~ 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
Friday, October 24, 2003
Israel and Perceptions of Jewishness
Nelson Ascher has a good post tearing into Tony Judt's proposed alternative to the existence of Israel.
I'm going to look at this more broadly than just Judt. For a period, non-Israelis took considerable pride in pointing to the vigor and toughness of the Jews of Israel defending themselves successfully. For many in the West, that began to change about a quarter of a century ago. In part it was when the Israelis started electing non-Labour governments, that alienated much of the Left which wanted to see Israel as a one-party Socialist state.
But I think it also has to do with the fact that for many people, enthusiasm for seeing the Jews of Israel able to take care of themselves, defend themselves, began to wane. A certain sort of person prefers to see others as victims in need of their succor. Since the Jews of Israel were able to defend themselves, they seemed less needy. So sympathies began to shift.
A lot of people are really uncomfortable with seeing Arafat and his coterie as sympathetic victims, though. Sure, some have no problem with that. But for others, it's unsettling. It offends their sense of the natural order of things: Jews should, well, be oppressed and die like Jews, and thus be seen as in need of the sympathetic compassion of the Enlightened, with their boundless concern for the less fortunate and for the victims of the world. The Enlightened feel displaced from their natural role of protectors and guardians of Jewish victims when the Jews show they don't need such protectors and guardians but will defend themselves.
So the Enlightened daydream and muse about how to return things to their proper order. If only they could engineer a situation where the Jews living in what is now Israel had to depend upon the people who make up Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the like for their defense (by engineering an outcome where they would be governed by, and thus policed by, those who hate them), then the Jews would become victims again and the natural order of the world would be re-affirmed. The Enlightened would then be able to once again extend their sympathy and compassion to Jewish victims. So you get proposals like this for a forced wedding between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine, knowing full well that if the Jews of Israel live up to democratic ideals under such a union they will be under the rule of those who at best are uninterested in curbing violence against them and at worst support and perpetrate such violence. It's the kind of proposal favored by people who won't have to live with the negative consequences but will be able to extend their sympathies to its victims after the fact.
Is this too harsh and cynical an interpretation? Well, if it is, then one would expect to see a much more through grappling with the downside consequences of such a solution by the proponents of it. When I was in High School, I thought along similar lines (a one-state Confederation as the solution), but recognition of the likely (probable) results in the real world as it actually is (rather than a Panglossian view) caused me to change my mind.
(As a closing aside, I note that the same people who tend to be uncomfortable with Americans defending themselves without the blessings of their "World Community" are also the ones who are uncomfortable with Israeli Jews defending themselves).
Please read this post and the StrategyPage piece on the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in this war. As is common, the recipient is not alive to receive the medal.
America's real allies. You know, the ones that the Democratic Presidential candidates are sneering at on the campaign trail ("fake coalition" and the like). Yes, those same Presidential Candidates who are going on and on about the need for less abrasive diplomatic tone that doesn't alienate other countries.
The real allies are there or preparing to be there. The faux-allies that the Democratic candidates are so obsequious towards - that kind of "help" (people attempting to sabotage the effort for their own reasons) we don't need.
But I can see why Democratic candidates would be all for it, because they have increasingly tied their hopes of electorial victory to American failure. They have decided stake their best chance to win on America failing.
So, I should have blogged about this yesterday, but I failed to. I mean, it's appropriate to castigate the world community that thinks of itself as moral exemplars because of their sympathy for Arafat and Hamas, for having double-standards (or incredibly low and despicable standards) and all. But the more I thought about it, it's insufficient.
What are we going to do, if anything, about it? For me, this raises questions similar to the ones that the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Balkans raised in the '90s. What do we mean by "Never Again"? "Never Again will the World stand by and let German NAZIs murder Jews and other so-called 'undesirables' during the 1940s"? Or something more substantive?
Yes, I know that this isn't genocide per se, but the moral impulse behind abhorring genocide applies here - or at any rate should apply, if we see the lives of tens of thousands of people as intrinsically worthy of respect (rather than simply valuing groups. People who are only concerned with the fate of groups, ethnic or otherwise, may feel free to be indifferent here, since sure tens of thousands of Koreans are suffering and dying, but the Korean people aren't threatened with extermination as a whole. But I don't find their ethical stance very respectable; indeed, it's the perspective that leads to the Killing Fields and Death Camps, the view that individual human life is unimportant).
This is made all the more problematic because we also know that North Korea has at least a couple atomic bombs. So, what are we going to do? At what cost to ourselves - in the awareness that doing nothing is an action with moral consequences. Are we going to ply their regime with aide, as in the '90s, which will be used to sustain that regime and keep it from collapsing but to no real benefit to the people they are mistreating (as in the '90s, when aid was sent but famine claimed the lives of untold numbers of people, because the regime doled out the aid in selective ways)? At what point do we share moral culpability?
Update: Mitch Hagemaier writes, via e-mail:
Bruce Falconer calls this sort of thing "democide" in this month's Atlantic Monthly, to avoid the minority-slaughter associations of "genocide". And no, I don't have any ideas, either.
The article is apparently not online yet, but this is a fine suggestion. We'll have to work on not only using the word but spreading understanding of its meaning.
Peggie Dunnan writes, also via e-mail:
So, I wanted to thank Porph for voicing both the concern and what do we do about it questions. I was facing that yesterday when I was scanning the 100 plus page report - if we have the knowledge (and, if the report is correct, we do), then what? I keep having this image of coming face to face with the people in those work camps and having to explain why I failed to do something, raise my voice, do something - Any suggestions? I would say this is exactly the moral situation we will face over and over again - a nightmare of humanity v. taking action and creating another nightmare, i.e., a use of nuclear/atomic/B-NICE material.
I am more familiar with Steve's site and he generally strikes a sound balance between self-interest and interfering with another government's internal affairs -- at one point there was discussion (I think it was USS Clueless) about possible nudging China to invade North Korea and take it with a roundabout backup through the UN smoothing over sovereignty problems -
Gentlemen: I feel bad enough about being blind in the past re other times and places - any ideas? I don't want those eyes in my dreams or to feel the shame of turning away - any ideas?
I remember that post (and I'll try and locate it) (it's here [actually no, that's not the one; this is the one]; Steven also has a response to this letter posted. I wrote the below before reading it). IMO it's far from an ideal solution. But there are no ideal solutions. People sometimes muse about how, if North Korea were cut off completely as a result of real sanctions, a real international blockade (meaning no gas from China or Russia), the regime would probably collapse within six weeks. I'm not sure - it's even less likely to collapse as a result of an internal uprising (caused, perhaps, by deprivation resulting from such a blockade) than Saddam's in Iraq.
Will China want to assume the risks of going in? It's not as if North Korea would refuse to fire a missile at a Chinese city out of "Socialist Brotherhood" if Chinese troops crossed the Yalu intent on overthrowing Kim Jong Il. China may be induced to care enough about North Korea possessing a atomic bomb to squeeze Pyongyang over that, but I highly doubt the leadership of China will lift a finger over a humanitarian crisis in North Korea - except to the extent of sealing the borders against refugees (which they have already done).
As for our own part, people often say, when intervention is proposed for humanitarian reasons, that "we can't intervene everywhere" and where does it stop? Will we be going into Zimbabwe next? What's the standard? Well, it's an apt question, but just because we do not intervene everywhere does not mean we intervene nowhere. How we decide what is too appalling to tolerate, out of not just humanitarian interest but self-interest in maintaining our own humanity, is something that is called a "judgement call", that must be grappled with case by case. (Aside: I'm really, really opposed to the concept being taught these days that "judgement[alism]" is wrong. The ability to form a moral judgement is what makes us human more than anything else. But more on that topic another time).
There are various reactions we can think about, too, which do not involve launching an invasion north. However, we should think about one thing: in this dirty, cynical world, why are certain countries so very interested in getting us, specifically, on the hook for maintaining Kim Jong Il's regime, getting us to cut a deal with Kim Jong Il where we give them aide in exchange for their giving up (we hope) their nuclear weapons? Because if any or all of these countries wanted to send aid on their own account, they would be able to.
I think there are a variety of reasons why they want us on the hook for this. But one of them is so that our hands are tainted as well: that, in the end, when one day it does all come crashing down in Pyongyang, we will be as guilty (if not more) as they for looking the other way while these things happened. We won't be in a position to point out how abhorrent such things are, and how abhorrent doing business with, meeting with and exchanging pleasantries with the leaders of such a regime is, because they will be able to say "look, you're guilty too. You sent them U.S. grain. American aid sustained the regime, and you cut deals with these killers. So don't tell us about right and wrong in international affairs" - as they're able to do with respect to Saddam's Iraq.
In any deal, the government of North Korea will insist that any aid given in exchange for surrendering their nuclear weapons & nuclear weapons program, will go through their regime. It will thus, as with what was given during the '90s, be used to reward the regime's supporters and minions while depriving other North Koreans, who will be left to starve. In '94, we didn't know yet (I will accept) what we know now, after the famine and after this report. Now we do. Cutting such a deal will put blood on our own hands.
In a - well, not perfect, but less imperfect - world the Chinese would do what Steven proposed several months ago that they do (actually, in a less imperfect world, there would be regional, if not international and UN, consensus, for such an action. In a less imperfect world, the EU wouldn't be cutting superficial deals with Iran, either). But none of that is going to happen. As usual, it pretty much comes down to what are we willing to do?
I myself really don't know. But I will say that the next-to-last thing I want is what the Good People of the "International Community" wants, and that is for us to be responsible for perpetuating this. The problem is, that is quite probably what we're going to get, because as abhorrent as this situation is, allowing North Korea to posses nukes is even more intolerable, and I doubt we're going to go to war to stop that. Which leaves us with the option of cutting a deal and trusting (!) them to carry out their end. Which is not really going to happen either. (It’s really a similar case, though worse, as that with Saddam, in the sense that once Iraq had the capacity to manufacture certain weapons, it hardly mattered whether they had any of a specific sort on hand at any given time, they could resume manufacture at any point. I don’t trust that North Korea will give up their ability to manufacture atomic weapons; I believe it is almost certain that they will squirrel away the capability of resuming production, and an amount of fissile materiel, regardless of any deal and regardless of the strictness of the verification procedures, and we will be pressured into accepting it, just as we’re being pressured into accepting an entirely superficial, meaningless, and bogus "lets pretend" agreement between the irrresponsible EU and Iran, out of the interest of "peace" and "successful diplomacy and solving the world's problems by negotiation").
Regarding "Rebutting the Spin", Anthony reminded me, via e-mail, that the last time an incoming Administration followed a plan the outgoing Administration fobbed off on them, we ended up with the Bay of Pigs.
Heh; I wish I had thought of that. There's also more on this subject over at Balloon Juice, where John asks why stuff like this won't die. It's because any spin that is favorable to Democrats, no matter how implausible or even inane upon close analysis and thought, is Immortal. As I mentioned here, we're dealing with people who long ago decided that "who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future" - five'll getcha ten this spin ends up in history books. (More on this subject here as well).
You focused on "sort of," but IMHO, the key word is "our." Why not tell a good story in "an" honest "sort of" way?
Yah, good point. One could spend a lot of time diagraming the sentence construction of Leftists and parsing their words for the meaning they convey (how many Leftists can dance and spin on the dot of the I in "is"? The World Wonders). Karl is right, though: that telling "Our honest sort of way" (all truth is relative being the attitude) could certainly use some attention. I'll leave it as something for the readers to ponder.
My personal experience with Frenchmen is that they don't speak
English. Admittedly, this is based on a sample of one, so YMMV. Given my
full mountain-man beard, I'm more likely to be confused with an Islamic
radical than identified as an American. Back on my freshman trip to Italy,
everybody demanded to know if I was Amish. Surreal experience...
It's a thought experiment, dude. I will add this appendix, though:
your reaction to the question is that "well, normally the French refuse to acknowledge any capacity to speak English", then add "Pedant" to your descriptor (and gain two bonus points under "nitpicker").
So your results might then read "Liberal Pedant" or "Warblogger Pedant" (isn't that a tautology, as in "not all Pedants are Bloggers, but all Bloggers are Pedants"? Could be) or "Progressive Pedant".
I'll note that the question didn't specify that the language the French-person's harangue was in.
On the credit where credit is due front, Chris Matthews may have worked for Tip O'Neil and his positions on policy matters differ a lot from Reagan's, but he's for honesty and giving Reagan his due.
Ok, so awhile back, Dennis Prager came up with some questions to see if you're a Liberal or not. Armed Liberal didn't like those, so he came up with his own. I wasn't really satisfied with either version; sure, Dennis Prager's were of the "have you stopped beating your wife" class, while Armed Liberal's were of the "if you're against wife beating, you're a Liberal" class.
Ever since, I've been sort of musing about what some fair questions would look like. Here are a couple on the foreign policy attitudes front. As with every rule-of-thumb, they aren't perfect. But correlations will be high, as even Armed Liberal will have to admit (though he himself will be one of the "outliers" in many cases).
Imagine you are in France. A local recognizes you as an American and comes up to you and begins to castigate America for its role in the world. If
your inclination is to say you understand where he's coming from and apologize, if only to get him to calm down and see that you're a reasonable fellow, you're probably a Liberal.
your inclination is to argue with him, point out what France owes to America and that it is France's role in the world, not America's, that is something to be ashamed of, then you're probably a Conservative.
your inclination is to join him, even try to out-do him, in berating America and criticizing its policies, then you're probably a "Progressive", though you might also be either a current or former Democratic Official or Presidential Candidate.
you can't imagine yourself being in France except at the head of an invading army, in which case you certainly aint gonna take no guff from any Frenchman, then you're almost certainly a warblogger and/or Member of the Dreaded NeoCon Cabal.
Special Bonus Answer: if your inclination is to pretend you're Canadian, then you're probably a Liberal, though if after pointing to the maple-leaf you have stitched to your backpack you then commiserate with him and tell the Frenchman that "we Canadians" have to put up with "American bullying" too, then you're from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and gain two extra marks under "Progressive Leftist".
So, there you have it. Coming soon: a question on attitudes towards solutions to domestic problems. Be ready to total up your scores at home and remember, as Nick Bakay would say, the numbers never lie.
This is going to become the latest effort in the War Against the War on Terror. While Rumsfeld, among others, tries to figure out how to most effectively and efficiently fight and defeat America's enemies, others in Washington are trying to figure out how to most effectively and efficiently fight and defeat our efforts in said war, because that war effort is being lead by people they hate.
Normally I don't like to focus on partisan recriminations about who could have done what to combat terror and who is to blame for being too lax about it prior to 9/11. My position was and is that we, as a nation, didn't take it as seriously as we should have. Sure, some of us believe we should have done more after prior terror attacks, but few of us were of the mindset that this needed to be fought aggressively.
However, others want to make a partisan issue out of things. Clinton and his followers continue to go around asserting that they gave Bush a plan for agressively fighting al-Qaeda and that if only Bush had followed it then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. So, here we go. I'm hoping I will only have to write this post once and be able to refer people to it when they throw this assertion out there.
Lets take these assertions at something like face value, and see what it says about the Clinton administration's lack of any sense of responsibility to combat terrorism.
Clinton minions claim that "With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden," however they believe it is more appropriate for them to dictate a plan and policy for the next Administration to follow - one that they themselves did not implement. At its best this whole thing is only an additional example of Clinton's penchant for kicking a problem down the curb and leaving the difficult task for someone else to deal with, while he focused like a laser beam on such initiatives as school uniforms. It remains that their policy for combatting terrorism was to fire off a salvo of cruise missiles in response to each attack and then go back to talking about his "record of peace and prosperity".
The Clinton Administration made no effort whatsoever to pre pair the American people for such an effort. Throughout '99 and '00, they trumpeted not the need for a global war on terror, but "peace and prosperity". This was after the bombing of the USS Cole, after the bombing of U.S. Embassies in Africa, and well after the first World Trade Center bombing. Clinton did not even designate the Taliban as a state sponsor of terrorism.
How much support for organizing and fighting an aggressive war against terrorism could Bush have expected from Clinton and his courtiers, prior to 9/11? That is, a war that would have, at best, been characterized as "pre-emptive", to root al-Qaeda out of their bases in Afghanistan? What would their reaction be if, prior to 9/11, Bush instructed John Ashcroft to hunt down and arrest members of suspected terrorist cells operating in the United States? We know the answer to all that ("Free Atta!" would join "Free Mumia!" as a rallying cry of the Left). It is instructive to remember not only their reaction to the pre-emptive toppling of Saddam, but also their actual reaction (rather than after-the-fact revisionism) to the invasion of Afghanistan: remember, that was the first "quagmire", they wanted more dialogue with Mullah Omar and felt we should consult more and listen to the sage advice of our allies who were cautioning against aggressive action against Afghanistan.
Clinton avoided grappling with the problem himself and set up - apparently deliberately - the next Administration to do the dirty work that he found too difficult to attend to. Never the less, at every step he and his cronies have gone out of their way not to assist in building support for the war effort, but to undermine it both at home and abroad with sniping, disparaging comments and speeches that amount to asserting that we should, instead of going after terrorists and their sponsors aggressively, be following the same path they followed in the '90s. That is, that we should defer to the wishes of the lowest common denominator among our supposed allies, in the interest of "multilateral" consensus - just as they did with respect to Saddam Hussein in '98 when, with Albright's team leading the diplomatic efforts, they failed to get France and Russia to agree to a strong response to Saddam's obstructionism and so gave up on trying to accomplish anything (see also here).
Clinton and his hangers-on refused to even try to mobilize the American people to confront the terror networks that threatened us, instead leaving the problem for the next Administration to do the difficult and dirty work. They knew from their own experiences how hard it would be to get countries like France to agree to taking strong action - so they deferred the problem. They now simultaneously insist that if only Bush had followed the plan they left for aggressively going after terrorism, things would be better, while simultaneously carping about how we're upsetting those supposed allies by doing so, joining the chorus of criticism.
The only thing all this proves is that their irresponsibility and fecklessness knows no bounds, and neither does their partisan and self-centered nature. It certainly doesn't prove that they handled the dangers terror networks confront us with well in comparison with Bush. No wonder the attitudes of Democrats tend to be non-serious on the war, seeing it mainly as fodder for partisan politics.
So, hating has become an issue, we note. Of course, the current crop of haters excuse their hatred by saying "they did it first" - excusing their current hatreds on the grounds that people hated Clinton so it's ok for them to hate Bush.
This excuse exposes the infantile nature of their creed as well as anything. Most of us learned when we were children that "they did it first" is not an excuse for misbehavior. Plus, it is very interesting to see the people who shook their heads in disapproval of Clinton-hatred now invoking it as a rationalization for their behavior. In any case, it is a falsification of history, because the Left's hatred of Reagan predates any dislike of Clinton. I know - I remember it. I was on the Liberal side then. I experienced it directly and, to my eternal regret, engaged in my fair share of sneering contempt for Reagan.
The rationalizations used on this occasion are that:
In many ways the film follows the standard television biopic formula, sensationalizing the more controversial moments of the subject's life.
are risible, since biopics of a Liberal icon (say, JFK) rarely if ever concentrate on the negative at the expense of the positive - indeed, would never fail to highlight the positive elements of Kennedy. Do you think a biopic made by the same people about the Clintons would emphasize the most negative things insinuated about them at the expense of their merits? Puh-leeze.
They put words in Reagan's mouth that he never said, in order to portray him as negatively and as disparagingly as possible:
During a scene in which his wife pleads with him to help people battling AIDS, Mr. Reagan says resolutely, "They that live in sin shall die in sin" and refuses to discuss the issue further.
Lou Cannon, who has written several biographies about Mr. Reagan, said such a portrayal was unfair. "Reagan is not intolerant," he said. "He was a bit asleep at the switch, but that's not fair to have him say something that Patrick Buchanan would say."
Why is this done and why is it important? Well, the Left long ago understood that "Who controls the present controls the past. Who controls the past controls the future." So we have Barbra Streisand's lesser half portraying Reagan in a picture written, directed, produced, and acted by people hostile to the Reagans. One of the producers, Neil Meron, is quoted as saying:
This is not a vendetta, this is not revenge. It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way.
Regarding whether it's a vendetta or not, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck; Meron's claims to the contrary notwithstanding, Judy Davis (who plays Nancy in the film) gives away the game. For them, this is all about:
If this film can help create a bit more questioning in the public about the direction America has been going in since the 1970's, I guess then I think it will be doing a service.
Not a vendetta or revenge? She also says this in response to criticism of their handling of the subject:
"With the climate that has been in America since Sept. 11, it appears, from the outside anyway, to not be quite as open a society as it used to be," Ms. Davis said during an interview at her hotel in Montreal. "By open, I mean as free in terms of a critical atmosphere, and that sort of ugly specter of patriotism."
I know we're not supposed to question their patriotism, but it is kind of interesting that the only time some people mention patriotism (or "flag-waving"), it is as a negative. However, no one questioned their patriotism: they were critical of their treatment of the Reagans and whether they were fair to the subject or not. So I'll note here, and not for the first time, that any time the Left is faced with criticism themselves, they wrap themselves in self-righteous sanctimony and try to de-legitimize any criticism that is directed at them. It's a display of the insight the Left gained from Marcuse (yes, its a display of our old friend Liberating Tolerance - something that became widespread in the '70s, so no wonder they want to return to those halcyon days). Once again, South Park said it best, first:
That the death camp was one of tolerance highlights a truism about liberalism, which is all for tolerance - that liberals only support tolerance so that their voices - and only their voices - can be heard. Anyone disagreeing with them might as well shut up, such is their intolerance to other views.
Well, there they go again. If nothing else, this shows one thing: every time one gets a glimpse inside the mindset of the Left, one is appalled by the viciousness and mean-spiritedness that infuses the Good People (the tolerant ones who are open minded and fair).
Lets go back to what meron said: "It is about telling a good story in our honest sort of way." What is an "honest sort of" way? It means that they will do whatever they want without letting the facts get in their way, and that truth is, for them, whatever they can get people to believe.
If you want to know what Reagan is really like, I recommend reading what he wrote rather than watching how his enemies characterize and caricature him. The only thing one can gain from that is insight into their bile, not insight into what Reagan was really like.
Here's a good review of Zell Miller's book, which I encourage folks to go out and read. Zell and similar Liberals are the kinds of folks I was writing about here. The fact that he - a man considered reasonably Liberal not too many years ago - feels "conservative" - says a lot about the Leftward drift of Democratic politics.
Don't miss this piece by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney on why it was wise to go into Iraq and on reforming the UN.
Hey, I'd be willing to put Mulroney in charge of reforming the UN. If he can do for the UN what he did for Canada's Progressive Conservatives, I'd be a happy camper (and it would go a long way towards restitution on his part for what he did to Canada's Progressive Conservatives).
Also, don't miss this book review by James Woolsey. Most intriguing graph:
Mr. Posner's final chapter is a stunning picture of the interrogation of one of al Qaeda's senior members, who supposedly told his interrogators in spring 2002 that certain Saudi princes aided Osama bin Laden and had advanced knowledge of a 9/11 attack. Three of the princes named in this interrogation, it is said, died soon after the man's testimony was made known to the Saudi regime.
Ahh, so that's how it is in their family. . .
Check out this piece and save Radio Free Europe and VoA. Dick Morris predicts Clark will lose, so of course that means Clark 'll be on the ticket. Krugman finds an anti-Semite he can love, 'cause he Blames Bush for it (of course you know already that any time something goes wrong in the world, it's the Republican's fault, right?), see here and here and here for more on Krugmania. The Washington Post also sees this primarily as an opportunity to slam Bush again. Meanwhile, David Brooks does a service to the Republic by trying to rescue the Democrats from themselves. Here's a bit on the latest defector from the State Department who's become a Bush-basher. Elsewhere, Europe tells us what they really think about America. Don't forget about the upcoming elections in Ukraine. I hope they'll be cleaner than the recent elections in Azerbaijan, but I don't expect them to be.
What does the French Revolution have to do with Iraq? Read this to find out.
Only lame posting here today; I hope to have something kewl tommorrow, though.
For those interested in developments on the "woman in combat" issue, a story on Israel's position (Israel is frequently invoked in debates over the role of women in combat). Elsewhere, even the editors of the NYT are forced to recognize the vacuousness at the heart of Democratic positions on Iraq, though of course they can't help from wrapping it in the usual anti-Bush, anti-Republican language and platitudes about the desirability of, for example, international control, that lets the Democrats off the hook rhetorically. Lieberman and Clark are bailing out of Iowa's caucuses, figuring they haven't a snowball's chance of doing well and so it's better to look like one did badly because one chose to than look like one tried and failed to do well. California's Democratic State Attorney General voted "Arnold" in the Recall. Pro-War American conservatives admire Tony Blair in spite of disagreements over his politics. Why can't pro-war Liberals give Bush any credit?
Regarding Europe, why does the Times and most Democrats and Liberals think that the French and Germans would be able to help build a vibrant Iraq, when they can't even build an economy their own people want to live and work in? That old man brain drain, it just keeps rollin along.
Great piece on the state of the Democratic Party (in sum, it resembles Professor Chaos' sidekick, General Disarray). But this line isn't going to go over well:
the Pelosi Democrats are to the left of Bashar al-Assad.
In a paper that regularly publishes unfavorable comparisons of Republicans, to not only unfavorably compair Democrats to a foreign dictator but imply that dictator is a Leftist - well, such things Simply Aren't Done.
