a matter of policy, but a matter of his personality and his vision.
Why is it that commentaries on Reagan always acknowledge this aspect of his Presidency, yet Clinton's impact of racial equality is not acknoledged?
I think there are several reasons. One, is that the preponderence of people, who are white, believed that they, as a people, had already left racism behind. However, feeling "uncomfortable" with whole groups of people because of their skin color effects the way one treats those groups of people. It effects decisions of employment and marriage and friendship. That amounts to racism in effect, if not intention.
Another reason Clinton's Equality Initiative is not acknowledged is, I believe, a residual momentum of the trivialization and hatred of Clinton which was fomented during his Presidency. To put it mildly, Clinton got a lot of bad press. Almost as if there had been a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down his Presidency. I recall Rush Limbaugh running commercials for a video explaining Clinton's closeness to the mysterious deaths of dozens of people. I recall Rush Limbaugh giving lip service to such ideas. That's some mainstream hatred.
I think it needs to be acknowledged that George Bush is getting similar treatment now, with all the "Bush is Hitler" propoganda. Almost as if there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to bring down his Presidency.
Bill Clinton actually moved two mountains during his Presidency. The Welfare Reform Act, with it's stipulation that one could only collect welfare for two years, reversed the momentum of increasing benefits and changed the way Americans view welfare. Welfare is a "handup, not a handout." In addition, Clinton, with his openess and yes, "feeling", helped Americans redefine the way we view and treat people of color.
America is a much better place because of Bill Clinton's Presidency.
The French Retreat
Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of this
article from the International Herald Tribune:
In the latest sign that France, the most vocal opponent of the American-led campaign in Iraq, is not immune to the wrath of Islamic extremists in the war-torn country, two major French television networks pulled their crews out of Baghdad this week for fear of seeing them taken hostage.
Within two days of each other, TF1, France's main commercial TV network, and the state-financed rival France 3 announced that teams returning from Iraq would not be replaced until the security situation improved.
More than 100 foreigners have been abducted since April in what appears to be a deepening campaign aimed at civilians. Most hostages have been released, but about 30 have been killed.
French news media companies are not the only ones to flee Iraq.
Germany's biggest television network, ARD, said Friday it also planned to bring home its two correspondents in Iraq after the Foreign Ministry warned that German journalists could be at risk. Like France, Germany opposed the war in Iraq.
Separately, the Spanish government has urged television stations and newspapers to pull out their correspondents, the newspaper El Mundo said on its Web site. The EFE news agency of Spain has withdrawn its only Spanish correspondent from Baghdad.
According to Catherine Nayl, deputy news editor at TF1, being French no longer protects journalists, who have increasingly become "pawns" in a conflict devoid of any rules.
"Until three or four months ago, our journalists still felt relatively safe, being French," Nayl said. "But a French passport doesn't protect you anymore."
At France 3, Ulysee Gosset, news director, agreed.
"French nationals are not out of harm's way," Gosset told the French radio station Europe 1 on Friday. "France is not an enemy state for the Iraqis, but it's a Western country, and all Westerners, including journalists, are now potential targets."
Welcome to our world France. I know it's hard for you understand, but America did nothing to acquire an enemy like Bin Laden. He's mad at us because our troops were in Saudi Arabia. Is that rational?
And, of course, the Germans and the Spanish are retreating as well.
I have to admit, I am laughing
Musings On A Great William Faulkner Quote
Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of this great quote from William Faulkner:
A man's moral conscience is the curse he had to accept from the gods in order to gain from them the right to dream.
Obviously, Faulkner's perspective does not lie within the traditional Christian context. As Christians we would hardly call our moral conscience a curse. However, it is true that our moral conscience, and the feelings of elation and shame which emanate from our conscience, are inextricably linked to our ability to dream, and ultimately, to turn our dreams into reality.
God gave us a free will which, while limited by the dimensions of space and time, is not unlike his own. We can dream of something one day and set out on the path of turning that dream into a reality. History has proven one thing very clearly and profoundly; man can do almost anything he sets his mind to.
That being said, if I may be allowed to go off on a tangent, there are two things I can think of which humans have not been able to do:
1) Get something for nothing (no alchemy or perpetual motion machines)
2) Impede on others free will to choose where they will find meaning. One person can not make another love another person, and one can't make another person become a good person. Those are decisions that the individual can only make for himself.
Interestingly enough, God seems to have placed that second limitation on himself with regards to his dealings with us. He does not force us to love Him, nor does he try to force us to be good.
BBC Ambivalent Over The Destruction Of The West
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this
article, entitled "Arabs Are Ambivalent Over Hostage Crisis":
The Arab media has presented the latest hostage crisis in Iraq as just another element in the bloody and chaotic pattern of violence in the country.
The issue of foreign hostages in Iraq was examined this week on the most heated discussion programme on the Middle East's most-watched television station, al-Jazeera.
In the programme The Opposite Direction a fiercely anti-American political analyst, Talat Rumayh, faced off against an Iraqi politician, Karim Badr.
In the Arab media the plight of Iraqis and Palestinians overshadows that of the hostages Mr. Rumayh claimed that the kidnappers were Iraqi resistance fighters and compared the number of their victims to the thousands of Iraqis, who had been killed:
"Two thousand people have been killed since the beginning of the attack on Falluja, which was dismissed in one report, one line or just a couple of words... while we keep hearing about the hostages. It's the hostages and the terrorists, always the terrorists," he said.
Karim Badr responded by saying all Iraq was disgraced by the beheadings.
"We have to prove our humanity. I am addressing my brethren in Iraq: These are masked creatures that resemble humans, who I am certain are uglier than their deeds," he said.
"Is the killing of people and exploding cars in the streets an act of resistance? Is the kidnapping and murder of people in this manner an act of resistance? I am certain they do not represent the Iraqi conscience in any way at all."
Viewers were unmoved. In a phone poll 93% supported the kidnappings.
It seems to be hard for BBC to keep perspective on the situation. Those 2000 people who died in Fallujah were Islamists bent on creating a government by and for Sharia, not by and for the people.
But, the most disgraceful thing about this BBC article is that it's headline says "Arabs are ambivalent," but then it's actual contents show that 93% support the taking of hostages.
That doesn't sound like
ambivalence to me.
The BBC is ambivalent about facing facts. The BBC is ambivalent about who should the war, apparently.
Ex-Presidents Weigh In On Iraq War
Well, now all the ex-Presidents have weighed in with their opinion on the Iraq War. George H.W. Bush , yes. Bill Clinton, yes.
Jimmy Carter:
As former President Jimmy Carter walked into the Woodruff P.E. Center Wednesday evening, Emory students and faculty gave him a standing ovation.
During his speech, Carter called the war in Iraq one of the most “gross and damaging mistakes our nation ever made.”
Carter said that if he could change one thing about America’s current foreign policy, “it would be to have someone in charge of it instead of George W. Bush.”
In my opinion, George H.W. Bush was a fair to weak President. Bill Clinton was the best peace-time President in the history of the United States, not counting the first twenty years of America history. And Jimmy Carter? Well, he was perhaps the worst President in the History of Presidents. If Liberace was somehow clone-crossed with Caesar Nero and was born a schmaltzy violinist, that would be Jimmy Carter fiddling while America was burning. Do you get me?
When you consider that the takeover of Iran by fundamentalist Muslims happened under Jimmy Carter's watch, I would say that a case can be made for the idea that it was Jimmy Carter who singlehandedly got us into our current predicament.
So, to sum up: the average President, G.H.W. Bush, says, good idea. The great President, Clinton, says, good idea. The worst President ever says, bad idea.
And John Kerry says all of the above and more. Does that tell you anything?
Oh wait, you say I forgot about Gerald Ford? He's still alive. Yeah, I know. But, really, can you blame me for forgetting about him? Was he really a President?
By the way, Praise be to
Allah.
More Anti-Semitism On The BBC
Melanie Phillips
notes yet another example of anti-Semitism on BBC Television:
For the second week running, BBC Radio Four's Any Questions last weekend reinforced the sense that decency in this country is simply dying. Dr David Starkey, the noted historian, wit and larger-than-life personality who made his name and his fortune as 'the rudest man in Britain', suddenly came out with a piece of the ripest and most ancient prejudice. Musing about the war in Iraq, he said:
'The action in Iraq was driven by one thing, and it was a very understandable desire for vengeance. Americans again are a little bit like Jews (murmur from audience)...no, let me please, I'm being really serious, I'm not calling names but calling for us to understand a different mindset. Here (presumably, he means in England) the notion of vengeance is on the whole regarded as deplorable... In Judaism, Islam and American Protestantism vengeance is a wholly acceptable notion (audience murmur) ... that's the truth, and after 9/11 they wanted to strike back. And that is it. End of story'.
Well I don't know enough about the theology of Islam or American Protestantism, but I doubt whether either regards vengeance as 'wholly acceptable'. What I do know is that in Judaism this is the very opposite of the truth. It is an ancient prejudice that the Jews 'do vengeance', based on an ignorant misunderstanding of the Biblical injunction to take 'an eye for an eye'. In fact, for Jews this doctrine is a limitation on any action that is taken after an offence is committed to ensure that any response is no more than proportionate. In other words, it is all about fairness and justice, not vengeance at all. The claim that for Jews 'vengeance is wholly acceptable' is totally untrue and a racial smear.
This idea that the Jews are vengeful is, in fact, one of the most deeply entrenched, vicious prejudices about the Jews -- and one that currently surfaces again and again in the language used to describe Israel's defence against terror. In other words, whenever the Jews try to prevent themselves from being murdered, this is presented not as self defence but vengeance. When the Americans tried to prevent another 9/11, this was not self-defence but vengeance. (Starkey's inclusion of Islam appeared to be a lame attempt to camouflage the outrageous prejudice of his opinion).
Clearly, in his world view there are certain categories of people who are not entitled to defend themselves against mass murder by removing from the scene those who would perpetrate it. They are instead, it seems, people apart, incapable of the instinct that Starkey himself would presumably have if threatened with annihilation to try to prevent it happening. And note also how subliminally he implied that the Americans were only doing the Jews' bidding in this display of primitive and uncivilised instinct.
So let us not call names but try to understand a different mindset -- the dynamics of ugly prejudice, which reveal that in the most educated of company barbarism may be masked by the thinnest of polished veneers.
American Protestantism
is like Judaism in one sense; that is, neither have a central clearinghouse for ideas. The Catholic Church has the Vatican. But, neither American Protestantism, nor Judaism, have such an institution. Instead both have a group of individual denominations with little agreement between them.
I know of not a single denomination that has come out with a statement supporting the War. On the other hand, I know of one denomination who, as an institution, disagrees with the war; the Quakers. In addition, the Presbyterian Church has come out with an official statement against Israel's wall, which to my mind is a statement regarding the War, in that Israel is dealing with the same enemy (Islamofascism) as is the U.S.
On behalf of "American Protestantism" I will say that the war is never discussed in the church I attend. There has never been an attempt by the leaders of my church to justify the war on Biblical grounds. I am affiliated with three other churches, with whom I do business, and whose services I therefore attend on a semi-regular basis. The most that has ever been said about the "War" at any one of those three churches was to pose the vague question,
"How can we have War when the Kingdom of God is supposed to be peaceful?"
There was no attempt to justify the War in the ensuing message. Instead there was merely an attempt to reconcile the fractured emotional/psychological reality of living simultaneously "in the Kingdom" (meaning having the Holy Spirit within so that one is part of God's peaceful Kingdom) and living in a world at War. The message dealt with emotions, not political justification.
One of the four churches I attend is clearly Pacifisit in philosophy. What's more, the missionaries whose work in China I support, are against the War in Iraq, and I believe are against war in general.
George Bush, contrary to popular opinion, has never cited God or scripture to justify the War on Terror.
The closest George Bush did come to citing scripture as a principle in the War on Terror was when he made the statement shortly after 9/11 that, "Those who are not for us are against us." It is my opinion, that it is this statement which is the real "stone in the shoe" for Europeans and others who are in disagreement with American policy.
The statement, to be sure, somewhat vague and threatening. However, it is my opinion that Europeans have focused on this statement as a reason to hate America and demonize George Bush. This is childish behavior on the part of Europeans. Adults judge people by their actions. Children get deluded and entranced by words.
What did George Bush mean by that statement? If you want to understand the meaning, look at America's behavior.
Certainly, the statement has not turned into policy in any extreme sense. France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, to name but a few are clearly not "for us." Yet, America continues to work with all these coutries in much the same way as pre-9/11.
There is another lesser known statement by Jesus, that goes like this:
"He that is not against us, is for us."
Luke 9:50
If one looks at Geore Bush's/American behavior since 9/11 this seems to be a more accurate description of our policy.
The only area in which American policy has strictly conformed to the "not for us, is against us" maxim is in our dealings with "the terrorists and those who harbor them."
Back to the original point of this post, I do agree with Melanie Phillips that there is anti-Semitism in David Starkey's statement that "vengeance is a wholly acceptable" notion to "Jews." However, I think we've got to give the guy a little credit for at least trying to think.
It would be better is David Starkey actually broke down the different denominations of Judaism and learned what they have to say about War and vengeance. Even better, would be if Starkey understood that "Jews", as a group, actually intend to vote for Kerry by a 73-27% margin. It would also be instructive for David Starkey to know that just as there are many "Jews" who are neo-conservative, there are also a large number of Jews involved in anti-War organizations.
If Starkey would really break down his statement that "In Judaism ... vengeance is a wholly acceptable notion", I believe he would necessarily fall into a Clintonian sputter and begin questioning what the meaning of "is" is.
It is truly impossible to look at any one issue and say, "here is the Jewish position on this issue." If anything, Jews tend to be more liberal, and therefore more on the side of people who dislike Bush.
But what fun would anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism be without conflation?
Bushitler Vs. Kofi Annan
Victor David Hanson has become one of my heroes in the past few years. Here, is
this article from Opinion Journal, he uses his gifts to sum up our current situation in the world:
These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.
Despite the seemingly disparate geography of these continued attacks, we are always familiar with the similar spooky signature: civilians dismembered by the suicide belt, car bomb, improvised explosive device and executioner's blade. Then follows the characteristically pathetic communiqué or loopy fatwa aired on al-Jazeera, evoking everything from the injustice of the Reconquista to some mythical grievance about Crusaders in the holy shrines. Gender equity in the radical Islamic world is now defined by the expendable female suicide bomber's slaughter of Westerners.
After setting up the situation he then lists six points with which President should have stunned the world with his liberalism over the past three years (Numbering system is mine):
1) In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck.
2) For years, gay-rights activists and relief workers in Africa have complained that the U.S. did not take the lead in combating the world-wide spread of AIDS. President Bush now offers to spearhead the rescue of the world's infected, with $15 billion in American help in hopes that the world's financial powers--perhaps Japan, China and the European Union--might match or trump that commitment.
3) Nongovernmental organizations clamor about the unfairness of world trade that left the former Third World with massive debts run up by crooked dictators and complicit Western profiteers. President Bush now talks not of extending further loans to service their spiraling interest payments, but rather of outright grants to clean the slate and thus offer the impoverished a new start.
4) International women's rights groups vie for the world's attention to stop the shameful international trafficking in women and children, whether as chattel or sexual slaves. The president now pledges to organize enforcement to stop both the smugglers and the predators on the innocent.
5) For a half century, liberals rightly deplored the old realpolitik in the Middle East, as America and Europe supported autocratic right-wing governments on the cynical premises that they at least promised to keep pumping oil and kept out communists. Now President Bush not only renounces such past opportunism, but also confesses that "for too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability." He promises not complacency that ensures continual oppression, but radical changes that lead to freedom.
6) The Taliban and Saddam Hussein were once the United Nations' twin embarrassments, rogue regimes that thumbed their noses at weak U.N. protestations, slaughtered their own, invaded their neighbors, and turned their outlands into terrorist sanctuaries. Now they are gone, despite either U.N. indifference or veritable opposition to their removal. The United States sought not dictators in their place, but consensual government where it had never existed.
But, these six points have not helped Bush on the current world stage:
What was the response to Mr. Bush's new multifaceted vision? He was met with stony silence, followed by about seven seconds of embarrassed applause, capped off by smug sneers in the global media. Why so?
First, the U.N. is not the idealistic postwar organization of our collective Unicef and Unesco nostalgia, the old perpetual force for good that we once associated with hunger relief and peacekeeping. Its membership is instead rife with tyrannies, theocracies and Stalinist regimes. Many of them, like Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have served on the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights. The Libyan lunocracy--infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session. For Mr. Bush to talk to such folk about the need to spread liberty means removing from power, or indeed jailing, many of the oppressors sitting in his audience.
Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan.
Third, the present secretary-general, Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as "illegal," but neither advocates reinstitution of a "legal" Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the U.N. membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate.
Bush has become a man of great liberal vision. The world and half of America do not agree. I wonder how it is that they can not see what is right in front of their eyes.
If Bush accomplishes what he has set out to do, then History will side with him. If Bush fails, it will be disastrous for America and, as a result, it will be disastrous for the rest of the world, who are all lined up at the feeding trough of American money, ideas, and inspiration.
Yet, it is clear, that the world is rooting against George Bush and America. And it is clear that half of America is reeling and tottering, as if they had been hit in the head, from the negativity of the rest of the world. This is a very sad state of affairs.'
The only thing that will save us now is, for the half of America who believes in Bush's vision, to shore up their attitude with a good dose of American "rugged individualism". Because it looks like we, for the most part, are going to have to complete the tasks which lie ahead of us alone.
Reuter's Bravely Fights For Freedom Of Speech In The Muslim World
Yes, the headline is sarcastic.
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this article from HonestReporting.com. Apparently, Reuter's Global Managing Editor has admitted that Arab intimidation influences the way his news agency presents stories:
HonestReporting has repeatedly denounced media outlets' categorical refusal to call terrorists 'terrorists' in news reports (see our special report on this topic).
As Islamic terror continues to spread worldwide, one major news outlet decided that enough is enough ― it's time to call terrorism by its name. CanWest, owners of Canada's largest newspaper chain, recently implemented a new editorial policy to use the 'T-word' in reports on brutal terrorist acts and groups.
So when CanWest's National Post published a Reuters report on Sept. 14, they exercised their right to change this Reuters line that whitewashes Palestinian terror:
... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been involved in a four-year-old revolt against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. (Jeffrey Heller, 9/13 'Sharon Faces Netanyahu Challenge')
to this, more accurate line:
... the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group that has been involved in a four-year-old campaign of violence against Israel.
Reuters didn't like the adjustment, and took the unusual step of officially informing CanWest that if it intended to continue this practice, CanWest should remove Reuters' name from the byline. Why? The New York Times reported (emphasis added):
"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline."
Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations.
"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said.
Schlesinger (right) with Reuters' news exec Stephen Jukes, who instructed editors not to call 9/11 'terror,' since 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' [Schlesinger repeated this statement in a recent radio interview with CBC, when he described the 'serious consequences' if certain 'people in the Mideast' were to believe Reuters called such men 'terrorists.']
This is a stunning admission.
In every other news arena, western journalists pride themselves on bravely 'telling it as is,' regardless of their subjects' (potentially hostile) reactions.
Scott Anderson, editor-in-chief of CanWest Publications, said that Reuters' policy 'undermine[s] journalistic principles,' and raised the key question: 'If you're couching language to protect people, are you telling the truth?'
An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, one of CanWest's newspapers, spells out the issue in black and white:
Terrorism is a technical term. It describes a modus operandi, a tactic. We side with security professionals who define terrorism as the deliberate targeting of civilians in pursuit of a political goal. Those who bombed the nightclub in Bali were terrorists. Suicide bombers who strap explosives to their bodies and blow up people eating in a pizza parlour are terrorists. The men and women who took a school full of hostages in Beslan, Russia, and shot some of the children in the back as they tried to flee to safety were terrorists. We as journalists do not violate our impartiality by describing them as such.
Ironically, it is supposedly neutral terms like 'militant' that betray a bias, insofar as they have a sanitizing effect. Activists for various political causes can be 'militant,' but they don't take children hostage.
* * *
The CanWest/Reuters affair is remarkably similar to CNN's Iraqi cover-up from last year, when CNN's top news executive admitted that CNN's knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations in Saddam's Iraq was suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
I Always Thought Jimmy Swaggart Was Kind Of Cute
From SFGate.com:
09-22) 12:45 PDT BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) --
Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart apologized Wednesday for saying in a televised worship service that he would kill any gay man who looked at him romantically.
A complaint was filed with a Canadian broadcasting group, and Swaggart said his Baton Rouge-based Jimmy Swaggart Ministries has received complaints from gay groups over the remarks made on the Sept. 12 telecast.
In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."
"And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died," Swaggart said to laughter and applause from the congregation.
On Wednesday, Swaggart said he has jokingly used the expression "killing someone and telling God he died" thousands of times, about all sorts of people. He said the expression is figurative and not meant to harm.
"It's a humorous statement that doesn't mean anything. You can't lie to God -- it's ridiculous," Swaggart told The Associated Press. "If it's an insult, I certainly didn't think it was, but if they are offended, then I certainly offer an apology."
I actually kind of believe Swaggart's explanation. However, I must say I'm getting really tired of this stuff.
We Christians have got to stop tolerating this kind of "humor" from our brothers and sisters.
Israel Must Be Wiped Off The Map
We Will Crush America Under Our Feet
One thing that has come to amaze me about the world's media is how often they run a story which is important in some sense, but which contains an even more important point which they mention, but do not at all highlight. In
this story, about how Israel might deal with Iran's emerging nuclear capability (500 pound bunker buster bombs anybody?), we have this little gem:
Western diplomats believe that America, or Israel, could resort to air strikes against nuclear facilities. Israel's bombing of Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981, which set back Iraq's nuclear programme, is held up as a model of "pre-emptive action".
Iran has placed some of its facilities, such as the large Natanz enrichment plant, in protected underground sites. Teheran has vowed to retaliate against any attack, and at one point said it might launch pre-emptive strikes if it felt threatened.
Seeking to underline the point, Iran showed off its ballistic missiles at an annual military parade in Teheran near the mausoleum of Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. A banner proclaiming "Israel must be wiped off the map" was draped on the side of a 450-mile Shahab-2 missile. Another saying "We will crush America under our feet" graced a trailer carrying a 930-mile Shahab-3 missile.
Note the lack of of a qualifying "if" in these proclamations. Iran does not say they will "crush America" if we do something particularly egregious to Iran. Apparently, we have already passed the point of no return.
This is called a death threat, my friends.
One of the lessons of World War II is we need to listen to our enemies when they tell us they are going to kill us. Hitler made his intentions very clear years before he set out to turn them into reality.
I have heard it said, on numerous occasions, that we should not take such threats seriously because they are simply examples of Arab bombast. I believe this to be an objection which is, simultaneously, naiive and racist. Naiive because, clearly in the case of Iran, the leaders of the country have been standing in front of crowds shouting "death to America" for 25 years now.
However, it is the racism, inherent in refusing to take the words of entire people seriously, that is particularly offensive.
If you do not take a person's words seriously it means that you do not truly believe in their validity or volitional ability as a human being. In other words, you do not truly believe they are capable of representing their beliefs and feelings, and you do not believe that they have the will to turn their beliefs into reality. In the micro-world, we only take children and insane people with so little seriousness.
Now clearly, Iran, at this point, does not have the ability to "crush America" under it's feet. Such a feat would require weapons of Mass Destruction. But, that's what this Telegraph article is about, isn't it?
1) Iran is in the process of setting up systems which are capable of producing nuclear weapons.
2) Iran is parading missiles which are capable of delivering those weapons to American and Israeli targets.
3) Iran is proclaiming that they will destroy Israel and America.
What else do we need to understand?
We need to cease this racist notion that Arabs are incapable of articulating and accomplishing their goals. We need to take their words and deeds very seriously.
The Accidental Metaphorist
IraqWarWrong, over at The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog, gives an accurate, if
metaphorical, description of the Kerry campaign thus far:
So I sit down as I do every nite to watch my TIVO of Letterman and Kilborn(the BEST). Turns out Letterman had JON KERRY(yes, that Jon Kerry) on tonight.
And what! My TV picks tonite of all tonites to have the sound crap out! So I'm stuck watching with no sounds.
But relly it's still pretty good(I can tell).It looks like Kerry is talking about serious Policy. (Policy issues). I like what he's doing with his Hands. They are parallel (to eadch other), perpendicular (to the ground), move up and down slightly (like he's grasping a small tree trunk(young spruce, something like that) ready to shinny up). Both thumbs up extended(slightly). They (the hands) move up and down (in unison - coordinated) to punctuate some Point he wants to Emphasize (I assume.)
Good, serious statesmanship there.
It's literal demonstration of how he has a good Grasp of the Issues.Wait now he's started counting something off. Left hand counting something off (bullet points?) on fingers of right hand. I wonder what that is (Probably all the ways in which the W of W. stands for wrong i.e. enumerating Wrongnesses (at least, the top 5).
His fingers look very long Anyone else notice this?
I know IraqWarWrong is a
serious Kerry supporter and all,
and I know IraqWarWrong appears to be of too pure a heart to create anything as duplicitous and conspiratorial as a metaphor,
but dang, that's some funny stuff.
Center For Freedom In The Middle East
Thanks to Jihad Watch for making me aware of this announcement from the
Center For Freedom In The Middle East. Jihad Watch posts this as a "important announcement from Walid Phares." I've read Walid Phare and this does not sound like his writing. Maybe they meant to say that Walid Phares referrered the announcement over to them.
Whatever the case, this is very good news:
Why a Middle Eastern American Convention for Freedom and Democracy?
Writing to the President of the United States and the US Congress, we relayed a common position reached by a number of Mideast-American leaders and organizations about a historic event to be organized by the largest and most diversed coalition of Mideast Americans ever formed in America.
Over the past few months, intense discussions and many meetings were held by a large number of Mideast-Americans from all religious, ethnic, cultural and social background to assess US position in the Middle East and towards Americans from Mideast descent at home.
American organizations and groups from Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, Sudanese, Iranian and other Arab and Mideast backgrounds, met and evaluated the War on Terrorism, the liberation of Afghanistan, the removal of dictator Saddam Hussein, as well as important actions towards the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the genocide in Sudan, Iran's democracy movement as well as the issues of women, freedoms and education in the broader Middle East.
It is becoming a reality in the United States that most Mideastern-Americans believe in the following facts:
1) Numbers: There are about 4 million Americans from Mideast ancestry. They encompass many ethnicities such as: Arab, ChaldoAssyrians, Lebanese, Persian, Kurds, Sudanese Africans, Copts, Berbers, Turkic, Aramaic, and others. They also belong to many religions and faiths including: Sunnis, Shiites, Maronites, Nestorian, Druze, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Melkite, Bahais, Zoroaistrans, Jews, etc.
2) Issues: The overwhelming majority of this diverse Mideast-American community loves its country, the United States and stands firmly in support of National Security, Democracy and Pluralism. It is true that Wahabism and other anti-American ideologies are prevalent among a number of immigrants and visiting students from Mideast descent. But the majority, mostly silent, of all Mideast and Arab Americans, not only is opposed to these radical doctrines, but strongly supports the US Government policies on the Middle East and on Terrorism:
a. War on Terror: Overwhelmingly Mideast and Arab Americans are against al Qaida and support the US against Terrorism.
b. War in Iraq: Most Mideast and Arab Americans opposed Saddam and endorsed his removal.
c. Homeland Security: Most Mideast and Arab Americans stand by their Government, nation and support the principles of the Patriot Act. d. Human Rights: A very large manjority of Mideast Americans endorses the promotion of Democracy and the rule of Law in their mother countries. They support freedom for civil societies and increasing rights to women, minorities as well as religious and political tolerance.
Therefore, and after they've noticed how the critics have been trying to undermine the Mideast initiatives triggered by the United States, both overseas and at home, the leaders of most Mideast organizations in America have decided to express their support to the vision and the actions by the US Government in public. They have organized a major national event in Washington, DC to tell the world and the American people, on whose side they are. They want to express their gratitude to the President of the United States, to his Administration and to the US Congress for standing by Freedom in the Middle East.
The leaders of the organizations have formed a coalition and are now working on a Mideast American Convention to be held in Washington on Friday, October 1, 2004 at the Wardman Park Marriott. Speakers will express these views at a forum as well as during the dinner.
If you click on
this link you can see who is involved in the event. And George Bush is the Guest Of Honor.
Yes, this is great news. Possibly some of the best news to have come out since the beginning of the War On Terror.
