Monday, March 29, 2004
IT WAS A LIBERATION (DAMMIT!) - David Gelernter comments on the indifference to the liberation of Iraq in some (mostly Democratic...) quarters:
"Turning away is not evil; it is merely human. And that's bad enough. For years I myself found it easy to ignore or shrug off Saddam's reported crimes. I had no love for Iraq or Iraqis. Before and during the war I wrote pieces suggesting that Americans not romanticism Iraqis; that we understand postwar Iraq more in terms of occupied Germany than liberated France. But during and after the war it gradually became impossible to ignore the staggering enormity of what Saddam had committed against his own people. And when we saw those mass graveyards and torture chambers, heard more and more victims speak, watched those videotapes, the conclusion became inescapable: This war was screamingly, shriekingly necessary."
No matter how loudly the Bush-hating revisionists yell, the war was always about human rights as well as WMDs, ignored U.N. resolutions and host of other transgressions on Saddam's part. Each rationale provided by the Bush Administration and the Congress (and debated ad nauseum in the media) stood alone in my book as a justification for the war. War critics focus only on the one justification (sorry...Bush never said Hussein did 9/11) that they can spin as being debunked: to do otherwise would force them to admit that Bush actually has brought about an event that liberal thinkers everywhere should celebrate.
(link via comments page of Iraq the Model)
"Turning away is not evil; it is merely human. And that's bad enough. For years I myself found it easy to ignore or shrug off Saddam's reported crimes. I had no love for Iraq or Iraqis. Before and during the war I wrote pieces suggesting that Americans not romanticism Iraqis; that we understand postwar Iraq more in terms of occupied Germany than liberated France. But during and after the war it gradually became impossible to ignore the staggering enormity of what Saddam had committed against his own people. And when we saw those mass graveyards and torture chambers, heard more and more victims speak, watched those videotapes, the conclusion became inescapable: This war was screamingly, shriekingly necessary."
No matter how loudly the Bush-hating revisionists yell, the war was always about human rights as well as WMDs, ignored U.N. resolutions and host of other transgressions on Saddam's part. Each rationale provided by the Bush Administration and the Congress (and debated ad nauseum in the media) stood alone in my book as a justification for the war. War critics focus only on the one justification (sorry...Bush never said Hussein did 9/11) that they can spin as being debunked: to do otherwise would force them to admit that Bush actually has brought about an event that liberal thinkers everywhere should celebrate.
(link via comments page of Iraq the Model)
Monday, March 22, 2004
MILITIAS DISBANDING - SF Chronicle editors must have just hated having to document Paul Bremmer's progress in convincing Iraq's militia members to lay down their arms (thus making civil war in Iraq less likely). The liberal rag couldn't of course totally ignore the news... nothing like a little negative spin to sugar coat that bitter pill:
"Iraq experts and crisis analysts warn, however, that dismantling the militias will not necessarily eliminate the dangers posed by tensions among Iraq's many religious, ethnic and political factions."
I bet all those unidentified "Iraq experts" and "crisis analysts" (huh??) really know their stuff!
3/11 - Andrew Sullivan has posted an excellent piece on the implications of the Madrid bombings and the subsequent election:
"The Spanish were not protesting the war on terrorism, some insist; they were protesting the war to depose Saddam. And as all right-thinking people acknowledge, there is no connection whatsoever between the war on terror and the war to liberate Iraq. There are a few points to me made with regard to this argument, and the first is that al Qaeda begs to differ. If the war in Iraq is utterly unconnected to the broader war on terror, then why, pray, does al Qaeda want the Spanish government to withdraw its troops? If the war in Iraq is such an irrelevance to the war on terror, why on earth would al Qaeda and the Jihadists be so keen to force Western governments to withdraw? If Iraq is such a distracting quagmire for the West, why wouldn't it be in the terrorists' interests to see more troops committed, more resources diverted, more attention distracted from the real war that they are busily fomenting elsewhere?
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Nothing threatens al Qaeda or the Islamo-fascist terror network more than the possibility of a constitutional democracy in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, the entire dysfunction in the Middle East on which al Qaeda relies for its recruitment and growth would be in danger of unraveling. If Iraqis can achieve a semblance of a free and democratic society - with economic growth, political pluralism, and religious freedom - then the al Qaeda model of theocratic fascism will lose whatever appeal it now has in that part of the world. Losing Afghanistan was bad enough for the Jihadists. Seeing Iraq emerge into modernity would be fatal."
Read the entire article....
"Iraq experts and crisis analysts warn, however, that dismantling the militias will not necessarily eliminate the dangers posed by tensions among Iraq's many religious, ethnic and political factions."
I bet all those unidentified "Iraq experts" and "crisis analysts" (huh??) really know their stuff!
3/11 - Andrew Sullivan has posted an excellent piece on the implications of the Madrid bombings and the subsequent election:
"The Spanish were not protesting the war on terrorism, some insist; they were protesting the war to depose Saddam. And as all right-thinking people acknowledge, there is no connection whatsoever between the war on terror and the war to liberate Iraq. There are a few points to me made with regard to this argument, and the first is that al Qaeda begs to differ. If the war in Iraq is utterly unconnected to the broader war on terror, then why, pray, does al Qaeda want the Spanish government to withdraw its troops? If the war in Iraq is such an irrelevance to the war on terror, why on earth would al Qaeda and the Jihadists be so keen to force Western governments to withdraw? If Iraq is such a distracting quagmire for the West, why wouldn't it be in the terrorists' interests to see more troops committed, more resources diverted, more attention distracted from the real war that they are busily fomenting elsewhere?
The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Nothing threatens al Qaeda or the Islamo-fascist terror network more than the possibility of a constitutional democracy in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, the entire dysfunction in the Middle East on which al Qaeda relies for its recruitment and growth would be in danger of unraveling. If Iraqis can achieve a semblance of a free and democratic society - with economic growth, political pluralism, and religious freedom - then the al Qaeda model of theocratic fascism will lose whatever appeal it now has in that part of the world. Losing Afghanistan was bad enough for the Jihadists. Seeing Iraq emerge into modernity would be fatal."
Read the entire article....
Friday, March 19, 2004
WHAT DISASTER? - One year after the liberation, and Iraqis are optimistic about the future (oh, and they also don't want the "occupiers" to leave...):
"More than 56% say that things are either much or somewhat better now than in the spring of 2003, compared with 19% who say it is much or somewhat worse. And as the nearby box shows, Iraqis are even more optimistic about their lives a year from now--with only 7% expecting things to be worse, compared with 71% who expect improvement. Granted that life under Saddam and international sanctions couldn't have been much worse, but their current optimism is still striking given so much negative media coverage. Iraqis must not be reading Reuters."
"More than 56% say that things are either much or somewhat better now than in the spring of 2003, compared with 19% who say it is much or somewhat worse. And as the nearby box shows, Iraqis are even more optimistic about their lives a year from now--with only 7% expecting things to be worse, compared with 71% who expect improvement. Granted that life under Saddam and international sanctions couldn't have been much worse, but their current optimism is still striking given so much negative media coverage. Iraqis must not be reading Reuters."
Sunday, March 14, 2004
A GRAVE MISTAKE - The results of today's elections in Spain amount to a stunning victory for al Qaeda. Terror cells around the globe are surely inspired at how easily they can expect capitulation from the West. Foreign terrorists have just chosen the government of a democratic country with a carefully timed bomb blast: a staggering accomplishment which I fear will have horrific ramifications. The great irony is that voters in Spain must think that throwing out the ruling party- and thus repudiating Aznar's Iraq policy- will keep them safe from terrorism. The terrorists have artfully used a political issue to their advantage, but what they truly want is to win an all out war on Western civilization. If they succeed in neutralizing U.S. power in the world (something that amazingly many Europeans would applaud along with the terrorists) they will fight on to realize the remainder of their goals... the people of Spain have just insured that their country will continue to be one of the battlegrounds. Ali from Iraq the Model had this insight shortly after the bombing:
"Some people may say, that by admitting that the fact Spain is one of the major coalition forces made her an object for such attacks, should prove that the decision to go to war was a big mistake. There is nothing far from truth than this assumption, as 9/11 took place before America went to war and similar, but smaller, attacks took place all over Europe prior to war. Should the governments you elected take permission from the terrorists before committing a necessary action fearing that it may piss them off? The people who claim that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, strangely are the same who say that the war in Iraq had enraged terrorists. Now I wonder why were the terrorists enraged by toppeling Saddam and liberating Iraq if it wasn't directed at them as well!!?
The war is not only necessary, but also inevitable. No one should believe that if these terrorists were left alone, they would be peaceful and drop there arms and become our friends. It's not only naive, but also seriously dangerous to put such trust in such corrupted evil minds such as those of AL QUEDA and other terrorist groups."
Fear of retribution by murderous thugs who wish to continue murdering with impunity should never, NEVER determine policy...or decide elections. The tendancy of Western entities to cut and run at the first sign of blood is just the weakness that the terrorists count on and hope to perpetuate. They seem to be succeeding....
"Some people may say, that by admitting that the fact Spain is one of the major coalition forces made her an object for such attacks, should prove that the decision to go to war was a big mistake. There is nothing far from truth than this assumption, as 9/11 took place before America went to war and similar, but smaller, attacks took place all over Europe prior to war. Should the governments you elected take permission from the terrorists before committing a necessary action fearing that it may piss them off? The people who claim that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, strangely are the same who say that the war in Iraq had enraged terrorists. Now I wonder why were the terrorists enraged by toppeling Saddam and liberating Iraq if it wasn't directed at them as well!!?
The war is not only necessary, but also inevitable. No one should believe that if these terrorists were left alone, they would be peaceful and drop there arms and become our friends. It's not only naive, but also seriously dangerous to put such trust in such corrupted evil minds such as those of AL QUEDA and other terrorist groups."
Fear of retribution by murderous thugs who wish to continue murdering with impunity should never, NEVER determine policy...or decide elections. The tendancy of Western entities to cut and run at the first sign of blood is just the weakness that the terrorists count on and hope to perpetuate. They seem to be succeeding....
Monday, March 08, 2004
IT'S OFFICIAL - Here's the text of Iraq's interim constitution.
LIBERAL BUZZ WORDS - Victor Davis Hansen on why the words "preemption" and "unilateral" have become meaningless:
"So like preemption, in today's super-charged political climate, unilateralism and multilateralism no longer convey any meaning. Those words too have now become little more than coded nomenclature to denigrate the present American administration's efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is perhaps a rule of American politics that Democrats can preempt and intervene pretty much wherever they want and be called "sober" and "reluctant" — given their protestations of pacifism and lip-service to "multilateral frameworks." And to be fair, Republicans can raise deficits that would tar liberals as "tax-and-spend" and "big-government" naifs — and get away with it as purported advocates of "supply side" and "growth."
But whereas President Bush is receiving criticism from both left and right for his fiscal policies, he is not getting praise for his courageous attempt at ending the political and cultural climate that led to September 11. The present bastardization of our language proves it."
LIBERAL BUZZ WORDS - Victor Davis Hansen on why the words "preemption" and "unilateral" have become meaningless:
"So like preemption, in today's super-charged political climate, unilateralism and multilateralism no longer convey any meaning. Those words too have now become little more than coded nomenclature to denigrate the present American administration's efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is perhaps a rule of American politics that Democrats can preempt and intervene pretty much wherever they want and be called "sober" and "reluctant" — given their protestations of pacifism and lip-service to "multilateral frameworks." And to be fair, Republicans can raise deficits that would tar liberals as "tax-and-spend" and "big-government" naifs — and get away with it as purported advocates of "supply side" and "growth."
But whereas President Bush is receiving criticism from both left and right for his fiscal policies, he is not getting praise for his courageous attempt at ending the political and cultural climate that led to September 11. The present bastardization of our language proves it."
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
FOILING THE CYNICS (AGAIN) - In spite of the lack of faith (and so encouragement) from some quarters, Iraq's Governing Council has agreed on an interim constitution. It lays out what will be the law of the land in Iraq until at least 2005:
"As described by members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the interim constitution approved Monday lays out a vision for an Iraqi state that has all of the attributes of a Western-style democracy. That includes an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military and a system of checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from becoming too strong.
The document calls for nationwide elections to be held no later than Jan. 31, 2005. In those elections, Iraqi voters would pick a 275-member national assembly, which would then chose a president and two deputy presidents. The three together would choose a prime minister, where much of the executive power would reside.
The document spells out broad freedoms for individuals, including the rights of free speech, assembly and press. The interim constitution also spells out a substantial role for women in the new state, calling for an election system that would be devised in such a way that women would occupy at least 25 percent of the seats in the national assembly."
...oh, but the Iraqi people are really worse off because of that nasty "occupying" army. Uh huh.
"As described by members of the Iraqi Governing Council, the interim constitution approved Monday lays out a vision for an Iraqi state that has all of the attributes of a Western-style democracy. That includes an independent judiciary, civilian control of the military and a system of checks and balances to prevent any branch of government from becoming too strong.
The document calls for nationwide elections to be held no later than Jan. 31, 2005. In those elections, Iraqi voters would pick a 275-member national assembly, which would then chose a president and two deputy presidents. The three together would choose a prime minister, where much of the executive power would reside.
The document spells out broad freedoms for individuals, including the rights of free speech, assembly and press. The interim constitution also spells out a substantial role for women in the new state, calling for an election system that would be devised in such a way that women would occupy at least 25 percent of the seats in the national assembly."
...oh, but the Iraqi people are really worse off because of that nasty "occupying" army. Uh huh.
