Saturday, October 23, 2004

Europa And Her Life Partner


Thanks to Medienkritik for making me aware of this article by German author Heinrich Maetzke:


It will not be long before German socialists and pacifists start calling nuclear-armed Iranian mullahs their "partners in security" — the affectionate label they once stuck on Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev. For those who shiver at the prospect of having to live under the shadow of Iranian nukes Mr. Bush's White House is the only place to look to. (...)

For 20 years Saddam Hussein had done his utmost to acquire nuclear weapons. For 12 long years he had mocked the United Nations. When challenged to come clean in March 2003, he refused to. However, when it comes to global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proof must lie with the suspect, not with the prosecutor. We now know that Saddam intended to pick up his nuclear threads where he had been forced to drop them, once sanctions were lifted and U.S. forces withdrawn. We also know that he had all the reason in the world to feel safe: He had the United Nations in his deep oil-for-food pockets, plus a couple of veto-yielding members of the Security Council, who had never liked the sanctions anyway.

If it had not been for one factor, Saddam's infamous gamble almost certainly would have paid off. This factor had a face and a name: President George Bush.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
Leader Of Canadian Mosque Jews Are Treacherous Monkeys and Pigs
"It's In The Qur'an"


You've got to love you enemies when they tell the truth.

From the Canadian MyTelus.com, via Little Green Footballs:


VANCOUVER (CP) - The leader of a Vancouver mosque attended regularly by a local man reported killed in Chechnya has preached the virtues of jihad and called Jews “the brothers of monkeys and swine.”

In a lecture posted on the mosque’s website, Sheik Younus Kathrada tells an audience all real Muslims want to be martyred.

“It is inconceivable that a true believer will not desire martyrdom,” Kathrada says. “When we hear of our fellow Muslims in Palestine and what they’re going through to try and defend that great land for us, the Muslims, that individual should wish that he was there.”

In a recording of another lecture obtained by The Canadian Press, Kathrada lashes out at Israelis for killing Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin (go here - fourth article down the page) to read my summation of the Nazi life of Shiekh Yassin) late last March.

“We know what happened over the last week and how the brothers of the monkeys and the swine assassinated and murdered one of the heroes of Islam, the Salah al-Din of this day and age, Ahmed Yassin.”

Kathrada tells his audience the Qur’an and its accompanying writings view Jews as treacherous people with whom Muslims will engage in an apocalyptic battle.

“The prophet ... said the final hour will not be established until such time as the Muslims will battle and will fight against the Jews,” Kathrada says.

“Then what will happen? Listen to the good news after that. The prophet ... says that the stone and the tree will say ‘oh Muslim, oh slave of Allah, that verily behind me is a Jew. Then come and kill him.’”

Kathrada, who works out of the Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society mosque in east Vancouver, said Thursday he could not remember when he gave these talks.

“If it’s on there and my name is on it then I must have. I don’t recall the date,” he said. Kathrada refused to explain the meaning behind the tirade against Jews. “I guess if you heard the lecture then it should be clear to you,” he said.

But he defended his characterization of Jews as treacherous monkeys and pigs. “I guess no rougher than what is used against us,” Kathrada said. “It’s in our Qur’an.”


He's not lying. It is in the Qur'an (81, 5). Click here.

That Vaclav Havel Is Awful Pushy and Rude, Isn't He?


Vaclav Havel from the International Herald Tribune, via No Pasaran:


"The problem is that we don't think very much about Europe's identity," said Havel. "We worry about the bureaucratic rules, about endless regulations and economic issues. But we debate very little about the issue of identity, about the spiritual heritage of Europe and the relationship with the rest of the world." He paused. "I, for one, do not share the emotional anti-Americanism that is very current these days in Europe. That does not mean I cannot be critical of some aspects of American policy."

"Historically, Europeans played a role as an exporter of ideas, as a conqueror and as exploiter. I think in these days Europe could serve as an inspiration for other parts of the world in order to counter the dangers of globalization."

"You see in places where Americans helped the most, it is there where the most frequent expressions of anti-Americanism have occurred. There exists something like the phenomenon of the hatred by the saved towards the savior. We can see this very well in Europe, where twice in its recent history, the U.S. had to come in and save Europe, and again, in a nonmilitary way, during the cold war. Maybe this anti-Americanism in Europe is a part of this hatred of the saved towards its savior."

Iran Will Soon See The Bombs Coming


From the Los Angeles Times:


By Laura King Times Staff Writer

JERUSALEM — Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options and has not ruled out a military strike to prevent the Islamic Republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.


Israel would much prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's uranium enrichment program, but if it concluded that Tehran was approaching a "point of no return," it would not be deterred by the difficulty of a military operation, the prospect of retaliation or the international reaction, officials and analysts said.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and his top aides have been asserting for months that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a clear threat to Israel's existence. They have repeatedly threatened, in elliptical but unmistakable terms, to use force if diplomacy and the threat of sanctions fail.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper last month that "all options" were being weighed to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability. The army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, declared: "We will not rely on others."


We should all be happy to know that George Bush said the same thing in an interview with Bill O'Reilly just a couple of weeks ago:


O'REILLY: Iran said yesterday: Hey, we're going to develop this nuclear stuff, we don't care what you think. You ready to use military force against Iran if they continue to defy the world on nuclear?

BUSH: My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically.

O'REILLY: But if you can't?

BUSH: Well, let me try to solve it diplomatically, first. All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option.

O'REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.

O'REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?

BUSH: No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.

O'REILLY: Period.

BUSH: Yes.

British Lap Dogs Of Idiocy Lap Up The Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories


The BBC ran a documentary the other day called "The Power Of Nightmares." Clive Davis, of National Review wrote this article:


'The Power of Nightmares would have us believe that the international terrorist threat is a myth concocted by governments and orchestrated by a cabal of devious neoconservatives. Since the public has lost faith in ideology, politicians must now use fear in order to maintain their hold over the masses. Al Qaeda is a figment of our imagination; there are no sleeper cells, and talk of lethal dirty bombs is all so much radioactive hot air.If that seems bizarre enough, the series also sets out to claim that the Islamists and the neocons are, in reality, soul mates. As Curtis explained in a magazine interview this week: "My original intention was to look at the neo-cons and then the radical Islamists. I was astonished to discover that they have the same philosophical roots. They both believe that the problem with modern society is that individuals question anything; by doing that they [those individuals] have already torn down God, that eventually they will tear down everything else and therefore they will have to be opposed."


Melanie Phillips says:


You obviously can't overestmate the creative imagination of a pukka conspiracy theorist. It's not enough wilfully to invent a conspiacy by sinister neo-cons, aka Jews, in Washington to subvert American foreign policy. It's not enough wilfully to lie that they invented an Islamist threat that never existed. Now it is alleged that the Jewish conspiracy (which we are told does exist) and the Islamic conspiracy (which we are told does not) are basically brothers in struggle! They are both identical sets of crazed fundamentalists!


And more Clive Davis:


'This symbiotic relationship with Islamism will no doubt come as a surprise to the good folks at the American Enterprise Institute. It is a sign of how fevered political debate has become in Britain's media-land that such lurid, Michael Moore-ish notions are given a prime-time slot on the channel that once gave us Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation...The opening episode amounts to a ludicrously one-sided account of the rise of the neocons which manages to impute all manner of sinister motives to a tight-knit circle devoted to the teachings of Leo Strauss. In Curtis's world, it is Strauss, not Osama bin Laden, who is the real evil genius.'


As Melanie Phillips notes:


The eminent historian Richard Pipes, who by this account is stitched up by dishonest editing, says of allegations that are made that they are 'so preposterous that I would be at a loss to answer them: they are similar to those made by the Holocaust deniers. They sort of leave you speechless.'

But the British are lapping it all up and believing it. Wicked stuff.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

The Difference Between the Free World and The World of Islamic Tyrannies


From Associated Press:


BAGHDAD, Iraq - The highest ranking soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was sentenced to eight years in prison for abusing inmates at Abu Ghraib during a court martial Thursday in Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, 38, of Buckingham, Va., was also given a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge. The sentencing came a day after he pleaded guilty Wednesday to eight counts of abusing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.


Robert Spencer at JihadWatch comments:


The difference between the free world and the Islamic world is not that one side never does anything wrong. It is that in the West those who transgress ethical and legal bounds are punished; in the Islamic world they are celebrated as heroes.

Thank God For Men Like This


Read this.

The Red Sox Win The Pennant!
The Red Sox Win The Pennant!
The Red Sox Win The Pennant!
What Does It Mean To The War On Islamofascism
In Light Of Don DeLillo's Underworld


When I was a kid, the Red Sox were my favorite team. I grew out of that a long time ago, but just for old times sake, I was rooting (secretly) for the Red Sox to win this year.

However, as I sat watching the Red Sox thoroughly humiliate the Yankees last night, a sense of forboding started to come over me. The Yankees had, of course, won the first three games of the Playoff Series, and then it was as if their soul just left their corporate body. For God's sake, they lost this series by losing four games in a row. Something no team has ever done.

I was reminded of the Don DeLillo novel, Underworld, which begins with the incredible opening prose aria, wherein J. Edgar Hoover, Frank Sinatra and Jackie Gleason watch as The Giants beat the Dodgers (courtesy Bobby Thompsons Home Run, "the shot heard round the world").

For DeLillo, the Home Run, and the cries of the announcer ("The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant!), and the fact that the ball intself seemed to have disappeared into the underworld (carried away by a young African-American kid who snuck into the game in the novel), heralded the beginning of the Cold War.

These thoughts began to swirl in my head as I sat there rooting for David Ortiz, Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez. Is this win the beginning of the breaking of the "Curse of the Bambino?" Is this win by the team from Massachusettes somehow a dark omen signaling a win for the Senator from Massachusettes?

Is not the Red Sox beating the Yankees one of the signs of the Apocalypse?

Let's get real. I'm glad the Red Sox won. And, if John Kerry wins I hope America wins too. Sports-induced superstition is stupid, yes. But, we must remember that politically-induced paranoia is stupid too. If John Kerry is elected President he might not set to the work of destroying terrorist organizations, but neither will he destroy America.

Everything will work out, eventually.

Evil can't win. Take some comfort in Milton's Paradise Lost. When Satan and his legions are cast from heaven, they land in a place of darkness and immediately set to arguing which is the best way to overthrow God. They rave and rage until their wrath is largely turned on each other. We see this throughout history. Russia turned on Germany in WWII. Pol Pot turned on his own people, and thus destroyed much of the intellectual momentum of the Communist side in the Cold War. And, if you think about it, this current War against Islamofascism began when the Wahabbist Osama Bin Laden turned on the very source of his Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia.

The demons will fall to fighting with each other. It is sure as the sun coming up. If Kerry is elected, he may or may not choose to hasten their destruction. We can't tell by his pronouncements on the campaign trail. But, if he decides to pull back and hand the momentum back to the Islamofascists, it will be ok. It will only be a delay in their inevitable destruction.


Hat Tip to my friend, Mr. Cohiba, for contributing his Apocalypse-related thoughts to this.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

What Is It? Etiquette?


From "If They Only nu" blog:


As a barista in an independantly owned restaurant, I am the first person seen on entering the establishment. It is often in these first moments that we see the very fabric of society, and by this I mean communication, begin to unravel. First of all, the act of acknowledgement seems to pose a great difficulty to some. Responding in turn to a greeting is often completely eliminated. Observe the following, an all too common scenario.

Barista: "Hello! How are you today?"

Customer (peering into wallet instead of making eye contact): "Latté."

Did you catch the moment where that short exchange went awry? The customer's response, "Latté", in addition to being a totally irrelevant answer to an inquiry of well-being, is also dreadfully impolite. A more mannerly reply might have been: "Fine, thank you. May I have a latté to go, please?" (Note the presence of "thank you" and "please," which are found to be very useful in conveying respect to another party. Also note the use of "may" as opposed to "can," which is just proper grammar.)

Let's set another scene, shall we?

Enter: Family; parents with two teenaged children

Barista (brightly): "Hello there! How goes your day?"

Family is unresponsive, none take eyes off menu above barista's head.

Barista (still smiling, somewhat less brightly): "Perhaps you need time to view the menu?"

Family: "..."

Barista (Considers stabbing self in eye to see if action might induce response. Thinks better of it, because probably wouldn't make a difference and then would have to go through whole day with inkpen in eye, and since has nose ring, already gets enough odd looks from people): "Okay, well, wonderful! I'll be with you momentarily then!"

It should be obvious to any casual observer what has gone wrong in this situation. Twice did the barista attempt to initiate dialogue with the family, and twice was she thwarted by a total lack of regard. In this instance there is not even much required of the family.

A simple gesture, such as brief eye contact with a nod of the head, would have been sufficient, if a bit curt. But between four people, not one offered the slightest response to either query. This is unseemly behavior for anyone brought up in civilized society, and should be avoided.

We all deserve to be treated with decency and compassion. I do not think it too much to ask that patrons comply with basic principles of proper etiquette and conduct themselves thusly.

Anything less is highly undignified and indecorous, and you would all do well to take these things to heart.


If Barista's at upscale coffee joints are being treated like this, imagine how the people who work at McDonald's are getting treated.

The good person treats those who serve him just as well as those whom he himself must serve.


One-Third Of American Muslims Are
Stuck In A Permanent Adolescent Inferiority Complex


From the Washington Times, via Jihad Watch:


More than one-third of American Muslims believe that the U.S. war on terrorism is really a war on Islam, according to survey information released yesterday by researchers at Georgetown University.

Thirty-eight percent of American Muslims polled said they believe the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tensions with Iran and Syria, reflect a foreign policy that is targeting Islamic countries and Muslims themselves.


Those Muslims who take the War On Terror personally reveal something very negative about themselves. Can you imagine, the Germans in the U.S. during WWII taking the War against the Nazi's personally?

I don't know that this means that they actually sympathize with terrorist organizations and those who harbor them. But, if that's not what it means, then it means that they need to grow up. They are like teenagers who take every suggestion as a personal attack.

Waahh.

Think about it, Muslim community. If the terrorists are, as you say, not doing the work of Islam, then, if we destroy the Terrorists and their infrastructure, your religion will cease to be wrongly associated with terrorism. Isn't that a good thing?

How is that a War against Islam?


Agence French Presse: Slummin' With The Shaved Head Crowd


Charles, at Little Green Footballs, notes that Agence French Presse is slumming with the Northern American White Aryan Resistance wackos:


As violence continues to rage and Bush’s once-vaunted “roadmap” for peace flounders amid a sea of mutual Israeli-Palestinian recriminations, the candidates have refused to address the matter beyond platitudes, analysts say.


Charles notes:


Sympathy for terrorists shows through once again, as the failure of the “road map” is blamed equally on Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The truth is that Israel’s actions to fulfill their obligations under the first step of the road map were met by the Palestinians with nothing but murder and terrorism. The Palestinians’ first obligation was to take action against the terror gangs; they tried to deceive the world by whitewashing some Hamas graffiti.


Agence French Presse waxes anti-Semitic:


Indeed, in the days since the first debate, the candidates have marched in lockstep supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and denouncing what they say is Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s failed leadership.


Charles comments:


“Marched in lockstep supporting Sharon?” Wow. This is identical to the sort of language and rhetoric you’ll find at hard-core antisemitic sites. Good work, AFP.


Charles ability to sum up with a few sharp, sarcastic words is beginning to rival his idol: Zappa

Camille Paglia: Typical Bimbo


Reason Online had a feature today called "Who Gets Your Vote," wherein they asked all manner of celebrities and politicos who they intend to vote for. Camille Paglia inadvertantly revealed herself to be a typical bimbo:



Camille Paglia

Paglia is a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

2004 vote: John Kerry. In the hope that he will restore our alliances and reduce rabid anti-Americanism in this era of terrorism when international good will and cooperation are crucial.
2000 vote: Ralph Nader. Because I detest the arrogant, corrupt superstructure of the Democratic Party, with which I remain stubbornly registered.


Most embarrassing vote: Bill Clinton the second time around. Because he did not honorably resign when the Lewinsky scandal broke and instead tied up the country and paralyzed the government for two years, leading directly to our blindsiding by 9/11.


So far, so good, right? But wait, there's more:


Favorite president: John F. Kennedy. Not that he accomplished much. But he was the first candidate I campaigned for as an adolescent, and I still admire his articulateness and vigor. The Kennedys gave the White House sophistication and style.


Jack, with his swanky stride and sly smile, and Jaquelyn, oh my gosh, those hats. They are so, so elegant.

Camille Paglia does the E! Entertainment Television version of Political Discussion. Maybe Camille Paglia can do the Red Carpet at the Oscar's with Joan Rivers this coming year.

I love Camille Paglia. I actually keep Sexual Personae by my bedstand (I know, I know, I'm wierd. What can I say?) a good deal of the time. But sheesh, what a stupid thing to say.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

"Foreign Policy For $200 Billion, Alex"
"Ok, The answer is We're Gonna Bomb Your Iranian Butts Back Into The Stone Age, No Matter What Those Prissy French Guys Think"


Uh, What are "Things a President can't say?"

Congratulations Pastorius, you have won Celebrity Jeopardy Home Edition.

From FrontPageMag.com:


Forget the rest of the conservative commentariat. The American Spectator's website alone, including the letters column, has been full of advice for President Bush on what he should say -- or should have said -- in the first two debates with Senator John Kerry. Truly, you can understand why. Like most Bush partisans, I watch with a certain grim determination, knowing our guy's right, that John Kerry will say absolutely anything, and that the lies and half-truths will pile up high and demand a good swift kick, and knowing, too, that President Bush probably won't deliver that ultimate kick to the Kerry pile of you-know-what.

But consider President Bush's situation -- the situation of any President in wartime, faced with an ad-lib partisan debate. There are far more things he can't say than those he can, because the President actually is in the game of world politics. What he says could fracture alliances, end relationships, start wars. And some of his best ripostes are barred to him because of that.

In two debates, for example, Senator Kerry has insisted that he would eliminate the "nuclear bunker buster bomb program" from the United States' arsenal. Unfair, don't you know. Asking those other countries like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear arms programs, and then we go ahead developing new H-bombs. Hardly sporting, what? Not diplomatic.

Everybody in the world -- take that literally -- knows why the United States is developing those bombs. But can the President say something like, "You want to eliminate nuclear bunker buster bombs, Senator? What are we going to do about rogue nuclear powers when sanctions don't work? I haven't noticed they're too responsive to talk."

Even implying that threat in a public forum could cause an act of war.

Similarly, when Senator Kerry insists that the United States is ignoring the threat of Iran, or that the United States is "distracted" in Iraq when the "real threat" is in Iran, could the President say this?

"What makes you think we're not doing anything about Iran? We already have special forces teams deployed all over Iran working with the democratic opposition to the mullahs. And we're already at war with Iran. It's a proxy war, going on right now in Iraq."

Nope. Can't say that.

Neither can President Bush make the obvious response to Senator Kerry's repeated accusation that the United States has "turned its back on its traditional alliances" and "failed to bring aboard our traditional allies" in the war on terror.

"What countries are you talking about there, Senator? France, maybe? Did you know that France was bribed by Saddam Hussein through the Oil for Food program, to the tune of X billion dollars? And that France sold weapons to Saddam right through our war in 2003?

"Not when the United States still depends on French cooperation for fighting terrorism in North Africa.

When Senator Kerry slams the Bush administration for a "too few troops on the ground" and "failing to win the peace," the President cannot say something like this:

"Senator Kerry, the Fourth Infantry Division was missing from our forces at the time the war started -- and ended. Those are the forces that would have settled conflicts in Northern Iraq, where most of the trouble is now. Why was that division missing, Senator? Because those allies you keep talking about held up Turkey's membership in the EU unless the Turks denied us passage through Turkey for that division. Those are your 'global test' buddies, Senator."

Can't say it, that is, without alienating Turkey and inflaming already difficult relationships with "old Europe.

"Now, either John Kerry knows that he's saying things President Bush can't respond to, or he doesn't. In the first case, he's a corrupt liar; he's lying to the American people about what he can do and President Bush can't. He's had intelligence briefings. He knows where things stand. In the second case, he's plain stupid.

I don't think he's stupid.

Democracy Is Democracy
And $200 Billion Down The Toilet Is ...
Well, You Know


Just yesterday (in my post "Another Democrat For Bush") I was making the point that the Iraq War is the largest Foreign Aid project in history. Well, today George Bush announced that he's willing to allow our Foreign Aid project to fail.


Bush was asked during an interview with the The Associated Press how he would react if Iraqis someday freely voted into power an Islamic fundamentalist government. Bush replied,

"I will be disappointed, but democracy is democracy."


Maybe he does deserve to be voted out of office. I must admit, Democracy is Democracy is a great catch phrase for the Postgumpian generation. I thought they would never be able to beat the ever-catchy and intellectually barren aphorism,

"Stupid is as stupid does."

But dad-gum it, they've done it, haven't they?

I know that many people will say, "We've been telling you all this time, George Bush is stupid, so it's apt that you call his phrase, 'Postgumpian.'" But, those people would be missing the point.

The point of Forrest Gump is that we are all (all of us) Gump. Every one of us, who just goes along with the times. All of us, who let history shape our lives, instead of the other way around. People misunderstood Forrest Gump. They believed it to be a feel-good story of the heart that thumps in the chest of America. No, Forrest Gump was a cynical, vile, inhumane exercise in determistic philosophy. Every vignette in the movie screams, "We don't have a choice. We are determined by the forces of history."

Do we want to choose to be Gump?

Remember, just a few months ago, George Bush was going around giving speeches saying he believes that God put a desire for Freedom in the heart of every man. You know, that principle is the principle upon which America was founded:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And it was the principle upon which we fought the Civil War and both World Wars, and even, we believed, the Korean War, and Viet Nam. We haven't always lived up to that idea, but almost everything good that has come out of America has come as a result of our belief that Freedom is a God given right.

God forgive us, if we decide to abandon our principle's and the Iraqi people's inalienable rights.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Anti-Semitism In A British Medical Journal? What the ...?


From Melanie Phillips:


If you naively imagined that the British Medical Journal was a journal for articles about medicine, well think again. Its editor appears to consider it a suitable forum for a hate-filled libel of Israel. The article, by one Derek Summerfield, a lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, might certainly qualify as a medical curiosity, I suppose, in the field of obsessive-libellous derangement syndrome. Here's a sample:

'Israeli military reoccupation of the West Bank and Gaza—a system of military checkpoints splitting towns and villages into ghettos, curfews, closures, raids, mass demolition and destruction of houses (more than 60 000), and land expropriations—has made ordinary life impossible for everyone, and is driving Palestinian society and its institutions towards destitution. Moreover, Israel has been constructing a grotesque barrier that, when completed, will total over 400 miles—four times longer than the Berlin Wall. Extending up to 15 miles into Palestinian territory, the real purpose of the wall is permanently to lock more than 50 illegal Israeli settlements into Israel proper. This is expansive, aggressive colonisation...' etc etc.

Every statement he makes is twisted, wrong and totally unbalanced. When he finally makes a point about health, it is to present the Palestinians' situation as parlous with no attempt at objectivity whatever. Yes, the health situation of Palestinians under occupation is often very difficult. Yes, they suffer privations from the checkpoints.

But for heaven's sake -- they are only in that situation because they are a community which is perpetrating mass murder attacks on innocent Israelis. That, not the malevolent motive he imputes, is the purpose of the security barrier. Why does this lecturer in psychiatry ignore totally the terrorism murder and misery inflicted by the Palestinians on the Jews of Israel? Why does this doctor not even acknowledge Jewish suffering? Why does he not refer to the abuse of ambulances by Palestinian gunmen who use them to transport terrorists? Why does he ignore the fact that Palestinians -- even terrorists who have killed Jews -- are treated in Israeli hospitals? Why does he not report the telling fact that before the intifada started, the Palestinians enjoyed the lowest infant mortality rate of any Arab country? Why does this educated member of a caring profession hate Israel with such a pathological intensity? And what on earth is this venomous, politically bent diatribe doing in the British Medical Journal? How is science served by such lamentable claptrap?

The comments by BMJ readers are worth reading too. Many are outraged, thank goodness. Too many, though, support him. Once again, a stone has been lifted in Britain to reveal a foul slime beneath.


It is debatable whether there is an expansionist intention in the construction of the wall. However, it is not debatable that the Palestinians would not be in this situation if they had not supported the Second Intifada. And it is also not debatable that Israel, at President Clinton's Camp David Peace Talks in 2000, offered Yasser Arafat and the PLO 97% of the land they wanted and they responded by walking away from the negotiation table without even counter offering.

Another Democrat For Bush


From the London Times:


Sarah Baxter is a life-long Labour voter in Britain and a registered Democrat in the United States. So how come she wants George W Bush to remain president?

It was the kind of glittering occasion at which John Kerry and his wife would feel at home. There were millionaires in tuxedos with their Botoxed and bejewelled wives, graceful daughters with flawless skin in evening gowns, members of the Kennedy and Hearst dynasties and, because this is New York high society, there were artists surrounded by their patrons and benefactors.

They had come to celebrate the National Arts Awards, but it was also the night of the final debate between Kerry and George W Bush. A special room was set aside for the dinner guests to watch the ding-dong on a big screen while eating petits fours and quaffing champagne.

Andres Serrano, the artist responsible for Piss Christ, one of the iconic images of the late 1980s culture wars, was rooting for Kerry. Wedged between two beautiful women, he enthused: “The debate’s going well. Kerry’s winning over the audience here.”

Indeed. There were laughs and applause for Kerry, groans for Bush. Jeff Koons, the celebrated pop artist, was standing by the bar. “There’s got to be a change for the future of the country,” he told me soberly.

Then Koons became unexpectedly open-minded. “This administration” — he couldn’t bring himself to say Bush — “has supported the arts. In this particular area, they have been generous.” But never mind such parochialism. “For the good of the country, it’s time for a change,” he repeated his mantra.

So here I am in deep Kerry territory, surrounded by designer Democrats who are far wealthier than me, harbouring a secret and deeply untrendy thought.

Darn them all, despite being a registered Democrat — and in my London days a staunch Labour supporter — I am going to vote for George Dubya.


When the metrosexual chap standing next to me confides that urban sophisticates prefer Kerry because “you have to have a low IQ to appreciate Bush”, I know I am making the right decision.
“The guy is an idiot,” he continued snobbishly. “I don’t know what the rest of the country is thinking.”


Perhaps I can enlighten him. I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president’s judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry’s. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple. Even in the New York metropolis, there are more of us out there than he imagines.

I have registered as a Democrat because I want to put the party on notice. Should it lose the election — an open question at present — I want it to look at the numbers of Bush-supporting Democrats and draw the appropriate lesson about its unconvincing foreign policy. Perhaps then I will be able to support the party in 2008.

My vote for Bush involves a fair amount of gritting of teeth. I am not a Republican and do not care much for the company he keeps. Back in Britain I have voted Labour since I was 18, sticking by the party through its wilderness years when it veered towards the extreme left.

I was political editor of the left-wing New Statesman magazine in the early 1990s when two bright MPs, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, embarked on their quest to make Labour electable. They succeeded so brilliantly that Labour dominates the political landscape. If I could vote for Blair in the American elections, I would. Unfortunately his name is not on the ballot.

Thanks to my mother, a lifelong Democrat from the swing state of Ohio, I have dual citizenship. I live in New York now and will be casting my vote in America for the first time. My decision is based on a straightforward proposition: I do not want the global jihadists and women-hating fundamentalists to be celebrating Bush’s defeat. They do not deserve to win, even if Bush deserves to lose, a position I am not quite willing to concede.


I'm a registered Democrat and I'm voting for Bush. I don't think I have ever previously voted for a Republican for high office.

The most perplexing thing about the Democrat's hatred for Bush is that he is the liberal President they claim to want. Bush approved Fifteen Billion dollars to combat AIDS in Africa. He signed into law a Prescription Drug bill that half of his party loathed. He introduced the bill calling for the increased tax credits for middle class and lower-middle families, and made sure it was pushed through Congress quickly.

But, most amazing of all, in light of the Democrats hatred of Bush, is that he is the first President, since Roosevelt, to take the liberal step of moving beyond Realpolitik in Foreign Policy. The U.S. is not installing America-friendly dictators in Afghanistan of Iraq. Instead, we are encouraging them to write their own Constitutions, and elect their own leaders. And we are funding the reconstruction of their country. That's the biggest foreign aid investment of all time.

What do the Democrats want?

Maybe, like Susan Baxter above, they are single-issue voters. And maybe their single issue is the dislike of American power.