About the site


Thoughts and opinions on the state of the world


Amazon Honor System Click Here
to Pay Learn More



Search the site



Try an advanced site search


Site links


Shadowland
Possibly the first
blogging-code website


FrontPageMag
Home of David Horowitz


Self-Made Critic
Online Movie Reviews


Center for the
American Founding

Balint Vazsonyi's Organization


Friesian School
Hard to get used to navigating, but worth it


Thomas Sowell
Gentleman and Scholar


Strategy Page
Wargaming and Real-World Strategy Analysis


Global Security
Poor Man's World Intel


Middle East Media
Research Institute

Invaluable in the current unpleasantness


Enter Stage Right
Politics, Culture, Economics


Leoville
Leo Laporte, Technomage


VDH
Victor Davis Hanson


Right Wing News
News You Can Use


Scrappleface
News You Probably Shouldn't



One-Sided Wonder


Wonkette
Snarky Beltway Observations


Darren Kaplan
Thoughtful Postage


Winds of Change
Against Bad Philosophy


Innocents Abroad
Not so Innocent


Dr. Weevil
Not so Evil


Sleaze Report
Ruminations


Andrea Harris
Twisted Spinster


Oxblog
At Oxford, Blogging


A Small Victory
A Medium One, At Least


Daniel Drezner
Econoblog & More


Ambient Irony
Pixy Misa


Bernhardt Varenius
Anti-Socialist Tendencies


Buggy Professor
Biting Political & Economic Commentary


Caerdroia
A Strange Loop


Andrew Olmstead
MilBlogger & More


Sgt Stryker
Daily Briefing


John Ray
Dissecting Leftism


The Waterglass
Still at Fifty Percent


Beaker's Corner
Conservative Commentary


Europundits
Nelson Ascher, Now in Brazil


Trying to Grok
Waiting for the peace craze to blow over


Ranck & File
Thoughtful Conservatism


Bargarz
Ramblings from the Belly


Calpundit
Not Too Bad






Blog archives


02/11/2007 - 02/17/2007
01/21/2007 - 01/27/2007
12/24/2006 - 12/30/2006
12/17/2006 - 12/23/2006
12/10/2006 - 12/16/2006
See full list by week & month

Anniversaries
Economics
Foreign Policy
From Blogger
Green Bay Packers
History
Humor n Diversions
International Affairs
Iraq
Linkage
News
Politics
Terrorism
The EU
Theory
UN Affairs
War
Website Maintenance
Welcome
World Events
Writing



Recent entries


  1. Baghdad Journal I
  2. Katrina
  3. The Winds of Movement
  4. Project: Sisyphus
  5. The Connection
  6. Gitmo Abuse
  7. Spirit of Sacrifice: Selfless Service
  8. Dark Day in London
  9. The Other Side of the UN
  10. Doldrums of Blogging


Site credits




last 50 referrers








~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage | |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad

"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592





Saturday, September 20, 2003

Dividing Lines II

Here's a post well worth reading, even (especially?) if you tend to disagree with him. Then it's worth reading and reflecting on as straightforwardly and candidly (with yourself) as possible, avoiding rationalizations and reflexive defensiveness.

My one quibble is here:

Give me one equivalent action by a Democrat president.
I could think of some - but you have to go back to a time when the Democrats were effectively a different party - when Truman countered the invasion of South Korea, when JFK vowed to "pay any price, bear any burden" in defense of liberty and LBJ, however half-heartedly (since already even then, he had "other priorities" that he would rather have focused on), tried to follow through.

That was then, though. Most of the Left academicians that are mentioned in the post dislike Truman and tend to blame us (or blame both sides equally) for the Cold War - which is to say, they are "troubled" (at best) by Truman's Cold Warrior credentials. With respect to JFK, his martyr status means that the New Left that is the ideological core of the modern Democratic party, shaping and determining its policies (which are listed in the post) had to give up their early antipathy to him and instead engage in myth-making that minimizes his Cold Warrior credentials and wills them away.

So, I could give examples of a Democratic President, but not one of the modern Democratic Party, the one that arose after the Long March through the Institutions, when Tom Hayden and his ilk moved from outside antagonism to the Liberal establishment to a takeover of it.

(For posts related to that, see here and here and here, plus this one on the willful blindness of moderate Democrats towards things they'd rather not deal with and thus prefer to ignore, one on where discredit is due, and a case study in options, and this one lamenting the absence of Trumanesque Democrats and the Peace crowd and the Democratic Party. Finally, the original Dividing Lines post and War & Legitimate Questions and the stakes. Each of these posts also tends to have links to others).

Update: Mitch Hagmaier dissents from du Toit and makes some good points about overheated rhetoric and imagery, which are on-point. If a Lib was talking about hanging Conservatives from lamposts, I doubt I'd be sanguine about it. My bad for not objecting to that tack and tone from du Toit.

However, not to excuse that, if we want to talk about the paranoid style in American politics, we should add in Krugman's feavered imaginings and interpretations, along with many other respected Liberal columnists, and the audiences that the Democratic candidates are playing to with their rhetoric. This is not to excuse the lampost rhetoric of du Toit - or me for not objecting to it sooner. But if we want to talk about the extent to which people are distorting things to feed paranoia and engage in partisan excess, there are more high-profile targets than du Toit and lots of folks don't like receiving what they dish out.

Still, check out Mitch's post, which makes good points. But also check out this Noonan article.

Additional: More on the whole matter here, with Mitch's reasons for disagreeing with du Toit's points. See also the comment section for some reactions from me.

Further: Kim du Toit responds to Mitch.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:56 AM | TrackBack (0)



Friday, September 19, 2003

Global War Roundup

Like I've been saying, that dude is dead.

Meanwhile, former NYT Editor A.M. Rosenthal has a good piece on Iraq:
Have you read the statements of experienced nuclear inspectors that Saddam had been working on nuclear and biological warfare for years - and had used chemical weapons against Kurds, who died in agony from those weapons?

After repeated Iraqi aggression against neighbors, a decade of Iraqi work on weapons of mass destruction and a total refusal of Iraq to comply with any of the UN sanctions designed to make it less dangerous, what effective steps short of military action were left for a President to use?

If the answer to any one question stirs fear in your heart, who owes America an apology, the President or you?

Regarding Iraq itself, Gaidar wants to do for Iraq what he did for Russia. Um, ok. Mixed results on that one, Gaidar - I hope you've learned what to avoid as well as what works. But if it means a flat tax for Iraq as in Russia, then it'd be something.

Wesley Clark (more here) says that, like Kerry, he would have probably voted for the war and then spent the rest of the time fudging and B&Ming about it, as in here. But the Democratic Presidential candidates are losing a key part of their base, France, as the French are beginning to think better (related here) of their war with America, having backed off their intransigence a bit. Even the UN is starting to get the picture.

You know, if I hadn't been mentally weary, I'd have predicted that. As "allies" and "friends", the French are tenaciously obstinate and intransigent. But the French leadership can be relied on to roll over for whomever they are at war with.

So as long as we keep this "French war with America" meme goin, things should go our way. Soon as we start seeing them as allies and friends again, though, watch out for the stick in the eye (or the knife in the back), again.

Oh, and Germany "me too" on the whole thing.

Finally, some choice words on Democrats and Nation Building.

Update: Wesley Clark, Man of Action: via FAIR, Clarks inconsistencies and waffling go way back:

a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions. . .[Clark wrote] a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt"

As time wore on, Clark's reservations seemed to give way. Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

Of course, now Clark says he never would have voted for war, just, a la Kerry, for some empty threats. So if Clark wins the nomination, the slogan "Kerry: Return to Empty Threats" can as easily be rendered as "Clark: A Return to Empty Threats".

Back on the other side of the looking glass, the post Sept. 11th side, here is more on the Saddam - al-Qaeda connection.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 11:37 AM | TrackBack (2)



Good Reads, Good Movie

Two good OpinionJournal pieces, one by Colin Powell on Iraq, and one by Daniel Henninger on making the world an offer it can't refuse.

Alas, I kind of lost interest in reading Clark's book, "Waging Modern War as I Knew It: The View of the Battlefield from 15,000 feet and CNN HQ", so I saw the movie version instead. Sure, the director took some artistic liberties for dramatic effect. None the less, the part about the British Officer trying to keep the American Commander from blasting the Russians was a telling insight. Indeed, the film was full of insights into Clark's character. One can see why, after what he did there, Clark became a "peacenick at any price" kinda guy. In any case, a guy running on a "be nicer to our allies" platform, as Clark is, isn't likely to have much in his favor when it comes to either Russia or Britain. See also this piece by Clark and Andrew Sullivan's analysis of it.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:51 AM | TrackBack (0)



Clark vs. Dean

Ok on a more serious note regarding Wesley Clark (D-CNN) than my usual Veeptalk (though I think that's where he'll end up), there is a reason why Howard Dean tried to get Clark to immediately accept a subordinate role in the Dean campaign.

Clark's campaign is most immediately a threat to Dean's front-runner position. Why? All those anti-war people who flocked to Dean and who want to try our military personnel as war criminals, call them baby killers engaging in an immoral war, the ones who insult their mothers and wives and children whenever they discover that they have a relative in Iraq, all those people have been looking for a uniform to drape over their cause in order to deflect the accusation that they don't really support the troops, that they're not just anti-war but anti-military.

In comes Clark: Howard Dean's positions and rhetoric in a military uniform. Being opportunists above all, they will be tempted to flock to him in droves.

The Dean campaign's bubble of irrational exuberance is about to pop, giving wat to a Clark bubble of irrational exuberance. Indeed, that is arguably why he's in the race in the first place.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:35 AM | TrackBack (0)



More From the Front

The below was sent to me and a few others via e-mail by a former blogger, who should find a venue to post in (even if he no longer wants to post in the old stomping grounds). It was written by a LTC in Iraq and is worth reading. I have redacted all personal information (names, specific unit, &tc), mainly because I'm never sure whether it's a good idea to keep it in or take it out, so when in doubt I remove it:

I wanted to send you another update on our continued operations in Iraq. I will try to give you a commanders perspective of what it is like here, even though you may have seen much of our activity in the news lately.

Hot! That's what it is. The heat sears our hands as we hold our weapons, pick up tools and handle parts. When we travel in vehicles, the wind instead of cooling us fans us with a heat comparable to a blow dryer and thus actually increases the effect of the temperature. Even our fingernails get hot.

Even so, we endure. The Iraqis are suspect of this. They cannot imagine that we can operate in our battle gear and armored vehicles in the August sun and therefore another explanation must be given other than our toughness and willpower. Since we are Americans, we must have made some technology that allows us this freedom of movement. Iraqis ask us about our air-conditioned helmets and how they are powered. They talk on the street of our cooling vests and air-conditioned underwear. Despite all our efforts we cannot find these for purchase.

The markets in Tikrit do offer some items for relief from the heat, however. We have traded greenbacks for underpowered, Chinese made air conditioners and fans with small benefit. Like most things in Iraq, they put up an initial impressive facade. Given the appearance of functionality, they soon give out or work with marginal effectiveness. We still welcome them and the fact that we have the means to attempt to use them is far better than what the average Infantryman expected when we arrived here.

Since my last note of July 26th, we have been extremely busy. The time seems to fly but time also seems surreal to many of us at this point in the mission. Each day becomes just another one. Days of the week blur and were it not for our watches and the incremental changes in the moon, we would have scant idea of time at all. We count the days because they promise initial relief from the heat and subsequent hope of seeing our loved ones once more.

The soldiers of the battalion, while unable to see their loved ones, have had improvements in contacting their families. We tried to get a phone or two for the companies and this has greatly improved communication. Yet, the ATT satellite phones do not always track properly and the Iridium phones have had their keypads short circuit due to the heat. An ATT phone tent now serves as another possibility, even though the expense is a little much about 5 times the normal rate for phone cards. But the calls we have made have been wonderful.

We finally won the battle to get email. It took a lot of effort but now the soldiers can at least drop a note every few days with better turnaround on news to their families. We set up 3 terminals for the soldiers to use in the battalion headquarters and the companies rotate on a schedule. I hope these efforts have given all of you a better line of communication to our soldiers. We will keep improving the communication as we can.

Beginning the 27th of July, CSM [redacted] and I made the rounds to the companies to award the Combat Infantry Streamer to each Infantry company guide. It is a great honor to the units and one of which they are very
proud. Also during these visits, we took the opportunity to talk to the soldiers about their concerns. These ranged from the need for certain items of mission essential equipment, to small comfort items to help them relax when they are not on patrols, to how to better communicate with their families. We have been able to improve in all of these areas. We fought to get the newer body armored vests for all of our soldiers and won though not without exertion. Now all our soldiers are better protected.

After coming back on the 27th from Bayji (north of Tikrit) where B Company is, we had activity that quickly reminded us that we have much work to do even while feeling proud of our accomplishments. Someone placed a bomb in front of a house in central Tikrit. The blast blew open the gate and damaged the wall of the courtyard. The Iraqi family there asked our soldiers to help them move to relatives that night as it was after curfew. My operations officer, MAJ [redacted], obliged and as the family was escorted a few blocks to the east, one of our soldiers noticed a shovel leaning against a wall. SPC [redacted] began to look at the dirt and the shovel. Within minutes, 44 anti-tank mines, 20lbs. of C-4 explosives and 200 lbs. of propellant were unearthed. More digging. Nine grenades, four mine initiators, an AK-47 and thirty 60mm mortar rounds soon followed. This same building had been cleared not a few days before.

As this developed, a burst of gunfire erupted to the south in an arc across the main highway toward the governors building. A Company soldiers soon enveloped an area of two warehouses. The soldiers entered the first and spotted five men, one armed with an SKS rifle. The Iraqi men immediately dropped it when they saw the Americans and our men quickly deduced that these men were just food guards. They continued on to the next warehouse.
A man stood in the shadows as the soldiers approached. SPC [redacted] entered with his fire team and shouted at the man to come forward in English and Arabic. The man darted into the shed instead and appeared a second time with an AK-47. SPC [redacted] aimed his rifle at the man and killed what turned out to be the assailant that had attacked the governors building. An enemy and lots of deadly mines and explosives were now in our hands.

We continued to thin the ranks of those attacking our men the last week of July and we also received detailed information as to the location of an important bodyguard of Saddam Hussein. This particular man was often seen in photos with Saddam and his family. The locals also knew him as a vicious murderer. In a lightning raid, the Recon Platoon and A Company secured 3 houses in residential Tikrit. We were looking specifically for three men; two were bodyguards and one an organizer for the former regime. Within 45 minutes, we had all three men. The raid made national news and the men were extremely valuable to our efforts. The main target Saddam's personal bodyguard didn't give up without a fight. Our scouts found him upstairs, emboldened with liquor, attempting to grab a Sterling Submachine Gun. Butt strokes and quick action prevented his death. He swung at the men but soon found himself being drug down the stairs, his head hitting each step. Subdued and in his courtyard, with slight bleeding to the forehead, bulbs flashed from the several media present. The news quickly spread in Tikrit to the elation of all, who now saw this former cutthroat of Saddam brought into our custody.

News of our success spread across the media as well. Soon, several news services embedded with us and covered our operations. Most were convinced that we were on the heels of Saddam. We just continued with our mission, our focus unchanged. The 30th and 31st became eerily quiet. This was perhaps the first time in weeks that nothing happened - no gunfire, no attacks, nothing.

Our raids continued with success. On the 1st of August, we bagged three more men with ties to Saddam. While I cannot specify the ties, I can say they were involved with the personal family duties and staff. Now each raid seemed to feed upon the other, with encouraging results.

Discouraging news shortly followed. We learned from a frantic local sheik that same evening that the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein were to be delivered to his village the next day and then buried in the local cemetery. Not pleased at the news as this village also has our men in it we worked all evening to confirm this. We were told to do nothing. The corpses were to be turned over to the Red Crescent after being flown to our city. We were instructed to provide no escort or involvement. We watched at a distance as three corpses (the third being Mustafa Qusay's 14 year old son killed while firing an AK-47 under a bed) were laid into the dirt. Arrogant men, some veiled, surrounded the graves in pathetic prayerful worship over these murdering lifeless forms. They piled dirt mounds above their sunken corpses and then secured an Iraqi flag to each mound with dirt clods along the edges. The funeral passed uneventfully. But a candy box in the middle of the main highway in town would shatter the quiet of the previous two days.

The enemy launched an attack in the early evening using improvised explosives. The first was nearly identical to the second except in result. Each bomb appeared to be a box (one candy, the other Kleenex) packed with C-4 explosives and nuts and bolts serving as projectiles. How they were detonated remains unknown.

Our Recon platoon traveled up the main highway through the city center. Congestion by the telephone exchange offices narrowed the lanes to one. A median, elevated with planters, served as a directional backstop for the candy box concealed among so much other trash in this unsanitary country. The first scout passed by but the second seemed to disappear in a concussive mass of flame and smoke. Glass flew everywhere from the telephone exchange building. Policemen inside were knocked off their feet. Windows from a taxi full of kids blew into the youth as the pavement took on an appearance of an unfinished mosaic of glass.

Our soldiers in the third humvee quickly dismounted to see if they could assist but the truck was not there. Its driver, his eye bleeding and his arm filled with fragmentation, threw the vehicle into low gear and nursed the hummer with four flat tires out of the blast zone. The soldier in the back seat took searing heat and fragmentation to the neck and left arm. His left eardrum would register no sound. Men yelled to each other as the staff sergeant unscathed in the front right seat assessed his men in the vehicle. The gunner up top could be seen bleeding from the face and neck. But all were moving and so was the vehicle. The scouts continued their wobbly ride toward our compound. The perforated vehicle went through the gate. The men cleared their weapons with bloody hands and then made their way with assistance to the aid station. Two have returned to duty and the third will need more time for his ear to heal but will recover. We remain Regulars, by God.

The second bomb detonated approximately 20 minutes later and about two miles north along the same road. Military Police vehicles, similar in appearance
to our scout vehicles, became the unintended target. No major damage occurred in the mistimed blast except a few headlamps and cosmetic damage to
the fiberglass hood of a single vehicle.

After talking to my wounded scouts and seeing that they were going to be OK, we continued on with our combat patrols. That night I headed south along the highway to the burial village and located the new graves of Saddams sons. Flushed with the emotion of having three more of my men wounded I took comfort in knowing I was standing over the graves of Uday and Qusay
Hussein.

We spent the day of the 3rd of August planning for a simultaneous raid on each side of the river. We were looking for two individuals that have been organizing attacks on our soldiers. Our intelligence was good and we found the locations of the farms and a house in the northern suburb. The targeted men were not there, although their families were. We found important photos, information and documents. The raid proved successful however as the next morning one of the two men sought came to the civil-military relations office to complain about the raid on his undamaged house. We took him to our complaint department where he has remained ever since.

Our combat patrols continued in the city with ambushes laid out for an elusive enemy. Assailants with RPGs fired on a C Company patrol near the Women's College but hit nothing. A Brown & Root worker driving north of Tikrit did hit a mine however and lost his life in the ensuing blast. It was a terrible tragedy that illustrates the dangers in the use of contractors on the battlefield.

On the night of the 5th, our men saw a small group walk across the main street in town with an RPG launcher and AK-47s. Seeing no clear shot, they waited. Soon a man appeared around a corner with an RPG at the ready. Our men fired first, wounding the man in the leg. He shrieked in pain and then a calm settled over the alleyways.

The next night, the 6th, we captured the head of a Fedayeen cell in a hotel raid covered by a full compliment of media. We detained 39 individuals (we released 38) but among them was our man. Two of his new recruits fled the following day but we caught them motoring south toward Baghdad based on a tip from the locals. Later, a merchant brought us their RPG launcher with 3 rockets. He said he saw them hide it earlier and brought it to us once he learned we had captured them. We continue to see the Iraqi support increase
along with each success.

But the arms still flow into the city. Locals had told us so and the merchants from the market complained to the governor and police about it. They said that the weapons were being used to attack them and the Americans. We decided to set daylight ambushes on the Friday market to curb the flow. At 7:30 a.m. on Friday the 8th, we finally confirmed that the complaints were true. Our snipers noticed two men in a red car pull into the field surrounded by the market shops along the streets. The field is also used as a flea market where anyone can vend his wares or produce. These two men decided to vend weapons. They laid out wheat sacks filled with AK-47 magazines and grenade launcher attachments. Next, they set up various other small arms items on the now empty sacks. Finally, they pulled an AK-47 out of the trunk. The men reported it but wanted to be sure these were weapons dealers. After small devices and electronic switches for bomb making and then more AK-47s appeared, the men engaged.

The sharp crack of a sniper rifle drew little attention at first. A vendor selling crackers not ten feet from the arms traders took little notice, thinking the men were testing the weapons. But then he noticed that one man holding a weapon jerked and suddenly dropped it, his arm bleeding profusely. The driver of the red car, unaware of what was happening watched as one of two other men present handled weapons. The man turned around with an AK-47 seeking the direction of the fire. A round ripped through him. He ran forward, weapon in hand. Another round found its target. Then he slumped to the ground. The driver ran frantically to the car attempting to flee. Our sniper squad leader gauged the approximate location of the driver through the hood the car was facing away from him and fired. The round perforated the hood and then hit the man in the head. He stumbled out of the car and died. The last armed man stood little chance. A round through his leg cut him down and he dropped the weapon. The engagement was now over.

The Recon platoon then rushed to the site. A sea of confusion billowed among the locals. A clear path parted around the arms dealers as the crowd receded from the site. A bystander had already stolen one of the AK 47s but everything else was still there when the scouts arrived. Soon soldiers from A Company cordoned the market. We secured the scene. The two wounded were transported to the Tikrit hospital. Iraqi police appeared and assisted in crowd control and body recovery. The press arrived and we gave a full account of our ambush.

Not waiting for the details, the French AFP media went to the hospital and found two boys from a village about 30 kilometers across the river that had been injured by an unexploded shell of some kind in an unrelated incident.
Assuming that the boys were somehow connected to our actions against the enemy, they flashed pictures around the world stating that we had wounded the boys with grenades at the market. Fortunately, the rest of the media not only have higher standards, but also reported the facts. Some (not many) in the media asked me why we did not give the arms dealers any warning. I stated that they became combatants as soon as they produced weapons and that no such warning had ever been afforded my men. Our actions sent shock waves through the town and effectively curtailed illegal arms trade in the city. The governor thanked us for our actions as well as the mayor. The police chief stated that the two men we killed from the red car were known thugs that smuggled weapons from a major military complex on the outskirts of Baghdad. They would show samples, fill orders and arrange deliveries. What is certain is that we see no more weapons traded openly in Tikrit.

The enemy, not able to take us on directly, began to focus more on explosive devices and land mines in his attempts to strike at us. Over the next week we discovered some of these before they could be used and each week we discover some new attempt before it strikes. We are thankful for the prayers that make this possible. West of Tikrit, an unfortunate driver in a truck lost his leg when he and a fellow soldier supporting the engineer battalion ran over an anti-tank mine laid along the edge of a road. And to the south of us, an artilleryman lost his life in a similar episode. Our snipers and patrols continue to shoot at suspected devices as before while locals have helped on us in intercepting several others. We remain vigilant. It is in our best interest.

On the 11th of August we successfully raided three more objectives and netted two former Republican Guards officers one a division commander and the other a corps level chief of staff. The third objective netted us a leader of Fedayeen militia. By the 13th we had seen small enemy attempts to harass or strike back at us. On a secondary market street, CPT Boyd's convoy narrowly escaped harm as assailants rolled a volley of RPGs down the street like some game of ten pins. The rockets whooshed, skipped and scraped along the pavement, but made no contact for them to explode. The enemy attackers had fired from several hundred meters away in the middle of a street and then fled.

Our actions continued to have momentum. By mid-month two men wanted by our forces - one who worked for Saddam's wife turned themselves in to us and on the same day we received weapons from helpful Tikriti merchants with keen
eyes. Even so, the young and the stupid continue to step forward. In a suburb to our south, attackers launched a volley of RPGs at A Company soldiers in yet another classic miss and run attack. Our Gators responded so quickly that the enemy was forced to flee for his life and abandoned his rocket launchers in the street. The attackers melded into the local population before they could be caught. Hence, we continue to work with the locals, the sheiks and plan more raids.

One benefit of our dialogue with the sheiks has been the recruitment of reliable militia that we are now training. Tapping into some previous experience I had on a much grander scale when I served in Afghanistan forming the plans for the Afghan National Army, we moved out with a modest training program that is producing a good-quality small element to assist the local government and our forces. Through the great work of 1LT [redacted] and SGM [redacted], and with the assistance of a couple of former drill sergeants in each company, we move forward to train Iraqis in martial and civil arts that
will help them stabilize their own town.

As to the continued raid planning, our efforts to find a bomb maker paid off when we raided a house on the 17th as a part of a wider operation. We found plastic explosives, electronic switches and devices, fragmentation pellets, blasting caps, a few weapons. While raiding this house, alert soldiers outside began to root around the fields across the street and found 3 grenades and a 60mm mortar system with 7 rounds of ammunition. All in all it was a very productive week.

The enemy continues to adapt his tactics to counter ours. His only cowardly refuge has been to hide among the population and among legitimate emergency
services. On the night of the 18th our soldiers at a temporary checkpoint searched an ambulance that was bringing back an older man from the hospital.
Seeing this, a white car placed an explosive on a side street and ignited the fuse. A Company soldiers reacted to the blast to the west. The ambulance drove north to get out of danger and as it did, the white car pulled along side the Red Crescent vehicle and sent a burst of gunfire toward another unit's outpost. The outpost responded, seeing the fire come from what appeared to be the ambulance.

Also seeing the fire exchanged between the outpost and the ambulance, our snipers engaged the ambulance as it sped north, the victim of a cruel crossfire. The white car, fully masked in its movements, then dashed down a dark alley and made good his escape. The ambulance shuddered to a stop. The driver, fearing for his life, got out of the front seat to escape the bullet exchange. He nearly made it but for one round that hit his ankle. Another aid man was cut by glass from the windshield. The older man in transport took a round to the shoulder and the thigh. The police and our forces quickly arrived along the dark street. The police took the seriously wounded victim to the hospital where he was stabilized.

The ambulance then began its journey northward toward a police checkpoint, met by both police and our scouts. After much confusion, we determined what had happened and treated the man with the ankle wound. We took him to better care to remove the bullet. We also handed over the ambulance back to
the emergency workers. The Iraqis helped us piece together the confusing puzzle and, while frightened and initially angered, became more angered at the fact that the attackers would once again use innocent people as shields. They are by all estimations cowards.

Some of the cowardly activity is planned on local farms. Some of the people talk. Some of the farms get found and raided. Such was the case with one farm that we had raided before the one that we found the $8 million and Sajita Husseins jewelry. Seems they continue to plan and fund there.

We acted quickly on the intelligence that a planning meeting was occurring at the farm. Confirmed sightings of two particular individuals on our hit list caused us to go in quick and bristling. We surrounded the farm with reconnaissance troops to set the cordon and then A Company rolled up to the capricious compound gate and flattened it with the momentum of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Bradley continued forward as occupants of the two large farm complexes scrambled. Soldiers poured through the gap and more soldiers spilled out the back of the Bradley. Fingers of light danced around each corner and flashed around each window and room. Back alleys were cleared, aqueducts jumped, orchards searched. Men and women are questioned. The targeted individuals had left 3 hours before. But they leave knowing they are hunted men that must live like the rats they are. And they know that no rat hole is safe.

The next day, the 20th, we got an emergency request for help from another unit working in our area. While coordinating information on a market street, armed attackers masked within the population open up a deadly burst of gunfire. The soldiers translator falls dead with a torso wound. A soldier collapses with a serious thigh wound and another is also hit in his extremities severely wounded. The soldiers return fire. The enemy's damage done, he flees, unable to be pursued by this small wounded band.

Men from our C Company rush to the scene. Shocked and bloody men are lifted into vehicles, accompanied by their angry and equally shocked peers. Our soldiers cordon the area, conduct a wide search and gather little from the
locals who have either closed their shops in typical fear or claimed they saw nothing. The men's lives are saved by a medical evacuation. A translator, an American citizen, will speak no more. Vigilance, vigilance, vigilance. My burden is that every soldier of mine goes home and with a pair of legs. God has spared us from much in the midst of our battles. Psalm 68:19-21.

One such sparing occurred on the 22nd of August. A tip from a distraught local warned us of a plan to attack the Tigris Bridge. He stated that the attack would occur within an hour and would be with RPGs, small arms and mortars using a water-services truck as a mask. Our response was immediate. A section of M1 Abrams tanks changed the scenery of the bridge and our checkpoint there. The enemy did materialize at a distance and launched a single pathetic 82mm mortar round, impacting just across the near bank of the river at dusk. The scenery of his own attack also changed, he missed and now ran.

An hour later, our Recon platoon headed south along the main highway. They approached a decorative gate incongruently guarding a wadi that funnels the waste byproduct of Tikrit into the Tigris River. Our men affectionately know this depression as the Stink Wadi. That night it exuded more than just odor. A volley of RPGs raced across in a flash from the south bank of the wadi. Small arms accompanied the volley.

The scout's weapons erupted in a converging arc that raked and then secondarily exploded on the bank. Unable to get to the scene quickly by the nature of the wadi, distance and terrain, the men could not determine the damage they inflicted. But they blew up something. When searched later, the area was vacant, revealing little information.

The revelation of information took on a different form in Tikrit the following morning. Our C Company posted security along the main street of the city near the telephone exchange offices. Bradley fighting vehicles and tough soldiers mixed with the squat, dilapidated structures of the city. A small crowd gathered at a new caf in town, an Internet caf. Words are exchanged, cameras roll and snap, a pair of scissors is lifted off a pillow as the owner and I cut a ribbon at the entrance.

While thrilled, it all seems so foreign to me given the context of the previous days. For a brief moment these small trappings of normal life of normal pursuits and daily living awaken me. As I leave the caf an old woman is nearly struck by a car and a bicycle as she attempts to cross the busy street. Our soldiers step into the four lanes of traffic and she is escorted across the thoroughfare. As we pull out in our vehicles, we cradle our weapons, begin to watch rooftops, examine every trash pile, and check each alley. A sea of people is scanned quickly - what is in their arms, what are their facial expressions, do they make unusual movement. We pull away and reenter our world.

I had intended to write sooner. It just becomes impossible at times. So I continue to make notes and write a little each day hence this longer letter. We appreciate the prayers and support from everyone. We could not go in confidence and safety without it. 2 John 12.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:27 AM | TrackBack (5)



By-Election in Britain

Labour has lost a seat in North London to the Liberal Democrats.

The usual suspects are going to make much of this. However, while there was a big swing, some things need to be remembered. This is the constituency that elected "Red Ken" Livingston, the current Mayor of London, who was himself, um, somewhat estranged from the Labour Party. Likewise, the Liberal Democrats moved from being Britain's moderate Liberal party under Ashdown sharply to the Left under Kennedy while Labour has moderated under Blair. So it is not really that stunning, if one thinks about it, that a radically Left constituency has chosen to be represented by Britain's main Left party, the Liberal Democrats, rather than Blair's more moderate version of Labour.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:10 AM | TrackBack (0)



Thursday, September 18, 2003

To the Left of Tom Friedman

Ok, I have proof that I'm not a radical NeoCon Right-Winger, now. I've been saying that France isn't a friend or an ally, France is a neutral.

Tom Friedman comes right out and says our enemy and is at war (Cold) with us (via Andrew Sullivan, who has more on the subject).

I'm willing to let myself be convinced, which proves not only that I am to the Left of Friedman on this but I'm also open-minded and willing to consider his arguments. 8-)

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 01:18 PM | TrackBack (0)



The Dame Christiane Song

Gerald at Kahu wrote:

Brave Sir Robin’s minstrels sang about “buggering off” which is running away

“buggering up” is making a mistake or making something worse (see balls up, making a).

Yes. Buggering Up is more appropriate to the Christiane Song, though, since that's what she claimed they did in response to Shep Smith's intimidating presence on the airwaves.

Also, re. other mails: Yes, I know that neither "Christiane" nor "Amanpour" fit the meter well. I went with "Amanpour" because it seemed a better fit to me, even though "Christiane" would be, like "Dame", more a more accurate one.

Little can be done to fix the fact that neither "Christiane" nor "Amanpour" really fit the meter, though. I'd ask her to change her name in a way that better suited the lyrics, but since I'm not in the Ruthless Dictator business (yet) I doubt I'd get any cooperation.

So you'll just have to make the best of it when you're singing it, that's all.

Update: More on the whole "self-censored" thing at Dissident Frogman.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 12:09 PM | TrackBack (0)



Rebutting Krugman

I linked to the Calpundit interview snippily the other day. Not to tackle it with greater detail. On Taxcutting and Revenue, Krugman asserts

"Reagan lied a little bit, and his policies were often crazy, but they wouldn't do 2 -1 = 4. They'd say, if we have our tax cut we'll have this wonderful supply side thing and the economy will boom and it will pay for itself, which was a crazy theory, but it wasn't a blatant lie about the actual content of the policy."
Here Krugman is clearly wearing a partisan hat and making assertions without regard to evidence. Firstly
  • Bush's rationales are little different than Reagan's. Of course, at the time (I remember), people were claiming the Reagan theory was "2 - 1 = 4" as well.

  • The consensus among professional economists now is that high government spending and tax rates do crowd things out and reduce economic growth. The evidence over the last forty years or so in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere demonstrates that pretty conclusively even among economists who are not supply siders.

  • Lets take Reagan's "crazy theory". The top marginal rate was reduced from 70% to 28% but in every year except the first year (the depths of a recession), the revenues of the Federal government increased. By the end of Reagan's Presidency, revenues had almost doubled, in no small part due to economic growth.

  • Why the deficits of the Reagan years, then? Because spending grew faster than revenue.
This last point is key to the current situation during the Bush Presidency. Krugman acts as if the deficits are the result of tax cuts and the reason we are in the situation we are is because Bush has some radical scheme to cut spending programs dramatically. Most conservatives would respond to this "if only!"

The facts, once again, contradict Krugman's assertions. The fact is that under the Bush Administration, non-defense discretionary spending has increased faster than it did during the later years of the Clinton Administration. Far from starving these programs for funds, Bush and Congress have proposed increases greater than during the Clinton Administration and also, rather than proposing curbs in entitlements, pushed for a new and largely unwanted, un-needed, and counterproductive drug program to be added on to them. One which will, if it follows the historical pattern, cost far more than current projections. This is the secret Bush Plan to reduce spending on these programs by increasing it significantly. So who is "lying" here?

It's disingenuous to argue that our current deficits are largely the result of the tax cuts, when they are instead mostly the result of slower growth, increased spending, and - more importantly than Krugman with his anti-(private sector)investment attitude, significant drops in the amount of revenue coming in as a result of growing stock income (since stock values have dropped, correcting for the "irrational exuberance" of the late Clinton period, and Treasury had underestimated the degree to which this would affect Federal revenues). Krugman also misportrays the Bush tax cuts in this way:
I've got a tax cut that's aimed at working people, ordinary working people, and then you just take a look at it and discover that most of it's coming from elimination of the estate tax and a cut in the top bracket, so it's heavily tilted toward just a handful of people at the top. It's just a flat lie about what the tax cut is.
That's a straw-man version of the argument Bush's plan rests on; he and his Administration have asserted that this will help spur investment and thus job creation - the latter being, last time I checked, good for ordinary working people. Krugman's problem seems to be that he would prefer that an equivalent amount of money be spent directly by the Federal government on jobs programs, but doesn't like the private sector approach. Well, I guess that's why he's a Democrat, not a Republican; Democrats tend to prefer government programs to address problems while Republicans tend to prefer private-sector solutions.

The old, pre-"radicalized" Krugman would have put it in more straightforward terms, like I did in the above, and argued why he would prefer government spending programs to encouraging the private sector to do the work. The "radical" Krugman prefers mischaracterizations, straw-men, and demonization. In any case, the only thing Krugman and others are showing with their polemics about taxes on the rich not having any affect on the rest of us is that they, like the Bourbons, have learned nothing from history:
Source: This Week with George Stephanopoulos
Date: Sunday January 12, 2003
Headline: George Will Commentary on Taxes

[Begin Transcript]

George Will: [C]ritics say the President's tax proposals favor the rich at the expense of ordinary people. Maybe. Maybe not. But a recent event reminded us of the perils of taxing the rich to help common folks.

(Voice Over) Twelve days ago the luxury tax on expensive cars expired. It was the last of the luxury taxes that the first President Bush signed in 1990 as part of the budget agreement in which he broke his read my lips no new taxes pledge. The agreement was brokered by this Senator, George Mitchell of Maine, then Majority Leader, and the luxury tax was supported by this Senator, Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. The luxury tax applied not just to cars but to jewelry, furs and private planes and to expensive boats, yachts. Congress estimated that in 1991 these luxury taxes would rake in $31 million, but the actual sum is just $16.6 million.

Graphics: Luxury Taxes
> Estimated Collection $31 million
> Actual $16.6 million

(Off Camera) Why? Because to the surprise of no one except tax raising politicians, the luxury taxes caused people to buy less jewelry and fewer expensive cars, planes and especially yachts. The tax destroyed jobs, an estimated 25,000 of them in the boat-building industry, much of which is in New England in Senator Mitchell's Maine and Kennedy's Massachusetts. The job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue so the luxury tax actually cost the government money.

Graphics: Government's Cost
> Job losses $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue

(Off Camera) New England's boat-building industry was so devastated that by 1999 another Kennedy, Ted's son Patrick, a Rhode Island Congressman, actually proposed a Federal subsidy to help rich people buy yachts. He called it, quote, "exactly the opposite of a luxury tax." Remember this costly farce when you hear talk about helping the common folks by taxing the rich.

[End Transcript]

By the way, the premises behind the Yacht tax would have made Krugman happy; they were based on 1+1 = 2 arithmetic, rather than a dynamic economic analysis of the likely effects of imposing such a tax on people's decision making. But it was ideologically correct to do it that way rather than relying on "crazy" theories.

Returning to the paragraph I quoted from above, it is also true that the original Bush tax cut increases the proportion of income taxes paid by the upper income classes. The Democratic retort is that this doesn't take into account the payroll taxes paid by lower income people (such as, by the way, myself). However, Krugman's "Progressive" position is one of adamant defense of the status quo here, where the Social Security Ponzi scheme is based on regressive taxation - indeed, a form of taxation which, if it had been Republicans who wanted it, would long ago have been demonized for what it is.
They learned not to run people like Steve Forbes, but to run people who could talk a better game while actually doing the same stuff.
If only Bush would push a flat tax!

Throughout, Krugman acts like favoring low taxes is some insidious Conservative plot that Real Americans would oppose if only they knew about it! The facts are otherwise. He may be able to talk about Alabama, the people of which tend to be held in contempt by most of the readers of CalBlog, I would surmise. But in Lefty Seattle, the Latte Liberals don't like taxes that they, rather than others would have to pay, either. See also here. Note also that the measure polled well when people were surveyed before the vote, but they did something else in the voting booth. A typical example of "do as we say, not as we ourselves do"? You be the judge.

Lets go back to how Krugman characterizes the Alabama thing, though, because it too is important:

It was a dispute about taxes, but what's ultimately at stake is, are they going to do anything to improve that dismal primary education system in Alabama or is it going to get even worse because of the budget crisis? And the answer is, it's going to get even worse.
Only if you think the only thing needed to improve education is more $$$, something not even Matt Miller believes (btw, he got far more support from Conservatives for his education reform ideas than from Democratic constituency groups).

Krugman again shows that he and those like him learned little or nothing from the Saint Louis Experiment. If money equaled educational excellence, Washington, DC would have among the best public school systems in the country rather than one of the worst. The fact is, America spends more on education than other countries in the developed world, but with worse results (see also here and here). The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in the year 2000, according to the report. The average in other nations, $6,361 per student. Krugman points fingers at others for letting ideology blind them to empirical reality, but he is the one who is oblivious to reality. Adjusted for inflation, we're spending twice as much per pupil now as we were over thirty years ago, but with worse results.

Regarding deficits, Krugman proposes nothing but increasing taxes - the Hoovernomics which now passes for Democratic fiscal and economic policy. But we don't have to go back to Hoover for how this works in reality. The Clinton tax increases were designed to tackle the deficit. But regardless of how they try to slip the result down the memory hole, it wasn't Clinton's tax increases that eliminated the deficit and produced a surplus. Clinton's policies produced $200 billion (in early-90s dollars) deficits as far as the projections could go. In '95 & 96 the Republicans in Congress proposed eliminating the deficits by restraining the growth in spending. Clinton and the Democrats resisted it, rather famously (a commercial ran with his various remarks), but it worked. Our current problems is that the Republicans, including Bush, have tried to outbid Democrats in spending increases - that, not the tax cuts Krugman disingenuously wishes to blame everything for, is what has ballooned the deficit.

Krugman on Foreign Policy: interesting that it is now supposed "Progressives" who are endorsing the status-quo stability (keep the despotisms generating terrorists, we have no interest in changing them) mindset. The attitude on the Left and among Liberals is that Sept. 11th changed nothing and did not require significant policy shifts; that is what this is all about when one boils away the rhetoric and Frankophilic gesticulations. Btw, France never saw itself as that close to the U.S., so Bush is hardly "radical" in recognizing that, yes, France's foreign policy is not friendly, it's neutral and that it's no longer in our interest, as it may have been during the Cold War, to pretend otherwise. See here and here and keep scrolling through my archives for more on this Partisan Divide. More from Krugman:
I think we have a much more polarized political system, a much more polarized social climate.
Krugman's response, in line with that of most Liberals, has been to contribute to it - to engage in ever more extreme rhetoric in service of their partisan cause. Gone is the Krugman who was a sober, somewhat staid, Liberal economist. Here is the Krugman willing to distort anything in the service of "his side", misrepresent what the other side has said so that he can point to his misrepresentation and then say "they're liars" - it's the Liberalism of Wesley Clark, also a (formerly) honorable man who is currently out claiming that Bush claimed the threat from Saddam was immanent so that Clark can then claim Bush misled the country in claiming the threat was immanent. But go read the State of the Union for yourself and see that this is a complete misrepresentation of reality. Krugman engages in the same thing here, and then laments the polarization of the country. They misrepresent things and then bemoan "polarization" when they are called on it.

The fact is that Krugman is using his economic credentials not in the service of accuracy, but as a tool for partisanship. Since he is a distinguished economist, he gets away with a lot on the basis of his credentials and long ago ceased to care about accurately representing reality if it contradicts with the "radical" cause he has signed on to. Someone should send him a copy of William Saletan's piece that I excerpted the other day. A more honest and accurate Krugman, less driven by partisan demons, would be decrying the fact that the Republicans who produced the surplus have lost fiscal discipline and increased spending too much and in unhelpful and unnecessary ways to buy votes. A honest and accurate Krugman would also concede that in this they were competing with Democrats in spending bidding wars and that both sides should stand down so we would maintain fiscal discipline to enable us to fight the war and prepare for the coming retirement of the Boomers.

Krugman, however, prefers to wage partisan war and further polarize things.

Update: For those interested in this subject, more here and here.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 11:42 AM | TrackBack (0)



Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Dog Day Afternoon

Well, likely no more posting today and any posting tomorrow will probably be late in the day. In the meantime, as Clark announces his acceptance of the Democratic Vice Presidential nomination today, read all about his military record in the Balkans. For a more extreme view of Clark's background, see here. Whatever else can be said about it, that'll balance some of the puffery you're going to hear and read about the man, which, since he's a Democrat rather than a Republican, news reports tend to skip over the questionable parts of his record.

Also, people are wondering whether he has the political skills to run a political campaign. Well, he honed his political skills in the Pentagon and NATO, so don't underestimate them.

Afghan troops have killed a Taliban commander.

Don't forget your good deed for the day.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 08:46 AM | TrackBack (0)



War Update, Anti-Americanism Update & A Good Deed

Andrew Sullivan on anti-American paranoia spreading and also what we're doing right and how restrained it has actually been. Remember all the comparisons in the wake of Sept. 11th to WWII? We aren't even as mobilized for war as we were in the '80s, much less WWII.

He adds this:

I also think he's right about the need for much bigger military expenditures than we now have. We are dangerously vulnerable to a real threat from North Korea, while we are engaged in the Middle East. But if the American political class has been so divided over even the modest measures we have taken to fight back so far, what hope would there have been for a more ambitious campaign?
Which echoes some of what I've been saying (see also here and here and here).

In any case, via Winds of Change, your good deed for the day.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 12:59 AM | TrackBack (0)



Those Brave War Correspondents

I simply can't get the image of the Brave War Correspondent wilting in the face of the menacing disaproval of E.D. Hill and Brian Kilmeade out of my head.

      Bravely bold Sir Amanpour rode forth from CNNalot.
      She was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Amanpour.
      She was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
      Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Amanpour!

      She was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
      Or to have her eyes gouged out and her elbows broken,
      To have her kneecaps split and her body burned away
      And her limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Amanpour!

      Her head smashed in and her heart cut out
      And her liver removed and her bowels unplugged
      And her nostrils raped and her bottom burned off
      And her pen--

      Brave Sir Amanpour ran away,
      Bravely ran away, away.
      When O'Reily reared his ugly head, she bravely turned her tail and fled.
      Yes, brave Sir Amanpour turned about
      And gallantly, she chickened out. Bravely taking to her feet,
      She beat a very brave retreat,
      Bravest of the brave, Sir Amanpour.

      She is packing it in and packing it up
      And sneaking away and buggering up
      And chickening out and pissing off home,
      Yes, bravely she is throwing in the sponge

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 12:53 AM | TrackBack (0)



Put Her in the "Formerly Respected" Pile

Folks are rightly lampooning Christiane Amanpour's risible assertion that anti-war network reporters were "intimidated" by the Bush Administration and Fox News. The "Brave War Correspondents" were somehow fragile flowers that wilted in the face of Brian Kilmeade and E. D. Hill (oooh, menacing! Should I start singing "Brave, Brave Sir Amanpour" now?) She would have us believe that CNN's relentlessly hostile and negative reporting and featuring of Wesley Clark (D-CNN) were the result of caving to this pressure which "muzzled" their criticisms. If that was them "muzzled" and "self-censored", makes you wonder just how radical their "uncensored" opinions really were. In this fair, balanced account Amanpour slips down the memory hole the fact that CNN's reporting on Iraq was shaped and manipulated over the last decade not to please the Amerikkkan government (led, of course, by Eeeeevil Whitey), but to please their Ba'athist patrons, to maintain access so they could continue to misrepresent the situation in Iraq in ways that, coincidentally concided not with the wishes of the American government (much less the interests of truth and accuracy), but Ba'athist propaganda.

Other bloggers are aptly contrasting Amanpour's remarks with the revelations highlighted by John Burns.

It strikes me that Amanpour's whine is a virulent strain of the "what I say is an expression of free speech, any criticism of it is not an expression of free speech but an attempt to 'stifle dissent' and impose a 'chilling effect' on free speech" virus - freedom of speech for "our side" but not for yours. The proper response to this was summed up by Tammy Bruce:
Remember, too, that valuing freedom of expression does not mean remaining silent or withholding our opinion when it contradicts someone else's opinion. We have a duty to interact with those who are determined to change our culture, because our very liberty - the right to determine our future and make it worthy of our children - is at stake.
Also, in this Amanpour reveals herself to have been infected by the virus of Liberating Toleration (which see).

I once respected her as a reporter, but that has all drained away in the last year.

Update: More here.

Oh, and yes, yes, I know that for Ms. Amanpour the proper Knightly term would be "Dame" rather than "Sir", but "Brave, Brave, Sir Robin" doesn't have quite the same ring if rendered "Brave, Brave, Dame Amanpour"

Additional: Even more here.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 12:31 AM | TrackBack (2)



Tuesday, September 16, 2003

Campaign Finance Reform and Democrats

Of course the Political Speech Regulation Act of 2002 (aka Shays-Mehan/McCain-Feingold) was never intended to cover free, in-kind contributions aimed at helping some candidates. So, think HBO (or NBC, for that matter), will be even handed in such contributions?

Don't make me laugh.

Meanwhile, in the "what does he mean by that", Brian McGrory writes, in the lead of a column criticizing John Kerry (D-FR):

I wanted to give this a good leaving alone for a lot of obvious reasons, but the problem is that I can't let it go.
What "obvious reasons"? "No Enemies on the Left?" That normally, obviously, criticisms like these should not be directed at Democrats (even when apt), only at Republicans (even when inapt)?

In tangentially related news, Wesley Clark (D-CNN) will formally announce his acceptance of the Democratic Vice-Presidential Nomination tommorrow, though some disagree as to what this is all about. Elsewhere, Chirac says that France is committed to the EU budget discipline in spite of breaking them. Probably committed to imposing harsh penalties on other EU members if they break them.

Back to the home front, credit where credit is due. Brian McGrory and Paul Krugman may be blinkered by partisanship (though, to be fair, McGrory overcomes his "obvious reasons" and does criticize Kerry), but William Saletan manages to overcome them, from time to time. This is a particularly candid column:
I have a message for my liberal friends, relatives, and colleagues: If you think Republicans play dirty and Democrats don't, open your other eye. . .

thought it was time for the minority to have the White House, they stopped counting votes in Florida, and they just gave it to them." Clinton said Republicans "believe in government by ideology, enemies, and attack. We believe in government by experiment, evidence, and argument."

Really? Let's look at the record.

Yah, Billy. As for being "in favor of government by experiment, evidence, and argument" I suppose that's why the Democrats have stood steadfast against trials of voucher programs, among other things. But Saletan goes on himself to puncture these disingenuous assertions:
In Florida, Al Gore originally asked for a recount only in counties in which he thought Democrats would gain votes. Moreover, to be precise, he wasn't for "counting" more ballots; he was for reinterpreting already-counted ballots until he came out ahead. Gore's lawyer, David Boies, argued that ballots should be interpreted as votes for Bush or Gore based on "the intent of the voter, not how the voter manifests his or her intent"—in other words, without rules. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., a Gore surrogate, actually claimed, "The punch cards were wrong." Gore eventually moderated his position, but not until he had to. . .

As for the 11 Democratic state senators who fled to New Mexico to prevent the majority from gathering a quorum, I can only imagine the cries of outrage I'd be hearing from my liberal friends if those were Republicans thwarting a Democratic legislature.

Many Democrats have questioned Bush's legitimacy because he lost the nationwide popular vote. It doesn't seem to bother them that this principle—the right of the majority to get like-minded representation, regardless of which party wins jurisdiction by jurisdiction—is exactly the principle they deny in Texas. . .

Are Republicans nasty? Do they refuse to accept election defeats? Do they subvert respect for democracy? If so, they have no monopoly on these vices. They aren't the ones claiming that our current president "was not elected by the American people." They aren't the ones declaring "a nonmilitary civil war." And it was Clinton, not a Republican former president, who asserted at the Iowa steak fry that the other party "tried to put more arsenic in the water."

A day after Clinton leveled that charge, ABC's This Week aired a delicious exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Howard Dean aboard a Dean campaign van. Stephanopoulos asked Dean whether it was true, as rival candidate Dick Gephardt alleged, that Dean had supported $270 billion in Medicare cuts advocated by Newt Gingrich in 1995. Dean said it was "very unlikely." Then Stephanopoulos showed Dean newspaper clips backing up the allegation. "It's pretty clear that you said you would accept a 7 to 10 percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare," said Stephanopoulos. "Oh!" Dean interjected, raising his eyebrows. "Cutting the rate of growth! That's much different."

Excuse me, but wasn't that difference exactly what Clinton deliberately blurred in his 1996 campaign? Didn't he beat Bob Dole by accusing Dole and Gingrich of cutting Medicare?

Don't settle for excerpts, check out the whole piece. (Oh, and Alert Readers will remember that I hit Coulter for this, too).

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 01:38 PM | TrackBack (0)



Seattle II

Recriminations all around on the failure of the Cancun trade talks.

The importance of agricultural trade to the developing world should not be underestimated. The subsidies that the EU, U.S., and to a lesser extent Japan engage in are one of the key factors hampering people in poorer countries from accumulating the wealth needed to move up the development curve. Read the Is Iran Rich? post and you'll see why.

The loss of momentum in trade liberalization since the late '90s has been one of the things hampering global economic growth that not enough attention has, in my opinion, been given to.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 11:18 AM | TrackBack (0)



"Progressive" Reactionaries

Further following up on themes from yesterday's post and this morning, a guest blog written by Terry Cobb:

Democracy and the EU
By Terry Cobb

The fact that the structure of the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic is not at all surprising. Within the last twenty years or so the attitude of the Left has changed markedly regarding the issue of democracy. Once upon a time, not all that long ago, the Left was very big on using democracy to achieve their goals. Simply play by the rules, build your power base, and eventually the electorate would sweep you into power. Even Karl Marx thought that it might be possible to achieve communism in England without a revolution via the ballot box. It was assumed of course that the masses would be pleased with the heaven on earth that this would produce and socialism would reign forever.

Their attitudes began changing when electorates began using their power to roll back "progress." The election and subsequent actions of Margarett Thatcher in England was quite a blow to those who advocated the welfare state. They had assumed that progress toward their goals was like a ratchet; it would only work in a leftward direction. To their horror they saw that democracy could be a sword that could swing in either direction. Another blow to their world view was accomplished in Nicaragua, where the Sandanista's were rejected in a democratic election. I still vaguely remember the shock expressed by "liberal" pundits about the outcome of that election, as well as speculations about voter fraud despite the fact that the elections were heavily monitored, even by our own ex-prez Jimmy Carter.

The Left has correctly realized that democracy is not their friend. On the other hand, they cannot overtly repudiate it, at least not at this time. The answer, as is seen by the EU Constitution, is to provide an outward facade of democracy which is devoid of substance and power on a substantive level. I am sure that the length and endless detail of the EU's Constitution is in some part due to the bureaucratic mindset of the people who drafted it, but I have a cynical suspicion that this was done so as to obscure its central structure to the greater part of the population who might try to read it. This is not to say that the average European is stupid, I am merely saying that the vast majority of them have no legal training. With so much hay in the stack it is truly hard to find the poisoned needles.

Posted by Porphyrogenitus at 09:59 AM | TrackBack (0)



Whither Europa? Update

Related to yesterday's post on prospects in Europe, Steven Den Beste had a post on how helpful France and Germany are being in the latest UN negotiations. Answer? Not very. (See also here).

Which reminds me: EU Commissone Capo Chris Patten was in Syria to toast Bashar Assad and conducted an interview with the BBC, part of which was run on the World Service radio newshour I listened to this morning. He has picked up the meme that since the Arab countries haven't democratized immediately in the wake of the Iraq war, that means the U.S. belief on this was "naive" and has failed. This insipid attitude reminds me of a favorite Calvin & Hobbes strip. Calvin has heard that if you go really fast, you effectively travel into the future (a garbled version of the Theory of Relativity at work). He & Hobbes decide to sled down a hill as fast as they can, to get to the future. They do so, and at the bottom their watch shows that 30 seconds has passed! They're in the future! Calvin looks around, disgusted, and declares himself disappointed that things haven't improved. The segment went on to opine that therefore if Arab countries do engage in democratic reforms in the near future, credit for it shouldn't go to U.S. policy, which is to be declared a failure already.

So the EU's position is effectively that of a cartoon character who's eight years old. Meanwhile, back in the real world, push for reforms continue, as does the Civil War of Ideas in the Arab world, and various Middle Eastern governments are scrambling to try and look presentable to America (see also here). Prospects for actual reform look better there than among EU mandarins. Have we heard much of the Congo where the French forces have failed to provide security and UN offices have been attacked? Quagmire! Failure!

Oh, wait; since the fault can't be laid at America's feet, such pronouncements are way out of line.

All is not absolutely hopeless, though. Gabriel Gonzalez has a post on French intellectuals who are combating the anti-Semitic and anti-American atmosphere in France (and elsewhere in Europe). (The Gonzalez post is also here). Two things struck me when reading this post. One, this line from Alain Finkielkraut's piece:
The] image of an all-powerful America breathes new life into the pernicious notion that politics is responsible for everything.
Is perfect today, as Andrew Sullivan has posted what looks like something Nelson Ascher submitted, quoting from a a L'Express piece saying that:
In the name of their credibility, and of their diplomatic survival, the UN and its Security Council can't afford to miss the opportunity to bring back the all-powerful America into the fold and to retake some semblance of initiative on the critically important Iraq dossier. But it remains to measure their hypothetical power, once more, by the measuring stick of concessions from Washington."
(Emphasis added).

Others have already observed that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism tends to run hand in glove. This FT opinion piece by Ian Buruma (I linked to AS's post on it yesterday) only highlights that.

It should not surprise anyone that Marx wrote some highly negative passages pertaining to Jews, and that Marxists have held the U.S. in contempt. The mention of Heidegger's attitude towards America is also telling. Heidegger saw himself as the philosophical muse of the German National Socialis