Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada "Of Interest To Me" February 15-22, 2003
The opinions expressed on this website are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily those of his employer or any organization with which he is affiliated.
Saturday, February 22, 2003
England and Ireland are off to great starts at this year's Six Nations tournament. England won a close one over France, thanks to Jonny W's boot, and beat Wales more handily. Ireland has taken care of Scotland and Italy so far. England is looking to be the favourite; can the Irish keep winning?
Six Nations results and standings.
Or, check out the Rugby Round-up (of course there's a rugby blog!)
11:45pm AST
The folks at the Washington Times are keeping an eye on Bill Clinton's recent revisionism. Clinton's been on with Katie Couric, Larry King and others saying some questionable things about his administration's record on Iraq, North Korea, and counter-terrorism.
11:31pm AST
Damian Penny posts a commentary by the CBC's Rex Murphy on Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Zundel left Canada in 2001 for Tennessee, saying he was in Canada-denial. But, he has returned looking for refugee status.
Rex suggests that all Canadians should become Zundel deniers.
I suggest this country put itself in Zundel denial. "Never heard of him. Wasn't here. Ernst who? You say you were in Canada for 40 years? Never happened." I never thought I'd find myself making a case for repressed memory, but if there was ever a moment for trundling out the sad baggage of the talk-show therapists, this is it.
Ernst Zundel never happened. He wasn't here. We never heard of him. We can't give him a hearing because he never existed.
Good on ya, Rex. 8:14pm AST
MuchMoreMusic, Canada's VH1, is having a big Michael Jackson day leading up to Living With Michael Jackson on later tonight. I'm not watching, but I did catch most of an old Michael video, "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" from 1979's "Off The Wall".
I think 'Off The Wall' is the only MJ album I've ever owned. That was on vinyl, kids. It was a pretty good album, with some good songs by Michael, Rod Temperton, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, and by Carole Bayer Sager & David Foster.
The video for "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" is just Michael in a tux against a very low end colourful background. The song is pretty cool, he's just dancing around a bit, singing. He's got some good moves, and he's very watchable. He just looks like he's having fun.
I don't know when the surgery, etc. began, but it didn't like there was much, if any, to me by that time. I haven't watched any of the Bashir stuff, or Michael's rebuttal. I haven't been patronizing the self-proclaimed 'King of Pop' since 1979. Looking at that smiling, normal looking guy dancing around and singing in that video, it just brings such stark contrast to the reclusive bird who held his own baby out of a hotel room window just to please a bunch of crazy fans and photographers. 8:03pm AST
Charles Johnson links to a piece in the New York Times by Kenneth Pollack, formerly Clinton's Iraq expert. In Pollack's view, this is A Last Chance to Stop Iraq.
Nor is there reason to be confident about how Saddam Hussein will behave once he has acquired a nuclear weapon.
He has been anything but circumspect about his aspirations: He has stated that he wants to turn Iraq into a "superpower" that will dominate the Middle East, to liberate Jerusalem and to drive the United States out of the region. He has said he believes the only way he can achieve his goals is through the use of force. Indeed, his half-brother and former chief of intelligence, Barzan al-Tikriti, was reported to say that Iraq needs nuclear weapons because it wants "a strong hand in order to redraw the map of the Middle East."
7:33pm AST
Friday, February 21, 2003
Andrew Sullivan writes on the very important subject of democracy in post-war Iraq. There's the Krugman view (only "Saddam Hussein and a few top officials will be replaced."), and then there's the view expressed in the Washington Post (Iraqi government officials would be subjected to "de-Baathification," a reference to Hussein's ruling Baath Party, under a program that borrows from the "de-Nazification" program established in Germany after World War II.) I think I know which version I believe. Writes Andrew,
Many of us signed onto this war not merely to protect the West from terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, but as an attempt to grasp the nettle of Arab autocracy. If we make no effort to foster democratic institutions, the rule of law and representative government in Iraq, then we will lose the peace as surely as we will have won the Iraq war. And losing that peace means losing the wider war on terror as well.
Here's my submission, Democracy Is No Harlot, published in Finest Hour, the quarterly journal of The Churchill Center in Washington. Churchill describes what it means to have a true democracy; the context is his speech to the House of Commons, December 8, 1944, defending the Government's action of sending troops to defend Athens from 'anti-Nazi' (read, 'communist') guerrillas.
"Who are the friends of democracy, and also how is the word "democracy" to be interpreted? My idea of it is that the plain, humble, common man, just the ordinary man who keeps a wife and family, who goes off to fight for his country when it is in trouble, goes to the poll at the appropriate time, and puts his cross on the ballot-paper showing the candidate he wishes to be elected to Parliament -- that he is the foundation of democracy. And it is essential to this foundation that this man or woman should do this without fear, and without any form of intimidation or victimisation. He marks his ballot-paper in strict secrecy, and then elected representatives meet and together decide what government, or even, in times of stress, what form of government, they wish to have for their country. If that is democracy I salute it. I espouse it. I would work for it....
"One must have some respect for democracy and not use the word too lightly. The last thing which resembles democracy is mob law, with bands of gangsters, armed with deadly weapons, forcing their way into great cities, seizing the police stations and key points of government, endeavouring to introduce a totalitarian regime with an iron hand, and clamouring, as they can nowadays if they get power [interruption] to shoot everyone who is politically inconvenient as part of a purge of those who are said to have collaborated with the Germans during the occupation....
"Democracy is not based on violence or terrorism, but on reason, on fair play, on freedom, on respecting the rights of other people. Democracy is no harlot to be picked up in the street by a man with a tommy-gun. I trust the people, the mass of the people, in almost any country, but I like to make sure that it is the people and not a gang of bandits who think that by violence they can overturn constituted authority, in some cases ancient Parliaments, Governments, and States....
Thirty members opposed the Government, nearly 300 members voted confidence. "Here again, wrote Churchill, "was a moment in which the House of Commons showed its enduring strength and authority." (The Second World War, Volume 6, "Triumph and Tragedy," British Intervention in Greece.)
6:41pm AST
Today, these two troublemakers turned One Year Old ~ Happy Birthday Callie & Furgus! If you look closely, you can see that they read Mark Steyn (smart kitties!).
Oh, they've come a long way. Here they are at 8 weeks, on April 18, 2002, the night we got them. Sweet and innocent (yeah, right). We wouldn't want them any other way. 8-)
6:10pm AST
Thursday, February 20, 2003
I hadn't really bother to check around the web for Scots bloggers until today and came across a couple of fine ones.
The Liberty Log is a group of (former, I believe) students of St. Andrew's University in St. Andrew's, Scotland ("a dark land where socialism is rife"). Almost a year old, it was formed in March 2002 by Marian Tupy, Alex Singleton and Conyers Davis.
Another good one is Freedom and Whisky, with David Farrer holding the reins. Freedom and Whisky ~ two great things that go great together!
I look forward to following these Scots blogs in future.
12:56pm AST
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Michael Demmons is back from a mini-vacation in Florida (bastard) and he's totally pissed over Canada's decision to sit out the Iraqi war.
But then, Canada couldn't afford to send troops to the Gulf even if it wanted to I suppose. Saddam murders his own people, but lets mind our own damned business. I guess it is an easy decision, considering how Canada knows that the U.S. will always be there to defend it no matter what line they take.
The Canadian government - what a bunch of pacifist pissants.
I'm not sure it's all about pacifism, although that may be a big part of it. Canadian forces joined the war on terror and performed very well in Afghanistan, particularly Canada's special forces, the JTF2 group. The infantry saw casualties, albeit from friendly fire. Still, they were in harm's way, ready to do harm. Unfortunately, I think it has much to do with an inordinate and naive faith in the legitimacy of the international institution of international institutions, the United Nations.
However, we'll see what happens if there is another explicit UNSC resolution (which I doubt will happen). However, recent actions may have preempted the possibility of Canadian involvement regardless of what the UNSC does.
Bruce Rolston writes that this Afghanistan deployment was a very Canadian thing to do.
The Canadian position on Iraq (send the army to Afghanistan) may seem dodgy, but it's worthwhile remembering this is exactly how Canada backed into both world wars, more or less, as well, by offering to take on another task elsewhere in the world, rather than contribute troops directly to the hegemonic power's (in those cases, Britain's) armies. In 1914, Prime Minister Laurier (a Liberal) sent the entire regular Canadian army, pretty much (ie, the Royal Canadian Regiment), to take over the Bermuda garrison, so the British regiment there could head to Flanders. Massive popular support for war among English Canadians after things started to go south for the Brits forced national mobilization anyway, but it was a good try.
Then in 1941, Laurier's successor King (a Liberal), among other dodges like the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, committed two Canadian battalions to Hong Kong, again to take over for British troops, and in part to reduce the pressure to send more Canadians to Europe. The fact that those troops were unwittingly massacred that December can be seen as largely a matter of bad timing.
But if one wants to really look at an interesting historical parallel, the corker is still 1956. It seems hard now to imagine a world where a strongly interventionist Britain and France, closely allied with Israel, could launch a pre-emptive strike on the Middle East's worst dictator, but be forced back by American refusal to tolerate the European recolonization of the region or Western favoritism for the Zionist enterprise. The mind boggles. But anyway, here's the corker. By carefully triangulating off of both sides, offering only passive support for everybody's aims, Canada, led by foreign minister Lester Pearson, was able to remain inoffensive enough to everybody involved so that we alone could insert a stabilization force to bulwark a fragile ceasefire, thereby avoiding a major NATO schism, and rejuvenate the UN (by inventing "peacekeeping") all in one sweep. Of course, it also got Pearson the Nobel, and remains the epitome of successful Canadian foreign policy.
Remember, Chretien literally studied at Pearson's knee when he first came to Ottawa. And he's clearly falling back on that Pearsonism now, playing Europe and the States off each other and keeping out until someone who can still talk to both sides is needed again. Hey, it worked spectacularly for his mentor once before, so it's reasonable for him to believe it's worth a shot again. Sending the army to Afghanistan is a part of this too, as it helps both Europe (the Germans are looking to pull out) and the Americans (a year's stability in Kabul would still be a blessing). Someone's actually giving the P.M. some pretty good foreign affairs advice for the moment, it seems. Given Canadian support for war is well below 20 per cent, it's his only sane political response, domestically, too.
What it does do, though, is knock Canada effectively out of plans not just for military victory (that was never in the cards) but military reconstruction in Iraq, too, at least until early 2005, assuming there's not any Bosnian pullout before then. Given the uncertainties around reconstruction I've been alluding too, this seems quite sound at this point, as well.
UPDATE: The Flitters wogs remind me that, of course, Borden, the conservative, was in power in 1914. Shame on me.
11:24pm AST
Protesters Went Wobbly In Late '98
The GAW (Great Australian Wag), Tim Blair, is having trouble remembering all the global protests the last time a U.S. president launched a military attack against Saddam. 1998, it was. Ah, those heady days of yesteryear. The last few months of The Era of Clinton-Era Greed.
There wasn't exactly throngs of people taking to the streets (although I do recall seeing a few "Impeach Clinton" signs around that time). What's the difference, exactly, this time? Maybe the Clinton rush to war was so great that the poor protesters didn't have a chance to think up witty placard slogans. Yes, that must be it.
On Dec18'98, President Clinton addressed the nation,
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
It was great, though, that President Clintonlain ordered that attack. Saddam was defeated and the UN weapons inspectors were allowed back in to Ira--.
Hey, wait a minute....!
10:26pm AST
Michael Kelly writes on the weekend's protests, and the morality of giving tyranny a chance.
The situation with Iraq may be considered in three primary contexts, and in each, the true moral case is for war.
The first context considers the people of Iraq. There are 24 million of them, and they have been living (those who have not been slaughtered or forced into exile) for decades under one of the cruelest and bloodiest tyrannies on earth. ... To choose perpetuation of tyranny over rescue from tyranny, where rescue may be achieved, is immoral.
The second context considers the security of America, and indeed of the world, and here too morality is on the side of war. The great lesson of Sept. 11, 2001, is not that terrorism must be stopped -- an impossible dream -- but that state-sanctioned terrorism must be stopped. The support of a state -- even a weak and poor state -- offers the otherwise vulnerable enemies of the established order the protection they need in their attempts to destroy that order -- through the terrorists' only weapon, murder. To tolerate the perpetuation of state-sanctioned terror, such as Hussein's regime exemplifies, is to invite the next Sept. 11, and the next, and the next. Again, immoral.
The third context concerns the idea of order itself. ... If Iraq is allowed to defy the law, the United Nations will never recover, and the oppressed and weak of the world will lose even the limited protection of the myth of collective security. Immoral. [...]
To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil.
This cannot be the moral position.
9:59pm AST
This is freakin' wild! Damian Penny links to Britain's anti-war broadsheet, The Independent, which is reporting on three mysterious giant container ships that have been cruising the high seas for the past three months. American and British authorities have been tracking them. They left port in November, days after UN weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq. They may have departed Jordan or Syria.
Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.
The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country. [...]
American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled. If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no container ship routes that take three months. These ships are just cruising around, sometimes in circles. While there are environmental and evidentiary concerns with allowing them to be scuttled, the US should make its move. Time's a wastin'. 9:40pm AST
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
A Cutoff of Costly Consequence
In today's Washington Times, Tony Blankley writes on the costly consequences of Chirac, Schroeder and Putin's cutoff.
If, by their opposition, they damage irreparably the United Nations and NATO, it will be their interests, not ours, that they disproportionately will be undercutting. After all, they derive disproportionate influence in the world as allies and interlocutors with the United States. They piggy-back on our power — not we on theirs.
10:35pm AST
This one surprised me. Former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is criticising the pro-U.S. stance of the current government of Péter Medgyessy. The right-of-center Orbán, who I thought did a good job while he was in office, is apparently more in line with Chirac, Schroeder and Chretien on this one.
Orbán said the Hungarian Government was supporting the war against Iraq in spite of the will of the population.
He said Hungarian foreign policy was just "drifting", as the current Government adapted to foreign expectations instead of pursuing what was in the country’s interest.
"As a nation with a legacy of the 1956 revolution, Hungary must make it unequivocally clear that a military operation against an independent country is unacceptable without the authorization of international organizations," Orbán said.
As a nation with a legacy of the 1956 revolution, I'd say it must do what's right, regardless of what the 'international organizations' say; that totalitarian dictators must not be appeased.
10:25pm AST
Jeremy Hurewitz has an op-ed piece in The Prague Post telling why he won't march.
My problem with the peace movement is that it fails to articulate a counterpolicy in the wake of serious threats to the global order. It is a collection of disparate and incoherent voices that seems to mostly serve as a pretext for criticizing America. The bankruptcy of left-wing foreign policy has to do with its ambivalence toward the threats of Muslim extremism and toward the unsavory options in dealing with those threats.
10:12pm AST
Charles Johnson posts a lovely picture from 1975 of Saddam Hussein visiting a French nuclear facility. Included in the picture is tour guide Jacques Chirac.
Let's remember that France sold Iraq a nuclear reactor in 1981, but it was destroyed by Israel before it could become operational. If it weren't for Israel's unilateral action 22 years ago, Saddam would have had a nuclear arsenal long before the Gulf War. He would not have stopped with Kuwait.
In November, 2001, George Will wrote of that Israeli action.
On the afternoon of June 7, 1981, Jordan's King Hussein, yachting in the Gulf of Aqaba, saw eight low-flying Israeli F-16s roar eastward. He called military headquarters in Amman for information, but got none. The aircraft had flown below Jordanian radar. So far, so good for Ivry's mission, code-named Opera.
Ivry, a short, balding grandfatherly figure with a gray moustache, was then commander of Israel's air force, which had acquired some of the 75 F-16s ordered by Iran from the United States but not delivered because of the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah. The F-16s were to be tested to their limits when Israel learned that Iraq was about to receive a shipment of enriched uranium for its reactor near Baghdad--enough uranium to build four or five Hiroshima-size bombs.
The reactor was 600 miles from Israel. Ensuring that the F-16s had the range to return to base required the dangerous expedient of topping off the fuel tanks on the runway, while the engines were running. Measures were taken to reduce the air drag of the planes' communications pods and munitions racks.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the attack to occur before the uranium arrived and the reactor went ``hot," at which point bombing would have scattered radioactive waste over Baghdad. The raid was scheduled for a Sunday, to minimize casualties. It was executed perfectly. Aren't we glad. Now.
The U.S. State Department, Time magazine, the New York Times all excoriated Israel for its action. The NY Times called the raid an "inexcusable and short-sighted aggression." Will's excellent article concludes:
Today on Ivry's embassy office wall there is a large black-and-white photograph taken by satellite 10 years after the raid, at the time of the Gulf War. It shows the wreckage of the huge reactor complex, which is still surrounded by a high, thick wall that was supposed to protect it. Trees are growing where the reactor dome had been.
The picture has this handwritten inscription. ``For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981--which made our job much easier in Desert Storm." The author of the inscription signed it: ``Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense 1989-93."
Were it not for Israel's raid, Iraq probably would have had nuclear weapons in 1991 and there would have been no Desert Storm. The fact that Bush and Cheney are keenly appreciative of what Ivry and Israel's air force accomplished is welcome evidence of two things:
In spite of the secretary of state's coalition fetish, the administration understands the role of robust unilateralism. And neither lawyers citing ``international law" nor diplomats invoking ``world opinion" will prevent America from acting as Israel did, pre-emptively in self-defense.
10:07pm AST
Canada's VH1, MuchMoreMusic sent a videographer down to LA to cover the pro-Saddam marches. The interviewer got sound bites from looninaries as Martin Sheen, Laura Dern, Rob Reiner, and Mike Farrell. Said Sheen, it's about "humanity". Dern had so many questions, she didn't know where to begin. When asked if he thought the President was hearing them, he responded that Bush had better, or he wouldn't be around very long (past 2004, I assumed). Mike Farrell gave that age-old anti-war chant, "Inspections work, war doesn't."
No word yet on the hundreds of millions who didn't protest. I guess they're working on it. No questions why the stars had nothing bad to say about Saddam.
9:47pm AST
French President Jacques Chirac obviously had a bad day. First, he's still smarting from NATO side-swiping him on the defense of Turkey matter; then, the "reckless", "not very well behaved", "not well brought up", "dangerous", "frivolous" countries of the New Europe went and undermined his position on Iraq by signing letters supporting the American position. Yes, the king of the EU is wondering if he's wearing any clothes at all.
The nations of New Europe, many of whom have only recently risen up from under the boot of communism, ought to listen very closely to how their new master views them. How dare they go against the Great Chirac! Chirac's words are truly amazing: reckless; not very well behaved; not well brought up; dangerous; frivolous.
The blogosphere is eating this up and spitting out some great stuff.
Glenn Reynolds follows Chirac's tirade and how the other European leaders, particularly Berlusconi, Ahern, Balkenende (Netherlands), Aznar, and Blair. Glenn posts the Herald's coverage, with Blair staring all his colleagues down and saying, "There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Damian Penny covers yesterday's emergency EU summit, and paraphrases the French President:
"If you don't keep your friggin' mouths shut and let me have my way," Chirac is saying, "or I'll make sure you never join the EU." Is that a threat or a promise?
Andrew Sullivan on how responsibility overtook showmanship at the emergency EU meeting:
(Chirac's) very frustration implies that among European governments, there is not now and almost surely never will be unanimity in defense of the French position on Iraq. Chirac's petty and self-interested posturing is a game, and that game will soon be over. ... Chirac and Schroder particularly want to destroy Blair. He represents an alternative vision of Europe - more decentralized, more liberal, more flexible, more Atlanticist. And they would love to wound Bush. It seems to me the U.S. policy should now be a new deadline with clear guidelines as to what constitutes Saddam's cooperation - destruction of the al Samoud missiles for a start. Then we need to focus entirely on the war itself - minimizing casualties while trying to make it as speedy as possible, above all, ensuring a democratic structure post-Saddam. Nothing else will undermine the current Franco-German position as effectively - both within Europe and with respect to the wider world.
Andrew concludes with an essential point:
Then we have to cut France out of post-war Iraqi reconstruction.
Absolutely. Even if they don't weasel their way into the conflict at some point, the French will very likely back the carrier Charles de Gaulle into the Persian Gulf and act like they've been there all along. As I've said before, the liberated people of Iraq are not likely to look kindly upon the key player who both sought to prevent their liberation and had been very friendly with Saddam over the years.
Steven Den Beste on recent events and their geopolitical implications.
I know that Tony Blair is under a lot of pressure, but I think he'll come through it. A victory in Iraq, revealing the true horror of the Saddam regime and the exuberance of the newly liberated Iraqis will mean a lot.
5:45pm AST
Monday, February 17, 2003
Boundless Optimism for the Future of Iraq
British PM Tony Blair received this letter from an Iraqi.
Of course it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That's not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises; they have been forced to take what they're given. That such a force does not exist - cannot exist - in today's world is a failing of the very people who do not want America to invade Iraq, yet are willing to let thousands of Iraqis to die in order to gain the higher moral ground. Do not continue to punish the Iraqi people because you are "unhappy" with the amount of power the world is at fault for allowing America to wield. Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority - one loses that right when one allows a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.
Some will accuse me of being a pessimist for accepting that the only way to get rid of Saddam is through force. I beg to differ; I believe I have boundless optimism for the FUTURE of Iraq, where Iraqis are able to rebuild their shattered country, where Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, communists - all peoples of any and all backgrounds are able to live in peace and safety and without fear of persecution. I beg you to imagine such an Iraq, such a democracy in the Middle East, and ask where in that do you see pessimism? Such an Iraq is what is being envisaged and sought by many millions of Iraqis; such an Iraq is where I hope I will be able to take my children.
(via Instapundit) 10:06pm AST
David Janes also links to this CBC story on an anti-war protest in the town of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. While they're certainly entitled to march or gather as they please, and at least there doesn't appear to be any wacko Bush = Hitler posters or anything like that, there is, of course, the 'it's all about oil' line.
At least they're not acting like these poor, misguided yoots. About 50 people protested at a Lockheed Martin office in the Dartmouth area of Halifax today. A dozen were arrested, eleven charged with mischief, another for violating a court order.
Said one, "We do not want people profiting off of the death of civilians, we do not want a company profiting off of war. And Lockheed Martin profits more than anyone in the world over the war machine and we want to say 'no' and we want to be an economic disruption to them."
Um, I'm not sure, but I don't think you disrupted their economic prospects too much. Aside from making asses of yourselves, what you did do is tie up 30 Halifax police officers with your inane, unlawful behaviour. They have better things to do than cut plastic piping off of fine, upstanding citizens such as yourselves.
About 30 police officers arrived to break up the protest.
One by one, the demonstrators told police they would not give up the occupation.
Several of the protesters tried to form an unbreakable human chain by binding themselves together with duct tape and plastic piping.
Those people not in the chain were the first to go. Once the human chain was carried away, officers worked to cut off the pipes.
What's worse, they're hording and misusing duct tape!
9:54pm AST
David Janes blogs on Quebec Premier (er, sorry, President) Bernard Landry's interesting take on Saturday's anti-war marches. 9:04pm AST
Can't say I'm too excited about this new Mike Myers project.
Myers and privately held DreamWorks unveiled a partnership Friday that will see the studio acquire the rights to existing movies, write new storylines and then use digital technology to insert Myers and other performers into the films.
Will one of the films be Steve Martin and Carl Reiner's 1982 classic comedy "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" in which Steve Martin's character, private detective Rigby Reardon, is inserted into clips from 1940s film noirs?!?!
Rigby Reardon: Carlotta was the kind of town where they spell trouble T-R-U-B-I-L, and if you try to correct them, they kill you.
8:47pm AST
Sunday, February 16, 2003
Johann Hari's Recurring Nightmare
The Edge of England's Sword links to what Iain Murray calls "quite simply the best exposition of the case for war I have seen from the Left", a perspective by Harry Steele.
In turn, Harry Steele links to a piece by Johann Hari in The Independent.
So this war is going to be terrible – but leaving Saddam in place would be even more terrible. How do we measure 150,000 deaths against 23 million living under a fascist dictator, with many of them picked off and taken to torture chambers daily for "political" activities? (Remember: Saddam has butchered members of his family for disobedience.)
It is a tough moral call: but there will be horrible deaths either way we leap. The difference is the deaths at the hands of Saddam will shore up Ba'athist national socialism, while deaths in war would at least clear the way for a free and democratic Iraq. Anybody who doubts this last fact should go to Northern Iraq, where, under US and British protection, a democracy with freedom of speech and protection of human rights has flourished for the past decade.
This war is literally the only hope for extending this democracy to the rest of Iraq. The policy of keeping the UN inspectors circling a country the size of France in search of weapons that could be contained in a small bungalow is a recipe for keeping Iraqi people under dictatorship and Iraqi democrats in torture chambers, exile or freshly dug graves. ...
My recurring nightmare – literally – is that, when all this is over, I meet up again with some of the friends I made in Iraq (and who I talk to everyday by e-mail), and they say to me: "You knew we hated Saddam, with his torture chambers, his secret police and his 100 per cent 'election' results. You knew we were desperate to overthrow him. You knew about the 5,000 people he gassed at Halabjah. You knew. So when British and American planes were just miles away, waiting to kill Saddam so we could begin to rebuild our country, what did you do?"
How could I possibly tell them I went on a march opposing the war? How will I explain that one million people in my home town actually did?
8:36pm AST
Glenn Reynolds links to a David Pryce-Jones piece in the Telegraph and comments on possible reasons why none of the anti-war protesters seem to take the authoritarianism of the Middle East for granted.
David Pryce-Jones writes that the protesters' lack of concern for Arab lives and freedom is, well, racist. "Behind the demonstrators' slogans lies the assumption that Arabs should be left alone: they don't mind being brutalised, tortured and murdered by a fascist thug like Saddam. Where they come from, it is the natural order of things."
You'd think that they could manage a few hundred folks to march to the Iraqi mission and demand that Saddam step down, at least. And they could -- if they cared.
This was the same conventional wisdom that the West's intelligentsia held regarding the hundreds of millions of people who lived under communism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You see, these Soviets like living under communism. You see, they've always lived under the rule of the czar, so it's natural for them to want to live under a single party state. You see the logical transition? They like living in such an ordered society, they take pride in it. They wouldn't want the disorderliness of democratic pluralism. They're well suited to Soviet society and don't want to be like the West. It's just not their way.
The same is thought today regarding the Chinese. They've always lived under an emperor, you see, so they're really quite happy living under a single-party state. (Hey, how else to you manage a billion people?)
And, it certainly is the conventional wisdom regarding the Middle East.
Freedom. Isn't it a great thing? ... when it's your own. 8:03pm AST
A Gladstone of the New Century
Andrew Sullivan loves Tony Blair's speech to the Labour Party conference in Glasgow.
I would vote for him next time, regardless. Because of speeches as magnificent and as brave as this one: Blair's speech
Something about Britain seems to bring my homeland the leaders they need when crisis beckons and nerves fail. Churchill - too late but just in time. Thatcher - way before her time. Blair - the Gladstone of the new century.
Read more of Andrew's views on the United Nations
The body is now a joke of immense proportions. If it cannot enforce a resolution it passed only a couple of months ago, it cannot enforce anything. If it cannot read the plain meaning of its own words, it is an absurdist theater piece, not a genuine international body. It isn't in danger of becoming the League of Nations. It now is the League of Nations. The difference is that this time, after 9/11, U.S. isolationism is not an option. So U.S. non-U.N. multilateralism is the only option for any future threats to world order.
and on the lack of wisdom in a containment policy for Saddam
One thing it surely does mean is maintaining sanctions. As Tony Blair just noted, "The moral choice in relation to this is a moral choice that has to weigh up the moral consequences of war. But the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year."
How odd that those who have long accused the West of murdering thousands of Iraqi babies because of sanctions now want to continue those sanctions indefinitely. Of course, some don't. As soon as the pressure is off, they'll get back to lobbying for an end to such sanctions and liberating Saddam to even further horrors. But it seems to me that those who sincerely want to maintain the inspections farce and the sanctions tragedy need to be more honest in confronting the moral cost of this policy: not merely doing nothing credible to deter the threat to the West of weapons of mass destruction; not merely the signal to every terrorist and nuke-hungry dictator that the West is too weak to deal with them; not merely perpetuating and reinforcing one of the most hideous police states on the planet; not merely fatally undermining the credibility of the U.N.; but also maintaining the cruelty of famine for the next generation of Iraqi children.
12:06pm AST
I watched a small bit of CNN's coverage of Saturday's protests, a subject to which CNN devoted a full hour.
One reporter in L.A. mentioned that ANSWER was the protest's organizer. That's it, no mention of what this group stands for. (Even some on the anti-war left has problems with these guys.)
Mike "B.J. Honeycutt" Farrell was interviewed. Said Mike, the inspectors should be allowed to do their work, and, if the U.S. didn't allow this, it means there must be some "hidden agenda". Hmm, whatever could that mean, Mike? Oil? Is it all about oil? Read what Glenn Reynolds and others have to say on that one. Oh, I forgot -- facts and arguments, never mind.
11:41am AST
U.S. National Security Advisor Condi Rice was also on Fox News Sunday this morning. She said things will start rolling in "weeks not months". That's how long Saddam has left. (He'll get his 48 hour warning and hopefully he'll leave. Early March. Maybe Chirac will put him up.)
Rice questioned the line of some UNSC diplomats ~ how can any reasonable person say that the inspections are working?? 1441 was the final opportunity, the weapons inspectors are not there as detectives, they're there to verify Iraq's disarmament. 10:56am AST
Senator John McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning with Tony Snow. McCain was right throughout the 90s regarding Iraq and North Korea, and he's right now.
Regarding Saturday's protests, McCain said that while he applauded the right of anyone to be unwise and foolish, these protests were effectively pro-Saddam.
McCain believes that containment of Saddam is not an option; that the inevitable conclusion to the process of containment is proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Sooner or later, Saddam will use or sell his WMDs.
With respect to France's role, McCain likened France to an aging actress from the 1940s who tries to dine out on her looks, but it's become increasingly difficult. While he said he couldn't divine France's true reasons for its intransigence, that country's oil ties to Iraq were likely key. As well, if the US really was in this for the oil, it could have easily entered into similar oil arrangements as France has done.
Even if France jumps in at the last minute, McCain sees lasting damage to U.S.-France relations. He felt that the relationship with Germany would improve, that Germany is playing its part in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia and is protecting U.S. bases in Germany. Things won't come back vis a vis France, however.
1441 was about compliance, not investigation. This week, the US and its allies will call upon the UN for a definitive answer to the situation.
Speaking of the UN, McCain said he could laugh off the fact that Libya chairs the UN's Human Rights Commission or that Iraq will be chairing a conference on disarmament. But, when it comes to France, Russia and China acting as they do, this leads the UN down the road to isolation and irrelevancy.
With respect to North Korea, McCain said that China and other neighbours in the region absolutely must step up and solve this problem. China really has to become engaged. The rearmament of Japan will be inevitable if North Korea is not dealt with, and the removal of the rods from North Korea must be part of the solution.
McCain's speech from this past week (thanks Simon!)
10:43am AST
Saturday, February 15, 2003
Charles Johnson posts a very sad, ironic photo. (via Instapundit)
6:32pm AST
Charles Krauthammer has a disturbing piece regarding the current state of affairs, claiming that the jubilance of the Clinton era was merely a holiday from history and got us into the mess we all face today.
We are now paying the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. During that decade, every major challenge to America was deferred. The chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure that nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road: Iraq; North Korea; and, Terrorism.
That is how one acts on holiday: Mortal enemies are dealt with not as combatants but as defendants.
Last fall, The Weekly Standard featured this Max Boot piece, The Consequences of Clintonism.
With respect to this article, Andrew Sullivan wrote that it is "... a vital and important part of understanding our world to understand how we came to be in this awful predicament - in a world war with no apparent end in sight and much horror still to come. It's my judgment that president Bill Clinton's policies ... left the world a far more dangerous place than when he took office. History will judge him brutally for what he has done to damage world peace. He may have meant well; but we must live with the consequences."
We're paying now the steep costs of Clintonian appeasement. In the history of the 21st century, will the name 'Clinton' mean what 'Chamberlain' does to the 20th century? 4:43pm AST
I watched Jim Lehrer’s New Hour last night. Former Clinton Foreign Secretary Madeleine Albright and former George H.W. Bush National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft debated the international scene, particularly Iraq. While Albright claimed that the Clinton Administration did great things during the 1990s, building a strong multilateral approach with America’s allies, she didn’t venture to explain why Saddam forced the UN weapons inspectors to leave in 1998 and why the United States or the United Nations did nothing in response. There was a time in 1994 when America threatened war with Iraq, and Saddam backed down. Why is it incorrect this time? Was it only a threat that was never intended to be back up?
Scowcroft had it right ~ that containment of Saddam, which is what apparently the Democrats and a majority in Canada, France, and Germany are seeking, will not work. It didn’t work before during the 1990s and it won’t work now. Sure, more inspectors now will move about Iraq and possibly find a few more weapons. They’ll help keep Saddam’s head down for the time being. But, Iraqis in general, and Iraqi scientists and military personnel in particular, will not be open to provide information to the inspectors. These people and their families remain under threat of imprisonment, torture and death should they be so bold.
People like Albright don’t seem to care or question why Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave in 1998. Why could he have possibly done that? So long as Saddam Hussein was not going to rebuild his weapons programs, what possible reason could he have had to expel the inspectors? The answer is ‘there is no reason’. Saddam forced them out because he knew he could get away with it. He knew that he could win at playing his game. Back down in the face of military might, make the best of it until that threat is reduced and then go back to doing whatever he wanted to do.
But, one day in the near future, the American and allied armed forces will leave the area. This military build-up and the threat of its use is the only reason that there are currently UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. If Saddam is appeased now, this military threat will eventually be dispersed and reduced. At the end of this year, or next year, or the year after. Then, any weapons inspectors working in Iraq will suddenly find their jobs made much more difficult. Saddam will gradually reinvigorate his weapons programs and we’ll be back to square one. Perhaps, by then, there will be someone in the White House who is not so resolute in combating terror, not willing to take the risks to force adherence to United Nations resolutions. That’s not a far stretch -- the previous resident was one such person.
So, France and Germany are certainly playing along with Saddam’s game. The United Nations Security Council doesn’t really want Saddam to disarm. They said so in November with Resolution 1441, but the Council’s actions since then do not support its previous resolution. Saddam has not disarmed.
3:52pm AST