I was in the market today, I came across a loaf of what was called "Canadian Bread". If any Canadian readers are reading this, I'd like to know exactly what Canadian bread is supposed to be. As far as I could tell by looking, Canadian bread appeared to be really polite white bread with an inferiority complex.
Iraq today is trying to teach us all a lesson in geography. In a Reuters piece, Iraqi vice-stooge Taha Yassin Ramadan told reporters that "Iraq is not Afghanistan". Of course, almost a year ago, the Taliban told us that "Afghanistan is not Iraq". I'd like to thank both of them for clearing that discrepancy up. It also shows how neither one wants to be thought of in the same light as that other bunch of losers who got clobbered by the USAF.
Ha'aretz has an excellent article in it about the Arab reaction to an invasion of Iraq. The one thing I noticed in it was the air of defeatism that the Arab world is starting to acquire:
The war on Iraq" is not merely a bland expression that describes the state of affairs. Judging by the extent of Arab rhetoric and political commentaries, the war stands to go down as "the Mother of All Wars," one even more momentous - to the Arab world - than the previous Gulf War. In terms of regional significance, it even has the potential to surpass the resolution of the Palestinian problem. Because the planned attack on Iraq is the Arab war against America. "We are at the threshold of a redrafting of the map of the Middle East," wrote the political columnist Adli Sadeq in Al Quds al-Arabi, a newspaper published in London. The American plot, he writes, groups together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iran, and ultimately aims to redivide the Middle East into loyal statelets, or even into tribes - tribes and oil wells.
After the Gulf war, that belief was shaken somewhat. However, due to the status quo obsession of Bush41, and the general cowardice and fecklessness shown by Clinton's foreign policy, the credibility we had at the end of the Gulf War was eroded to nothing. It only took a short while before the Arab world and most importantly Saddam and Osama came to think that we were incapable of attacking with the intent to overthrow and/or kill the leadership in the Arab world. The Arab world mistook forebearance for weakness. That is why Osama and Saddam attacked us. They believed we were incapable of striking back. That Afghanistan fell so quickly shocked the Arab world somewhat. If we conquer Iraq*, for the first time, the Arab world will understand what is meant by unconditional surrender. That will change things, because we will have demonstrated, decisively and lethally, that the Arab world is incapable of standing up to American military might, and that the only thing preventing us from doing them like we did Saddam is our own forebearance. At that point, our "street cred" will be such that we won't have to use military force again. The Arab world will be forced to engage in self-examination, which they have never had to do in the 20th century.
*In one sense we are liberating Iraq. In another sense, we are conquering it. We are invading with the deliberate intent of removing a sovereign government and replacing it with one more palatable to us. While it will be also more palatable to the Iraqis, thereby liberating them, it will be more palatable to us, making it a conquest.
OK, I'm starting it right now. The Donahue show is on its way to the dustbin of cable shows. So I am creating the Donahue Show death watch. The person who guesses the correct date for a)the last day the show is on the air, and b) the day the show is officially cancelled will receive, courtesy your humble blogger, an Impeach Norm Mineta bumper sticker. In the event of a tie, the day the network announces the show is being cancelled will be used as a tiebreaker. If you manage to guess the crackpot leftist who will be on the last show, I'll even autograph the bumper sticker. That way, 100 years from now, your great-great-grandkids can say with pride, "My great-great-granddad won a bumpersticker signed by an absolute nobody!" Here are the rules:
1)This is the Donahue Show Death Watch, not the Phil Donahue Death Watch. We are only debating when his career goes belly up, not when he goes belly up. So if the show ends by him croaking, all bets are off. That should take care of the "I killed Donahue to win a bumper sticker," crowd.2)If MSNBC is taken off of the air, that DOES COUNT. That "Feminine Vapors" with Chris Matthews or Ashleigh Banfield's "Clueless Across America" disappear with it is just gravy.
3)Only entries in the comments section count. If the comments section acts up, just do a reload. YACCs is acting temperamental lately.
4)"He'll never get cancelled" won't be accepted. This is the Donahue Show Death Watch, not the Donahue Show Comatose Watch.
5)The winner will be acknowledged here, and I will ask for for all the details to send him the bumpersticker via e-mail.
6)I'd like to make the prize something better, but I'm a cheapskate. If I win the powerball, I'll pay off a congressman to start impeachment hearings on your behalf.
Update: We have a winner!
CBS is going to run a reality version of the Beverly Hillbillies show. My guess is that the "family" will be gleaned by looking at the guest lists of the Jerry Springer show. Of course, they never make a show like this about Blacks or Hispanics, because that is obviously bigoted, but because the show makes fun of Southerners, that is, of course, good for a laugh. It just shows how much Hollywood looks down their noses at the rest of the country, and especially at the South. It has been a long time since Hollywood has made a movie like Sargeant York that portrays someone from the South as something other than a Klansman, a corrupt power-mad sheriff, or a Deliverance style inbred, violent hick.
OK, I saw how bloghop put in the HTML, and it looked ugly as heck in the body of the blog. So it is now sitting over with the other links and stuff.
OK, I am going to try out this rating system I saw on another blog. I'd like to find out what people think of it. Of course, if you all think I suck, I'll be like CAIR and pretend the whole thing doesn't exist.
Steven Den Beste flips out over the "peace at any price" crowd. After hearing the same pathetically weak arguments from the same people for the past six months, I have to admit I get the urge to tell them to put a fucking sock in it too.
First Star Trek, now Cheers. George Wendt (NORM!!) took part in a fundraiser for his brother in law, who is running for Illinois attorney general. The question I have to ask myself is why would someone want the endorsement of an actor who is primarily known for sitting on a barstool eating pretzels and drinking beer all day?
It is Glenn Reynolds birthday today. I just want to send him regards on his nth birthday, and I'd like to thank him for linking to this insignificant little slice of blogosphere.
Matt Drudge today reports that Donahue's show has hit rock bottom in the ratings. It makes you wonder why they dumped Alan Keyes. For all his pedantry, I am certain he worked a lot cheaper than Donahue, and when MSNBC dumps this turkey, they'll wish they had stayed with the somewhat pedantic Keyes over the tinfoil hat leftism of Donahue. Then again, knowing how the media swings so hard to the left, they won't realize what an unreconstructed lefty Donahue is, and will come up with one of the following replacements:
Let's Go Green with Ralph Nader: Ralph Nader shows how evil oil companies have conspired with evil automobile companies to make cars with lousy gas mileage. Nader then goes on to demonstrate how evil power companies created the light bulb to promote nuclear power. The entire show is done by candlelight.
Robert Fisk's America Really Sucks Show. Robert Fisk gets together with the Islamofascist du jour and talk about how evil the United States is. At the end of the show, the Islamofascist beats up Fisk, and Fisk thanks him.
Al Sharpton is the Real Black Leader: Al Sharpton talks to anyone in earshot about how he is oppressed by The Man, and quietly insinuates how Jesse Jackson is a has been and no longer a real Black leader.
Louis Farrakhan Likes Saddam: Louis Farrakhan talks about killing whitey and how much he likes Saddam Hussein. Each show is devoted to a different prime number, which is used to prove what a nice guy Saddam Hussein is.
Everybody's a Peacenik with Howell Raines: Howell Raines spends every show demonstrating how everyone wants the United States to kiss Saddam's butt, and that when people like Henry Kissinger say preemption is necessary, what they really mean is that Saddam is a cuddly bear of Pan Arabism and Bush's policy on Kyoto is the reason why the WTC was bombed.
There are four ways we can look at this. The first would be the mutlicultural animal rights perspective, which would be that the bear was simply expressing its frustration at being an oppressed minority. The second would be the animal rights law and order perspective, which would be to send the grizzly to bear jail after being found guilty by a jury of her bear peers, the nanny state perspective, which would be to put her cubs into the custody of Cub Protective Services, while sending her to bear anger management classes, and of course, the final, correct perspective, that:
Anyone who believes in animal rights is a weenie.
Let's here it for Canada and Australia, who are part of the Eco-Nazis "Axis of Evil" along with that perennial evil nation, the United States. And I bet you thought they meant Iraq, or North Korea, or some other garden spot.
Now that Chris Matthews is over malaria, it seems he is now back to his normal condition, which is a permanent and prolonged case of the feminine vapors over Iraq. In his unique, Chicken Little way, Matthews breathlessly screams that noone wants war, that the polls don't support war, and that Saddam will blow everything up, arab street, yada yada yada.
Anyway, time to take out the fiskomatic, remove the trigger lock, and load in a fresh clip:
The American people are not committed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.No, the American people are committed. That is why Fox got a 69% in favor of military action, the Washington Post/ABC got the same number, with majorities in both cases in favor of war involving ground troops, and in the case of Fox, 52% in favor even if it involves thousands of casualties.Cheney's staff is. Rumsfeld's deputies are. The White House speech-writing office is. The guys they're working under are.
But what about the families of those who will do the fighting? What about the country that will have to suffer the casualties that are the wreckage of every war?You mean like the wreckage in Lower Manhattan? The wreckage strown across a field in Pennsylvania? The wreckage at the Pentagon? That kind of wreckage? I don't think it takes much of a genius to understand that the soldiers who are going would rather put their own lives at risk rather than see that sort of wreckage, don't you think Chris?
A Washington Post/ABC poll found 57 percent of us back a ground attack on Baghdad but that's if there are no significant casualties. Faced with that prospect, 51 percent oppose it.
Is this a strong base from which to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country on the other side of the world? To send several hundred thousand U.S. service people on a mission to take over a country, remove its political leadership from power and install one of our choosing?
It's time to recall the Powell doctrine of the 1980s and recall the names that gave it resonance: Vietnam and Beirut.
With memories of those misconceived missions fresh and painful, then- Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and his chief military assistant, Gen. Colin Powell, drafted new criteria for overseas military involvement.
War should be a last resort, undertaken only with precise political and military goals and clear support from the American public and the Congress. There must be a clear exit strategy, and a will to deploy overwhelming force.
So we drop tens of thousands of airborne troops into Baghdad. We look for Saddam Hussein. We wear gas masks to protect us from whatever chemical and biological weapons the Iraqi leader has stockpiled for just this occasion. A threatened Israel mobilizes for war.
All this against the backdrop of an Arab and Islamic world in riot. In Cairo, President Hosni Mubarak must tighten his grip, igniting even more opposition. Jordan's King Abdullah joins his country's Palestinian majority in condemning the attack. The Saudi Arabian royals are silent. The Muslims and anti-war elements of Europe take to the boulevards
Then comes the messy part.We won't have to find the Hussein loyalists. Iraqis will do that for us. There are millions of Iraqis who would like nothing more than payback for the 20+ years of suffering they have been forced to endure. The executions, the murders, etc. When American troops enter Baghdad, proudly being a Ba'athist will be akin to being a Klansman in Harlem. And without a government to protect them, the terrorist will have a new task in their job description: survival.
Our troops in Baghdad morph into a nervous constabulary force. Their mission: guard streets, shoot snipers, arrest the suspicious, keep order, find the Hussein loyalists, round up the members of his ruling party, root out plots, battle the terrorists.
Ah, the strawman of wars past. Like Beirut, where we didn't engage in force protection, or in Vietnam, where your golden boys, JFK and LBJ sent American troops to a quagmire, and patently refused to take action that might have won the war. How come you don't mention the Gulf War, Chris? Because we won? Because had we finished the job in the Gulf War, we wouldn't be forced to fight this one?
For how long?
How long were we in Beirut before that "peacekeeping" mission ended with a barracks being blown sky-high by a suicide bomber? How long were we in Saigon?
This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia in the history of military catastrophe.Yes, this invasion will be a disaster. Just like last time, the vaunted Republican Guard will bludgeon our poor boys on the fields of Manassas. Their rifles will mow down our troops by the dozen. Oops, sorry, wrong war. Let me start again. Yes, this invasion will be a disaster. Our tired, wear troops will be put in a sector to rest and recover, when the vaunted Republican Guard will come crashing through the Ardennes, the infamous tanks built by the industrial might of Iraq will blast apart our poor GIs in their Shermans. Dang, wrong war again.
How about this? The Iraqi Army folds like a cheap suit as thousands of Iraqis decide they would rather surrender than fight for Saddam. The Republican guard tanks, for all Saddam's bluster, becomes little more than targets in a live fire exercise for our troops. Highways all over the combat zone are littered with wrecked Iraqi vehicles, and, unlike 1991, the status Quo crowd does not stop the Army from continuing on to Iraq, virtually unopposed. By the time the first soldiers show up in Iraq, Saddam has already been hanging from a lamppost for the better part of a day.
A mission to attack one isolated enemy will end up isolating us. A mission justified by the fight with terrorism will give birth to millions of terrorist- supporting haters. In every cafe from Manila to Casablanca, just whom do you think they will be rooting for? Just whom will their kids be killing themselves for?First of all, there is very little we can do to stop them from hating us, except by not being Americans anymore. Secondly, why do you think Arabs would want to live under Saddam any more than you would?
In an old episode of SNL, there was an episode where Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton, and the rest of the prospective Democratic Nominees for the '92 campaign engage in a debate in front of a group of trekkies, basically showing how pathetic all of the candidates were. Well, now we have a real life equivalent.
Tim Hagan is running for governor of Ohio and is married to Kate Mulgrew, who played Captain Janeway on the show. So now Hagan did a big fundraiser with .a bunch of Star Trek Actors, including the One True Shatner. Supposedly he isn't doing too well in the polls. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, though. Who could trust the judgement of a guy who marries the most incompetent captain in StarFleet history?
McFisk: Comes wrapped in sackcloth. Every time you bite it, it yells out that it understands that your eating the burger is a cry of frustration over years of oppression at the hands of the West.
McEUro: Comes wrapped in the former currency of EU nations. Is free of genetically engineered beef, uses ethnically correct bread, and is topped with EU approved leeks. Tastes absolutely disgusting.
McPalestinian: When you bite it, it explodes. When you don't bite it, it explodes.
McArafat: When the McPalestinian explodes, the McArafat tells you it is your own fault for not paying attention to the McPalestinian's needs.
McSaddam: Noone's ever eaten a McSaddam. Every time someone tried to cook it, it killed everyone in the restaurant with toxic fumes.
McUSSR: You only get a bun. You are on a waiting list for the meat, which you will get in 5 years or so.
McFrance: The most "complex" burger McDonald's has. Noone can stand it, but the Germans devour it every 40 years or so.
McSaudi: Otherwise known as the Ingrate Deluxe with oil.
For the ultimate in weeniedom, check out the reaction to the McDonald's McAfrika burger. A hole bunch of holier than thou NGO have got a bug up their posterior because McDonald's patterned a burger after an African dish of some sort.(In reality, it is probably like all everything else from McD's a microscopic fraction of ethnicity added to the generic Big Mac). The EUroweenies are angry because they think it is "insensitive" for McDonald's to sell a McAfrica burger while Africans are starving.
There are two big problems with this. First of all, whether or not McDonald's calls it the McAfrica, the McWeenie burger, or just plain Bob won't make a difference to any starving Africans at all, and renaming it won't put any food in their mouths. Secondly, and this is the real issue, is that protesting the McAfrica burger is probably one of the best examples of the racist quality of these organizations. The implication is that because they are Africans, they can't take care of themselves, and are doomed to starvation.
That is simply a case of the white man's burden, and it is appallingly racist. Instead of targeting the thugocracies(Mugabe) and general lawlessness(Somalia) in Africa that creates starvation, they make the assumption that it is because, well, they're colored people Africans, and naturally, colored people Africans can't take care of themselves. Therefore McDonald's is being appallingly insensitive, because it is so patently obvious that colored people Africans are congenitally incompetent, that for McDonald's to use African culture to make a meal is a form of mockery, akin to asking the mentally retarded to recite Shakespeare.
These are the same people who defend Arab regimes, and don't demand of them the same respect for human rights that they ask of the rest of the world. They engage in the worst kind of racism, the racism of low expectations.
I'm having fun with petitions online again. Go to 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, and 1042. And make certain to sign up as well. We need more Mugabes, Pol Pots, and Lenins on the list.
Time for another Fisking. I'm setting the fiskomatic at full auto, and aiming at Crazy Cynthia's "concession" speech.(Yes, I think scare quotes are warranted)
Quiet, please. Listen. Listen closely.That's the history train -- and it's still rolling -- no matter what happened today.
I rode the history train to Congress in 1992, and many of you rode the train with me. And many more of you joined me along the way.
And while the tracks got a little rough this campaign, I am proud to announce: This train hasn't stopped. This train hasn't slowed down. We are going full speed ahead.
I want to congratulate Denise Majette. I may not agree with the kind of campaign she ran, but she will need all our prayers to face the coming storm. I spoke to her moments ago and congratulated her personally.
And assured her that I would not help the Republicans.
In Congress, doing what is right is not always easy. Sometimes you are faced with a choice between doing what is politically safe or doing what is right.
Sometimes you have to stand up to seemingly unbeatable odds, speak the truth to the most powerful interests, to do what is right.
Sometimes you win. And sometimes you lose.
Tonight I have lost an election. But I maintain my spirit, my courage, my dignity and my commitment to the truth, to peace and to the future. And I want to assure you that:
But I am hopeful, because we are all here for a cause much, much greater than ourselves.
I am confident that we will continue to make a difference in our community, be a voice for the voiceless and speak truth to power.
I am optimistic that although I lost an election tonight I will continue to fight for truth, justice and the American way[big link], and I will continue to stand up to anyone who seeks to rob us of our rights and deny us the opportunity to succeed.
I am proud to tell you tonight that I'm not getting off the history train just yet.
Somewhere tonight, a man is making himself a bed of newspapers and cardboard on the sidewalks of the city.
Today, even in defeat, I have been lifted.Lifted upon the shoulders of the people of Georgia.
I have been lifted on the wings of hope and justice and peace.
We are all on the train called History -- and we are ringing the bell called Freedom.
And even though I won't be in Congress for a couple of years, I will continue to be a voice, a champion, a warrior and a challenger. I will continue to speak truth to power and put what's right, what's true, what's fair and what's just over all else.
The BBC calls Abu Nidal a guerilla. They also said he was very cuddly and only felt happy when he was feeding orphans and caring for injured puppies.
U.S. to Seek Mideast Reforms
Programs Aim to Foster Democracy, Education, Markets
If this is true, then this is a policy that is long overdue. There are some bits in the article that sound like they might require some light fisking, but it's after midnight, and I want to do my fisking when I'm bright eyed and bushy tailed. Besides, I love the smell of fisking in the morning, it smells like victory.
NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD BYE!!
NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD BYE!!
NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD BYE!!
NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY, GOOD BYE!!
Suman Palit talks about India/Pakistan relations(or lack thereof) and how long term we should be backing the Indians. He has a good point about that, though he is wrong about how American relations with Pakistan are simply a rehash of Cold War relations. During the Cold War Pakistan was for the United States the Asian equivalent to the "bastions of democracy" that littered Latin America during the 70's. Sure, they were SOBs, but they were our SOBs. They gave us bases where we could spy on the Russians, they let us use their territory for arming the Afghan Mujahedin, and were a hedge against India, who at that time had taken a significantly pro-Soviet tilt after the British left.
After the Cold War ended, however, Pakistan's utility as an ally ceased. We weren't sending anything to Afghanistan anymore, the serious conflict between Russian and American interests waned, and India was no longer going to be an outpost for the Red Banner Fleet. India's relations with the United States warmed significantly, and the United States was no longer willing to be the protector for a nuclear armed Pakistan.
Now fast forward to post 9/11 and look at relations with US-Pakistan relations today. The only reason Pakistan is not a smoking hole today is because Musharraf realized that if he did not align foursquare with the United States in attacking Afghanistan, he would wind up being attacked alongside Afghanistan. We did not give him the option of neutrality. India actually offered the use of their bases first, and we probably would have used them, but the cold hard reality is that the geography favored Pakistan for us. Sadly, we need to use Pakistan territory to keep our army properly supplied, and that will not change so long as Iran is completely hostile to the United States. The closest Indian base is still quite a bit farther from Afghanistan than the most remote Pakistani base, and that extra distance translates into more accidents, greater usage of fuel, and pilot fatigue. Also, even if Pakistan gave overflight rights in that situation, US aircraft will still be flying across a border that is functionally at war, and having American choppers get lit up by air search radars before it even crosses into enemy territory is a bad thing.
Now the big question is if this is a permanent condition or not? That depends quite a bit on what happens in Iraq. Iraq is the first domino in the ME. When the United States topples Iraq, it will give the United States enormous strategic leverage over every other state in the region. Iraq also can act as a true bastion of democracy in the Middle East. This has strong implications on its next door neighbor, Iran. Iran is a (cliche alert)powder keg waiting to blow, and the example of a free Iraq may be the match to set it off. Eventually, there will be a revolution in Iran, and the Ayatollahs will be overthrown. If that happens, there is a quite high probability that the future Iranian government will be pro-American, and democratic as well.
What is the importance of an Iranian revolution to India? The importance is that a pro-American Iranian regime means that a second country could open up a land route to Afghanistan. That obviates Pakistan's utility to the United States, and while we won't toss Pakistan overboard the way we will with Saudi Arabia(soon to be New Texas), we won't have to rely on Pakistan to supply American troops in Afghanistan. If Iran falls, then eventually Musharraf will go the way of Marcos, and a "helpful" United States will give him a nice comfortable place to spend the rest of his days in West Palm Beach.
The biggest problem today is that there isn't a single representative government from the Jordan to the Ganges rivers. When we take out Iraq, there will be a chance for there to be nothing but democracies from the Jordan to the Ganges. And if that occurs, the world will be a far better place.
Update:One thing that may also play into the mix is the role of China. The United States is going to need another country to be a foil to the Chinese, who are quite likely to be our enemies in the future. That means that we will need to go to India and Russia eventually to fill that role.
Meet our new Chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights. I checked the URL three times, and no, I wasn't reading the Onion.
From the Divided Sympathies department: Who should I wish get struck by lightning? The nutjob artist who created this exhibit, or the Animal rights nutjobs who want it banned? Is hoping they both play in the same open field during a thunderstorm too much to ask?
Why is Phil Donahue's show tanking in the ratings? While Donahue is a grating blowhard, I don't think the ratings are tanking because of his style. If that were the case, Bill O'Reilly would be in the ratings gutter right alongside him. It is because of substance. Donahue sympathises with every crackpot leftist in the world, and puts them on his show. In the past week, he has had on Michael Moore, some Frenchman who thinks that we attacked Afghanistan to build a pipeline, and various and sundry others of the leftist tin foil hat crowd. The Donahue show is one continuous self-administered fisking.
Everyone thinks that the death of Abu Nidal by the Iraqis is an unquestionably good thing. I don't think so. The reason why the Iraqis plugged him was for payback from something Yassir Arafat has done or for something he is going to do in the future. The Palestinian/Israeli cease fire is part of that. Arafat is planning something big and he needs the IDF off of his back. Luckily for him, the addled asses of appeasement in the Israeli Labor party are pressuring Sharon to play kissy face with the Palestinians, which will give Arafat time to do something really painful either to us or the Israelis to draw attention away from Iraq. Sharon should have given Arafat a 5.56mm enema after the Passover bombings when he had the chance. A real scumbag was killed, yes, but that does not mean we are safer as a result. Possibly, we are less safe.
Palestinians Promise to Keep Peace
In other news, Bill Clinton promised to stay away from White House interns today.
The New York Times has an article/editorial about how moslems fear an anti-moslem backlash over 9/11. One might think that moslem community tried to create moral equivalencies over 9/11, and played a lot of "Yes, it was evil, but..." games.
Oh wait. I forgot. That actually happened.
OK, I promised last Friday that I would do a group fisking of all the columns that quote Brent Scowcroft prominently. I was hoping to catch Chris Matthews in one of his feminine vapors but alas, 'twas not to be. If he has another case of the feminine vapors, rest assurred I'll give him a proper fisking, and perhaps some prozac as well. First off, let's point the Fiskomatic 3000 in the direction of the New York Times:
Brent Scowcroft is a cautious, deliberate man
That Mr. Scowcroft would publicly question the current president on a matter as sensitive as Iraq is an extraordinary challenge to the Bush administration as it weighs whether to go to war to oust Saddam Hussein from power.
Since Sept. 11 President Bush has demonstrated strong leadership in his role as commander in chief. He must now resist the temptation to see Mr. Scowcroft's comments and other questioning as carping from the sidelines.
Mr. Bush and his aides may yet be able to make a solid case for military action in one of the most volatile parts of the world.
Now we take the Fiskomatic to the Cokie and Steve Show("Say, 'I'm a left winger,' Cokie" "I'm a left winger, Cokie."):
The president has yet to argue either of these points effectively. Unless and until he does, he won't generate the support he needs ? from the public, the Congress or America's allies.
Even if Saddam has the weapons and the connections to attack America, does he have the will? Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, is among the doubters: "I think that he is not suicidal." Former Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a close adviser to President Bush's father, agrees: "This is not a man who will risk everything on the roll of a dice."
Perhaps the president can convince the American people, and his foreign friends, that those costs and risks are worth it. But he has not done that yet.
After a quick reload, we point the fiskomatic at William Saletan of Slate.
Jordan. Turkey. Germany. England. Henry Kissinger. Brent Scowcroft. Dick Armey. Republican senators. The State Department. American military officers. The circle of governments, officials, and advisers openly critical of President Bush's Iraqi war plans draws ever closer to Bush and his family. Bush argues that his case for war is persuasive and that if he leads, others will follow. But increasingly, he is making that argument to a circle of would-be allies who are unpersuaded and aren't following. He is proving himself wrong.
The multilateralist view ? expressed in Thursday?s Wall Street Journal by Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Bush?s father ? is that allies are necessary and that we can?t afford to alienate them. ?[T]here is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time,? wrote Scowcroft. ?Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. ? [W]e simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation.?
Bush can argue all day about the power of presidential leadership to rally the public, or about the power of American leadership to rally the world. As long as he?s having that argument with his political friends and allies, he?s refuting himself.
Though it is really just too easy(like hunting ducks with a 5" AA gun), now lets point the fiskomatic in the direction of uber-illogician Maureen Dowd:
Bellicose Bushies have yet to offer a sustained and persuasive rationale for jumping Saddam, beyond yammering about how "evil" he is, as if he had a monopoly on that.
Poppy bequeathed his son, a foreign affairs neophyte, his own trusted Desert Storm team, with Dick Cheney as surrogate father.But Mr. Cheney brought in Don Rumsfeld, an old rival of Poppy's, and he was joined at the Pentagon by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. This group is far more conservative, unilateral, ideological and belligerent than the worldly realists: 41, Scowcroft, Colin Powell and James Baker.
Who needs a war plan? We need family therapy.
OK. I'm putting away the Fiskomatic for now. Rest assured however, that I'll probably find some more of the appeasers-as-realists to fisk in the future. And every single one of them will quote Scowcroft.
Expelling Arafat: The IDF wants to use a helicopter. I, on the other hand, prefer a Pumpkin Gun.
I'm looking forward to doing a mass fisking this weekend. It looks like Brent Scowcroft is now the media's favorite republican. Chris Matthews got feminine vapors again on MSNBC, the New York Times editorial board has got their bloomers in a gather, and Michael and Cokie engage in a yuppie liberal lovefest. I figure by tomorrow, they'll be more blather about how the great strategist Scowcroft is saying now he don't wanna fight war no more. Ugh.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent article on NRO today about how well the US has conducted the war so far. He also says the right is too willing to push forward with too few troops in favor of military action immediately. The chief worry is not that we won't invade immediately, but that the addled asses of appeasement will try and stop Bush from cranially ventilating that mustachioed son of a bitch.
I went for a ride on the boat today, and I have these private messages for people I encountered out there.
1)To the man who let his 15 year old daughter dangle her feet over the bow of the boat while it was moving: She is going to get a Darwin Award, but you are the one who deserves it.
2)To the white(and I mean WHITE!) guy in the fishing boat: Please put a shirt on. Aircraft are going to see the reflection off of your back, and think those are the lights for the airport.
3)To the guy in the 32 foot twin engined yacht: The lake is only 10 miles long. Your boat throws up a Poseidon Adventure size wake, and everyone who sees you in that thing thinks you are making up for some sort of er, "shortcoming".
Other than that, it was a beautiful day.
Cato is piling onto the Scowcroft fisking as well. I'll update this as more fiskings occur(which hopefully will happen).
Update:Patrick Ruffini weighs in as well.
This is horrible. First, I had to do a fisking on behalf of the media, now, I have to fisk a Republican. Brent Scowcroft, one of the people who were responsible for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the Gulf War, now wants us to leave Saddam alone. Thank the lord that this man is out of the loop. OK, now let's lock and load:
It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.
Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.
That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.
Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression.
There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression.
Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities.
Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.
The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk.
In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time.
So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive.
The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us.
Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region,
ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives.
Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.
In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq--any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.
In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counterterrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests--including Iraq.If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.
I have to say this really does suck. I started the blog to bash the left, expose anti-american pacifists, and nail the media to the wall. Now I've started off defending the media, and rhetorically bitchslapping a republican. I think I need a beer.
I just have to say I love Richard Perle. In a manly, heterosexual way, of course..