BLATHER REVIEW

Rachel Corrie (1979-2003)

May I make an observation for the benefit of some of my friends? Of course, I may. It's my blog!

Today some of us think about how misguided we think she was. Or how unfounded her parents' lawsuits against the IDF and Caterpiller are. (And they are.)
But, at her ending, she was a young woman who died tragically while doing what she thought was right.

I've always refused to call her "Rachel Pancake" or any other sickening slur. She didn't go anywhere to die for a cause. She went there and sat there because she knew she would be safe. She was a "human shield". She could trust that she'd be safe because she had faith in humanity.

Unfortunately, the shield was useless as she was not noticed by the bulldozer's operator.

To me, today, it doesn't even matter why she was there or what she was thinking when she went there. I wonder more about what she was thinking when she realized that she was about to die unnoticed by the machinery that was pushing at her and heaping debri upon her. When did she know that she'd made a mistake and what in the world was that experience like?

In my opinion the only one responsible for Rachel's death is Rachel herself. She was careless. In a dangerous situation she failed to make her presence absolutely clear and for her early-morning foggy logic she died. I hope the weight of the concrete was so great that she never felt a thing.

Being only 24-years old, her life was a short story. She made a mistake, yes, but, please, her reasons for making that mistake that morning had nothing to do with her ideology. I think it's despicable to translate political opinion into ghoulishness if only because Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and their ilk were so good at it.

I may not agree with what, in life, were her politics. But, I consider her death a tragedy on many levels. Philosophical, methodical and, especially, physical. On no level do I consider her death a joke.

"300 to 400 rounds"?

Here's the car that Giuliana Sgrena was riding in when the engine block was hit. CENTCOM says that the driver refused to stop after signals and warning shots were issued at a checkpoint near Baghdad International Airport. Sgrena claims that they received no warning to stop, just a sudden hail of 300-400 bullets.

Hmm. 300-400 rounds at a moving target and not a single one even hit the hood or windshield. Assuming Sgrena is telling the truth, that's some mighty fine shooting, boys.

Of course, assuming her boyfriend was telling the truth -- that the passengers were deliberately targetted -- that's some damn lousy shooting.

(Tip o' the tam to LGF)

UPDATE: Apparently this is not the car that Sgrena et al were travelling in at the time. The AP seemed to have, at first, used an image of the car she was in when she was "kidnapped". Now it's apparent (for the time being) that the AP used an image of a car that had nothing to do with Sgrena at all.

My appologies for passing on the MSM's sloppy reportage... reportery... reporting. Yeah, that'll do.

*sigh* They Just Refuuuuuse t'Get It....

Just read this over at DailyKos:

Oh my god (3.81 / 16 )

"I don't want to be a daddy because daddies die,"
That is one of the most heartbreaking things I have ever, ever read in my life. And I've read a lot of them.
Of all the tens of thousands of heartbreaking storeis out there, one thinks they get inured to it, and then something like this slips through and hits you like a freight train.
More and more, all I hear is the end of Bridge On the River Kwai: "Madness! Madness...madness!"
The worst thing is that 60 million Americans were callous and hateful enough to vote for the architect of that father's death. And the deaths of hundreds of other fathers and mothers. And thousands of Iraqi fathers and mothers.
Why. Dammit, dammmit, fuck fuck fuck, why.

"We will fight them, sir, until hell freezes over. And then, sir, we will fight them on the ice."
by Raybin on Wed Dec 15th, 2004 at 16:48:44 PST

Howdy, Raybin.

First thing first.

"I don't want to be a daddy because daddies die,"

You're so heartbroken at reading these words because you think they mean "I wish my daddy wasn't dead." Read it again. He's just saying "I don't wanna die." These are the words of of a 4-year-old..

Second things second: He probably said them after his not-so-4-year-old mother told him that "Sometimes daddies die for reasons that you'll only understand when you're older".

But, let's get to the meat of this bony issue, eh?

"The worst thing is that 60 million Americans were callous and hateful enough to vote for the architect of that father's death.

Why. Dammit, dammmit, fuck fuck fuck, why."

I don't know you and you don't know me. Maybe you get your news from DailyKos and Bartcop and a few others because they, to you, tell it like it is But, if that's all your seeking then that's all you'll get.

I was tempted to write a very vitriolic response to your question "Why?". But, on further reflection, I sense that you are an honest broker and deserve, at the very least, my feeble attempt to answer the question as a fellow honest broker.

--------------------

Saddam Hussien may or may not have been a direct threat to the United States of America. It doesn't matter.
Wha...?!
Yuh!.
Nu 'UH!
Uh Huh!

.The freedom of Iraqis shouldn't matter to us, right? After-all, they aren't Americans and only other Americans should matter to Americans.

So, I ask you, my friend: What is an American?

Maybre you think that "Americanism" is no different than some kind of Euro-fuedal, colonialist my-country-right-or-wrong . I simply ask you to think harder.

Do you know what Freedom is? Of course you do.

Do you know what a lack of Freedom is?

A lack of Freedom is getting arrested for walking down the street reading an open Bible or Torah or some sanskrit text. A lack of Freedom is speaking your peace against the government.and then watching your children killed and bulldozed into a mass grave for your transgression against your precious tyrant.

Get it so far? Good.

-------------------

We're in Iraq because it's our way into the gut of the Middle East.

The Middle East is the place where theocrats think they'll rule for time immemorial. They teach their children to hate Jews just 'cause they, Jews, want to live freely in the Middle East without being subject to torture chambers and rape rooms. We support Israel because they are a democracy that want to protect the right of a muslim who merely wants to walk down the street reading the Koran. Freedom, my friend. It's what's for dinner and I can smell something cooking.

---------------------

The only campaign I ever worked on as Jerry Brown's in 1992. I knew then that Bill Clinton was a meely-mouthed piece o' shit.

I supported Bill Bradley and John McCain in 2000, so you can imagine my horror when Bush and Gore, the Annointed Ones, had actually been choen by the media.
I actually liked Al Gore until he ran for President and revealed himself to be a meely-mouthed piece o' shit. And I even liked John Kerry! Until he ran for President and became a meely-mouthed piece o' shit... But, I digress.

----------------

September 11, 2001. Remember that morning? 3,000 men, women and children on their way to do something for someone else and never got there 'cause daddies, mommies and kids had to die?

Do you remember how you knew how fucking fucked-up the Middle East was when those fucking theofucks gloriously killed thousands and themselves for their fucked-up fantasies of glory and killing?

You wonder if there's a national interest somewhere in all of this, do ya? If you don't consider the wanton death of bystanders to be evil then, I fear, you are lost in a search for a greyness that even the most jaded ethics professors would find repulsively alien.
If you don't consider Iraq, centrally located, to be a major strategic inroad to the reformation and modernizatoion of the entire Middle East, then you might as well say that you just don't understand the war on terror. .

Okay, enough tweaking. Time for bed.

Battle Hymn for a New Republic

[Wish I could find some photos to accompany this...]

Mine eyes have seen the gory ugly coming of a horde
who will hide away, take hostages, and raise a Ba'athist's sword
But the time has come to show the bastards to their great reward
so troops are marching on.... to...

gory, gory al-Fallujah
gory, gory al-Fallujah
gory, gory al-Fallujah
These troops are marching on to clean out the rotting filth like your formerly fearless leader...

Allahu ahkbar.

Sic sempre tyrannus.

Duty now for the future.

25 Years Ago Today

A quarter century ago the Iranian Hostage Crisis began the modern era of Islamist terrorism.
May the re-election of GWB, the quiet celebration of that fact by millions of Iranians, the establishment of democracy in Iraq and Afganistan and the demise of Yassar Arafat signify the beginning of the end of the terror era.

Let it be.

Osama speaks, I fisk

I haven't been doing much web surfing recently and, I presume, Osama's latest speech has probably been fisked to death. But I just read it today and thought I'd throw in my 3 cents.
So here we go........

To begin: Peace be upon he who follow the Guidance.

People of United States, this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan and deals with the war and its causes and results..

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar in human life and that free men do not forfeit their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom.
If so, then let him explain why did not strike - for example - Sweden..

And we know that freedom haters do not possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 may Allah have mercy on them..

No, we fight because we are free men who do not sleep under oppression.
We want to restore freedom to our Nation and just as you lay waste to our Nation so shall we lay waste to yours..

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real cause and thus the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred..

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and I shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken for you to consider..

I say to you Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike towers.
But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the America/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind..

The events that affected my soul in a difficult way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American 6th fleet helped them in that.
And the whole world saw and heard but did not respond..

In those difficult moments many hard to describe ideas bubbled in my soul but in the end they produced intense feelings of rejection of tyranny and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children..

We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth..

This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Senior to the region at a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries. All of a sudden he was affected by these monarchies and military regimes and became jealous of their remaining decades in their position to embezzle the public wealth of the Nation without supervision or accounting..

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act under the pretences of fighting terrorism..

In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors and did not forget to import expertise in election fraud from the regions presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty..

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.
And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration notice..

It never occurred to us that the Commander in Chief of the armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone at a time when they most needed him.

But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers we were given three times the period required to execute the operations.

All praise is due to Allah..

"Sorry"

While peace-loving muslims need not apologize for the barbarism of the Death Cult, my faith in humanity is, nonetheless, strengthened by the message HERE

Here's a taste:

Only moderate Muslims can challenge and defeat extremist Muslims. We can no longer afford to be silent. If we remain silent to the extremism within our community then we should not expect anyone to listen to us when we complain of stereotyping and discrimination by non-Muslims; we should not be surprised when the world treats all of us as terrorists; we should not be surprised when we are profiled at airports.

Simply put, not only do Muslims need to join the war against terror, we need to take the lead in this war.

The linked article is very brief and to the point. Read it. Love it.

And commendations, kudos and pengos to Drudge for snooping it out.

A response to Elderbear

Susie's looking for fiskings of the pinhead points made in the comments that Susie posted HERE.
Everybody's doin' it so, of course, I wanna get in on the action. I purposely haven't read any of the other fiskings yet.

1. Mr. Bush allowed Iraq to become a distraction from the war on terrorism.

Before we invaded Iraq, it was a stable nation.

If by "stable" you mean "cold, wooden and full of horse shit" then you're talking about John Kerry not Iraq.

Saddam provided a secular government and would not tolerate the Islamic fundamentalism that fuels al Queda—in fact, he brutally suppressed it.

Saddam didn't tolerate any "fundamentalists" at all, such as civil libertarians, or anyone who should even show a hint that they might not vote for Saddam in the next "election" - he brutally suppressed them.
He did however send money to the families of Palestinian terrorists who blew themselves up in order to kill innocent men, women and children in Israel.

He suppressed the warring of one tribe against another in Iraq because it threatened his own chokehold on the people, not because he thought that anti-Israeli/anti-American would-be killers are just too tacky to be tolerated.
For an article on the direct connections between al Qaeda and the Saddam Feyedeen see this WSJ article.

Don't get me wrong, he was an evil SOB, even worse than Dick Cheney!

Well, at least you didn't say "almost as bad as Dick Cheney" like I'm sure you wanted to. mheh.

But Iraq was off-limits for al Queda activities.

Nope, sorry. (See above linked article.)
Al Qaeda trained at Saalam Pak (sp?), just outside of Baghdad..

Saddam was well contained militarily by UN sanctions and the US enforcement of them. He posed no threat to the region, nor to the US homeland.

This sentence, just as it's written, is pretty much true. But it addresses Saddam's ability to militarily threaten the region. (At least one exception, however, is that he had violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire by having missiles that could reach Israel. I believe the range limit was 90 miles.)
The threat that he posed to the US - and everyone else - was WMD ending up in the hands of al Qaeda.

(Even though it's a digression let me just add: WMD. We know he had them and we know that he didn't provide evidence in December '02 that he'd destroyed them. So either he destroyed them and forgot to jot it down, or they're still there, either in Iraq or elsewhere.)

Now, Iraq is unstable, a “failed nation” at present,

Actually, it wont even be a nation until July 1st.

.. with little control of the populace.

Why does my hair hurt everytime I hear barking moonbat leftists start talking about "control of the populace"?
(That a rhetorical question, btw.)

Terrorism is rampant, aimed at Iraqi collaborators and American occupiers.

Well, I wouldn't call it rampant. The terror attacks are committed overwhelmingly by foreigners, not Iraqis. They attack the coalition forces and the UN as well as civilian marketplaces and Iraqis involved in the Iraqi government that you complain is a failure.

What's rampant in Iraq is the building of the schools, playgrounds, fresh water running in peoples' home for the first time ever, electricity being brought to all the people for the first time ever, and the revitalization of the Iraqi economy.

The US occupation of an arabic nation, an Islamic nation, fuels al Queda's recruiting. Iraq is one big training camp where live fire operations are possible. This is George W. Bush's gift to al Queda.

So... fighting terrorism causes terrorism. This is like the little kid who thinks that if he doesn't do anything about the bully then maybe the bully will decide to leave him alone. The terrorists are there and they want to kill us. 3,000 in one day? That's peanuts compared to what they'd like to do. We gotta get 'em now, bucko, before they start leaving craters where our cities and town used to be.

2. Mr. Bush lied to the American people and the world about the threat posed by Iraq.

Mr. Bush has destroyed most of the good-will that the United States received internationally after 9-11.

Yes, victimhood was good for our foreign relations, wasn't it...
That "good will" evaporated as soon as we went to Afghanistan to get the Taliban who, more than any other government, was responsible for 9-11. This is the lefty mentality of places like Berserkley that blames a schoolyard fight on the kid that threw the second punch; i.e. defended himself. Liberals like people that they can feel sorry for because strength and competition is inherently frightening to them. Victimhood requires sympathy, not respect.

He changed the focus from fighting terrorism (an action with broad international backing) to demonstrating that in US foreign policy, might makes right, a policy that has lost us the sympathy of many foreign nations.

Actually, regarding this whole sympathy/respect issue, right makes might. We are mighty because we're rich; we're rich because we're free; we're free because we refuse to be the victims of a foreign crown or a foreign terrorist.
I pity you for even having the thoughts that led you to write your post. You love that though, don't ya?! I pity you! Yay, you're feeling right at home now, eh?!

3. Mr. Bush has instituted policies that destroy the freedoms of Americans.

While this may make it marginally more difficult for terrorists to operate in the homeland, al Queda can point to impacting the American way of life. They counted coup on us, not just by knocking down some buildings and killing some people (Yes, 9-11 was horrible, but let's put it in perspective: depending on which source you choose, between 1,000 and 4,000 women die each year of domestic violence, itself a form of terrorism that leaves many severely scarred who manage to physically survive it. It scars children, too. Homeland Security? Give me Dennis Kucinich's cabinet level Department of Peace that would address this problem directly), but by changing our way of life.

Taking out that rediculously long parenthetical paragraph, the second sentence is "They counted coup on us, not just by knocking down some buildings and killing some people but by changing our way of life".

I'm no expert on the Patriot Act. In fact, I can remember almost nothing about it. I've heard and read about various aspects of it, but can't recall much. That's probably because none of what I heard/read particularly struck me as dangerous to our liberty.

The one aspect that I do recall is that it allows people to be wiretapped, not just phones. The thing about this is that the FBI still needs probable cause to get a warrant for a tap. If they were just tapping any phones that they suspect a suspect might be using, then there'd definately be a problem. But the Patriot Act only makes it different in that a warrant can be pursued to tap an addition phone being used by the known suspect, rather than having to get additional warrants on the same suspect over and over. Once the suspect is identified, the burden is only to prove to a judge that a certain phone is being used by that suspect. I got no problem with that.

As for that parenthetical paragraph: If between 1,000 and 4,000 women died of domestic violence due to the actions of an organized network of conspiratorial wife-beaters, then we'd be on the case in a hummingbird's heartbeat.
Other than that, I don't understand the purpose of your comparison of domestic violence to al Qaeda terrorism. Are we supposed to ignore them both? Fight them both? Ignore one and fight the other? Let al Qaeda kill 3,000 more people because 1,000 to 4,000 other people were killed by people who are not al Qaeda?

4. Mr. Bush has de-emphasized solving the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire

Stabilizing Israel and Palestine will remove a key recruiting point for al Queda. But, Mr. Bush chose to put less energy into solving this problem, and to focus in causing a problem in Iraq. Good for al Queda, bad for Israelis, bad for Palestinians. Bad for Americans.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy examination of how the indoctrinated hatred of Jews throughout the Middle East fuels all terrorism. I'll just say this:
If Bill Clinton couldn't bring peace to Israel/Palistine then no one could. The problem is not America or Clinton or Bush. The problem is Arafat.
Bush decided that Arafat will not be dealt with, and that, my friend, is the first step toward a lasting peace. The next step is for Israel and the Palistinians to stop killing each other.

5. If elected, Mr. Bush can be counted on to continue a policy of international beligerence, thus strengthening the terrorist call to action.

Mr. Bush has given no indication that he will repudiate Dick Cheney's implementation of the Plan for a New American Century, a plan of military intimidation and dominance. This belligerent behavior will serve only to isolate America and coerce cooperation from fear. But al Queda will not be coerced, it will only grow in the nooks and crannies and dark spaces of the globe. The Bush doctrine of preemption isolates us from our allies and fuels the fires of hatred that power terrorism.

# posted by Elderbear : 11:41

I'm not all that familiar with the Plan for a New American Century but I'm familiar with some of it's authors.

What you call "belligerence" is actually a pro-active addressing of the root of terrorism: an entire region of the world that is conditioned by it's culture to fuse religion with government and to hate non-muslims, especially Jews.
A democracy in Iraq, the rising democratic youth in Iran, the repudiation of terror in Lybia, and the general moderization of education and government in the muslim world is the answer. This scares a lot of people. "Oh, no! We're gonna upset a lot of racist Islamist sticks in the mud who wont like this at all!"
Yes, it will upset a lot of sociopathic mass murderers. Good. This will make them show their presence by getting involved in networks that we have infiltrated and/or are monitoring.

I am not frightened by a future where we confront both the threat and the root cause of the threat of terrorism. I am frightened by a future where we believe that if we just play as nice as possible, forgive tresspass after tresspass, that the bullies will leave us alone. Seems like peace; the peace we had on September 10th, 2001.
Only we didn't have peace, we only thought we did.

The future you want, Elderbear, is a frightening one indeed. We know it is because we've seen it -- on September 11th, 2001.

Now I'm gonna go read the other fiskings of this post that are up!
Harvey's fisking
Tom's fisking
Stephen's fisking

Michael Moore's got something up his ass sleeve

According to THIS ARTICLE Michael Moore has footage from the interview portion of the tape of Nick Berg being beheaded by al Qaeda in Baghdad. What would Michael Moore want with THAT you ask?

The footage, of an interview with Berg, "is approximately 20 minutes long. We are not releasing it to the media," Moore said in a statement. "It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family."

My trick knee tells me that fellow travellers Michael Moore and Michael Berg are powwowing to decide how to use this to slam President Bush since, clearly, Nick Berg died because Bush started a war in Iraq under false pretenses because Saddam wasn't a threat because al Qaeda's not in Iraq.

Which leads to announce a winner in my recent caption contest:
"Help! George W Bush is gonna kill me!!!"

(Okay, I made it up just now. The actual winner is Ted's "What... me worry?" just 'cause I'm a MADmag fan.)

Also, and on a related note, Newsmax has a short article on the connection between al Qaeda and the Saddam Feyedeen.

(They actually cite the Wall Street Journal as the source which is unusual... Newsmax citing a source, that is,,, But they don't link to the wsj.com article. I looked for it but it's either off the main page, or the info on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection is embedden somewhere in an article that had a different or larger purpose.)

Horror Is In The Eye Of The Beholder?

"We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war." (August 9, 1945) "...and I'd do it again." --Harry Truman

The targetting of innocent bystanders in a war has, throughout history, been seen as a barbaric practice.
It was a taboo, universally acknowledged as unconscionable, until World War II.

Hitler had bombed Guernica Spain and, suddenly, all bets were off.
The bombing of London by the Nazis and of Tokyo by the US -- and the war-ending bombing of Berlin -- were seen as neccessary to winning the war.
That the killing of civilian men women and children, in the interest of the bigger picture, was a no-no, is both an old and new concept.
But it had conveniently been forgotten during WWII.

There's an excellent overview HERE.

The more I think about this the more I think I'm beginning to understand the Muslim reticence to outwardly condemning Islamist terrorists. Terrorising the population at-large with blitzkrieg was beginning to seem like a useful stategy toward forcing governments to give up the fight for the sake of the innocent.

The presumed humanity of the enemy was a weapon to use against them.

But, we've always been disgusted with the idea of bombing cities - even as we did it. We excused the horror, temporarily, on the grounds that the stakes were just that high. The hugeness of the threat determined how willing we were to accept the death of hundreds of thousands of defenseless men, women and children.

Once precision-guided missles and "smart bombs" became usable the debate began to shift toward "collateral damage" again. By the waning years of the Cold War strategists weren't taliking about cities burning up so much as missile silos burning up. The term "military targets" was coming back into vogue.
(I have no links here; only my own memories of the period.)

We have smart bombs; the enemy, in this current war, has small bombs and stealth. The question for them is not "Is killing innocent civilians wrong?", but; "What the hell ELSE are we gonna do?"
When the stakes are that high: the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians may seem like an acceptable price to pay to preserve your very Way of Life.

The wanton slaughter of a city's population is abhorant to us because we know that we have the ability to defeat an army by more sophisticated means; the PR and philosophical hit, if we targetted civilians, would be too devistating to bear. (We could never show our face on the world stage again.)
But, to "armies" that possess less sophisticated means, the destruction of a city is an excusable horror because the stakes are just that high.

Or, to put it even more pompously: The degree to which the killing of civilians is intollerable
is proportionate to the degree to which their deaths are unprofitable.

Am I wondering if it's hypocritical to defend the bombing of Hiroshima while condemning the beheading of Nick Berg?
Yes.
But I think I may be finding an answer.

We struggle to decide between which we value more: the win or loss, or how the game is played.
Therein may lay the difference between us and them.

We're brought up and taught that it's not whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game. Most Middle Easterners (and I have this on good authority -- I'm not speaking out of my ass again) are taught to hate Jews.

Most Muslims only hate Americans when they think about how America supports Israel.

I don't think that it's America that Islamists hate. I don't even think that Islamists give a crap about our decadant culture infesting theirs (maybe they even see us as a guilty pleasure).
I'm thinking, more and more, that Islamists hate America soley because she has delivered a Jewish homeland in the midland of Islam.
(And that the very idea that a "seperation of Church and state" is unimaginable to most Middle Eastern Muslims.)

I remember a report in the fall of 2000; just running up to the election. A conversation going on in a gathering place some city in Jordan I think. Bush or Gore? Whaddaya think?
Even though Bill Clinton was reasonably popular in the region a majority were willing to take a chance on Bush.
George Bush? The son of the man who'd attacked Iraq?!
Yep. Even though they despise "Western Imperialism" they had only one thing foremost on their minds: If Gore was elected then the Vice-President would be a Jew.
This, more than anything, illustrates the root of the problem in the Middle East. It's not about sex and violence; it's about sects and violins. (ouch! sorry!)

It might be ironic that America was founded on the principle of religious freedom and is hated by States that think we're out to destroy their own religious Freedom.
No, wait. Only Alanis Morrisette would call that ironic.

Well, I said I wasn't gonna post a long one and I seem to have blathered on again...
I'll just slink away now and maybe re-read this and fix everything I've f'd up and conclude with something that I've forgotten to say.

UPDATE: Oh yeah! What I'd forgotten to say...:
Terrorists. They target your Mom.
Kill them.

Tell me something I don't know

I'm even more pissed off today then I was yesterday and I've got questions.
I don't know any Muslims well enough to ask them about this whole war on terror thing, so, if there are any Muslims out there who care to educate me about the everyman attitude about it, feel free. In the mean time, here's what I'm thinking today:

I see vicious barbarians murdering innocent men women and children. I see throngs of hateful sociopaths in the streets shouting for jihad against "infidels". I see suicidal "martyrs" destroying themselves just to kill as many strangers as possible and no one amongst you speaking out against it.
This is what I see because that's all you show me.

Where are the voices that want to set me straight? Tell me that Islam is not an evil religion. I really want to believe it. If these terrorists are an aberation then say so.

Where are the good Muslims who want to rescue their beautiful faith from the gangsters that have hijacked it and use it to justify tyranny and mass slaughter? All I've seen are appologists at best, and ranting would-be fellow tyrants at worst.
This is what I see because that's all you show me.

The word islam means "submission." By "Islam" do you mean your submission to Allah, or my submission to you? Is the imposition of your faith on me your mission - even if I choose not to submit? Is my brutal painful death by torture the price I have to pay for not following the same star that you do?

If that's the case then all I can conclude is that the war on terror really is a war on Islam -- just like I've heard it said so many times by so many muslims.
If you want to claim that terrorism and tyranny are not the ways and means of "defending" Islam then please do, because I haven't heard it yet.

A man walked up to Jesus and asked him what he had to do to receive the blessing of God. Jesus told him to give up his riches and follow him. The man was sad because it was too big a sacrifice for his selfish self to make.
What did Jesus do? Did he chop of his head in five easy strokes? Did he call for the mob to stone him? Did he burn him alive and string up his remains on bridge over the Jordan River?
No; Jesus let him go on his way -- hoping that one day he would change his mind. This is the difference between religious freedom and religious tyranny.

Can I walk along the streets of Saudi Arabia with that Verse in my hand? Can a Jew walk down the streets of Syria with an open Talmud in his hands?
Can a Muslim walk down the street of any free society with an open copy of the Q'aran?
Even Israel -- a "Jewish State" with the star of David on it's flag -- is not a theocracy, and all Israelis of any faith are free to express their faith openly.

Okay, so most people are content to go about their daily routine without ever speaking out against the twisted amoral choas that they see on the nightly news. No matter our religion, our time is more consumed by work and play than with activism.

But, if there's a silent majority of peace-loving, religious freedom-loving, live and let live Muslims out there, now's the time to show your presence. I want to see you -- just to know that you're there and that Islam really is a religion of peace and mercy and not a religion of anger, repression and treachery 'cause I ain't seen that yet 'cause all I can see is only what you show me.

Crap Crap and more crap

It just occured to me that today (or, yesterday, most likely by now) is the 11th.

Coincidinck?

Let's wake up and stay awake, shall we?!

......WSFLASH**NEWSFLASH**NEWSFLASH**NEWSF.....

Al Qaeida responds to the insulting humiliation of terrorists with barbaric murder of innocent Americans. Who'd o' thunk it...

My condolences to Nick Berg's family and friends.

Nick was a 26 yr old business owner -- in Philidelphia -- who was contracted to Iraq to help rebuild the country's communications infrastructure.
For more on Nick Berg this article, by Sandy Bauers, appeared in the Philidelphia Inquirer on Saturday.

The last time Nick Berg called home, he was OK.
He had been released from the prison where he had been held for 13 days by Iraqi police for reasons he said he did not know.

He had made his way from Mosul to his Baghdad hotel.
He was finished with being an independent civilian contractor and was coming home to West Chester.

That was April 9.

And then nothing.

Now, a month later, Berg's parents, Michael and Suzanne, have gone from concerned to frantic.
And they hope that someone, somewhere, can give them the news they desperately want to hear: that Nick Berg is alive, that it is simply taking him a long time to make his way home.

"Our hopes are that he's still in hiding or en route and traveling in a very slow manner," Michael Berg said yesterday.

A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who tracks the number of civilians missing in that country was unavailable for comment yesterday.
But in mid-April, coalition spokesman Dan Senor said during a news briefing in Baghdad that about 40 people from 12 countries were missing and presumed hostages, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Nick Berg, 26, owns a business called Prometheus Methods Tower Service Inc. He climbs communications towers to inspect the antennas, the electrical connections and the structure.

He first went to Iraq on Dec. 21. "It was more of an exploratory mission," Michael Berg said. He stayed until Feb. 1, making contact with a company that indicated there would likely be work for him later.

His parents had not wanted him to go. But they say they think he was lured partly by a sense of adventure, partly because he is a "staunch supporter of the government position in Iraq and he wanted to go over there and help."

But when he returned to Iraq on March 14, the company had no work, so Berg began traveling and networking and found some.

He usually called home once a day and e-mailed several times; Michael Berg is his business manager, and they needed to stay in touch.
They spoke on March 24, and Nick Berg told his parents he was coming home on March 30. He was to be in a friend's wedding that weekend.

Then silence.

Michael Berg went to John F. Kennedy International Airport on March 30 anyway, hoping against hope. His son never got off the plane, and an employee of Royal Jordanian airlines later told him Nick Berg was a no-show.

When FBI agents arrived at the Berg's West Chester home on March 31, they were relieved to know their son was alive - although in jail. The agents questioned them about various details that only they and their son would know about.

Jerri Williams, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, said the agency was "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military in Iraq.
The next day, April 6, Nick Berg was released.

He told his parents he had been riding in a taxi on March 24 when he was arrested by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.

The Bergs heard from their son on April 6, 7, 8 and 9. He said he would come home through Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait, whatever looked safest and most feasible.

But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated, and Michael Berg said they have not heard from their son since.The Bergs have hounded the State Department, the FBI and the International Committee of the Red Cross, seeking any shred of information.
Michael Berg said the State Department sent an official to Nick Berg's hotel, where an employee told the official they had not heard of him.

The Bergs hired a private investigator, who talked to an American hotel guest who said he remembered Nick Berg, his father said.

So now, they are waiting. Sometimes, they tell themselves their son "is a resourceful fellow who can take care of himself," Michael Berg said. Nick's friends call and say the same thing.

"Other times we think perhaps he was dead on April 10," Michael Berg said.

"My worst fear is that I'll never hear anything."

Spain wusses out of the Coalition of the Willing

Forgive me if I'm pissed.

Jose Aznar's defeat in yesterday's election can only embolden al-Qaeda. "Look what we've done!" they'll marvel. "Just a few days before the election we bombed a train and killed 200 people and they oust the government that opposes us!"

So, are we to be concilitory sheep and live in a world were brute terror rules; or will we respond to terrorism like brave and civilized men and women? Spain has made their choice.

Shall 3/11 live forever as a date that will live in infamy? Freedom itself is being attacked. Will freedom be defended? No. Spain has opted to cower to the threat of murderous tyrants.

Maybe it's their mandatory 35 hour workweek. Maybe it's the 8 weeks of paid vacation each of 'em are guaranteed each year. I dunno. But, something tells me that Europe is too distracted by getting even more soft and comfy leisure time to be mentally or emotionally prepared to deal with the reality outside.

228 years ago America gave the world a Republic. What has Europe given us in the past 100 years? Hitler. Stalin. Musselini. Melosovic. Ceausescu. Franco.
Maybe the very love of Liberty is something essentially alien to Europeans -- something they're afraid of just because it demands them to have a voice in their government. You tell me.

On 9/11 3000 innocent men, women and children who were simply going about their daily business were murdered and America decided that it was time to kick some terrorist ass. On 3/11 200 innocent men, women and children who were going about their daily business were murdered and Spain has decided to punish the government that tries to stop it.
Sometimes I wonder if Europe was ever worth saving from it's mistakes: it seems ready and willing to make the same ones over and over.
I am ashamed for our Spanish cousins today.

Sic semper tyranus.

UPDATE: Emporer Misha ! has a pithy yet clueful post, as usual... and links to a few others.

WMD FOUND

Pardon my Freedom:

FoxNews has obtained a videotape of just a few of the torture and mutilation methods gleefully employed by Saddam's regime. Back beatings; shoulder whippings; fingers, legs, heads being chopped off by machete by the Saddam Feyedeen; men bound and then dropped from sixth story rooftops for their crimes of disobeying an order...all done publically -- in front of civilian men, women and children -- in order to instill the fear in them of daring to speak freely against their ruler and his psychotic (now ground temperature) sons.
As if we didn't know it already: the real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was/is Saddam.
Tell me again, U.N./E.U./D.N.C.(and anyone else who hates Bush more than they love Liberty), why you think it was a good idea not to put an end to that. I fuckin' dare ya.

Two down, one to go!

Uday and Qusay are dead! They are no more! They have exited their mortal coil! Their membership in the league of the living has expired! They have ceased to Be! They are Ex-people!

Pop a cork and let the party begin!!!!!

Saddam's diary

For a peek into what Saddam is really thinking these days, check out his weblog by clicking HERE.

open e-mail to nicholas degenova

Professor De Genova,

My I make a suggestion? Let's call this "constructive criticism": If you were to remove your head from your ass the quality of your academic instruction would be greatly improved.

At Wednesday's "teach in" you said (among several other shit-haired remarks), "If we really believe that this war is criminal...then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."

The enemy of the Iraqi people is Saddam Hussein--and any Iraqi free to speak his mind without fear of being eliminated as an enemy of the state will tell you that. The victory of the Iraqi people will come when the coalition that is currently working to remove Saddam's regime is successful....not defeated.

I used to be opposed to this mission because of concerns about the unprecedented preemptive crossing of borders to address a non-imminent (and possibly non-existent) threat. But I have come to support the mission based on the need to be rid of a psychotic mass-murdering tyrant. Please read a newspaper, or search the web, to enlighten yourself as to the barbarism of the Ba'ath regime.

Let me just give a brief illustration of what the "U.S. war machine" is.

When that piss factory Achmed Akbar (or whatever the little turd's name is...) rolled grenades into a command tent killing two (so far) and wounding ten others (not quite the "million Mogadishus" you so eagerly await), what did our war machine do to him? Did they string him up on meat hooks? No! Did they shoot his children or rape his wife in front of him? No! Did they feed him feet-first into a plastics shredder? No! Did they pluck his fingernails or sew back his eyelids and pour sodium-sulfide into them? No! You know what they did? They arrested him! And now he's going to face a *boo hoo* trial! So don't give me any shit about how our troops are war criminals who deserve the fate of the soldiers in Somalia. We're pretty damn civilized!

That's right, I said "we". Because, unlike you, I have friends in the military, and I am former USAF myself. But they are also my fellow Americans, and I wouldn't wish harm to come to any of them. Nor to any Iraqi civilian. Hell!, nor even to any Iraqi soldier! I hate war and I hate, unlike yourself, when anyone in injured or killed.

So, while Saddam's henchmen shoot civilians trying to leave Basra, shoot family members in order to get the others to fight the coalition, put tanks in hospitals and civilians at military targets, execute POWs, feign engine trouble and then blow up taxi cabs when our guys and gals offer to HELP the maggot, feign surrender and then open fire on our guys and gals, brutally murder supplies transporters and bury their shredded remains in shallow graves...you can keep cheering them on. I will keep hoping for a quick end to the hostilities, and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

I'm sorry that the number of coalition--and in particular U.S.--casualties isn't high enough for you. But, I suggest (again, some constructive criticism) that you ought to conduct yourself in a professional manner consistent with that of a well-compensated University professor. And in the future, for decorum's sake, keep your disgusting sociopathic fantasies of mass-slaughter to yourself.


Robert Warren Jones

it's a war on terror, stupid!

As the anti-war protests in New York begin to turn ugly, there's a UPI story that's creating alot of chatter. A group of would-be human shields had fled Iraq and entered Jordan with videotaped interviews with Iraqis. One Iraqi mentioned that just as the American came to Iraq willing to die for peace, he was willing to die for his freedom. This is the operative paragraph:

"A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which had not been seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."

As an example of "before and after"; I was just watching a news report where a protester in New York was being interviewed by a reporter:

reporter: So you agree that Saddam must go?
protester: Oh, yes!
reporter: But, you think it should be done in a way other than by war?
protester: Exactly!
reporter: All right, then; how?
protester: Uuuuuuummmmmm.........
...at which time she gazed off into the distance while searching her mind for an answer and finding only tumbleweeds blowing down the ghost town of her depth of understanding.
In terms of most protesters and human shields, I believe she represents the "before", and Kenneth Joseph is the "after".

But, the organizers of the protests, the hardcore anarcho-socialists, don't suffer from such moments of unclarity. They would probably read the above UPI excerpt and dismiss the Iraqis' desire for liberation as a product of their being so consumed by the immediate terror of Saddam that they have no time to consider the higher abstract concepts of agenda-laced anti-Americanism. (And, anarcho-socialism is not merely anti-Bush, it's politically anti-democracy, economically anti-lassez-faire, wholly anti-American.)

'T'AIN'T EASY BEING ORANGE

The terror alert has been raised to "orange" again. I was just thinking back on how pundits and peons yammered about how confused it all seemed at the time the color-scale was first introduced. So, here's my idea:

Our traffic lights should have the same color scheme as the terror alert code. The colors are (from top to bottom): red, orange, yellow, blue, green. Doing this would address some the nuances of traffic law;

red = stop.

orange = come to a full stop, look around and be sure that the road is clear, go. It's in the vein of the "right on red" law--with no pesky "no turn on red" signs to look around for.)

yellow = caution, the light's about to turn red (or orange.)

blue = this will warn that the light will be turning yellow. This comes in reeeeeeaally handy on them wide-open, depth-perception-defying, main routes (i.e.: US-1) where every car is cruises at 40mph. When the light up ahead turns yellow you gotta hit the brakes and slow from 40 to 0 in 3 seconds.

green = go! man, go!

Plus, seeing the color scheme in a regular routine, everyday on the road, will help us all to remember A) which color falls where on the terror alert scale, and B) that driving your SUV helps to support the rebuilding of the infrastructure of newly liberated former dictatorships.

who are we to do this? (The overdue choice of a reluctant warrior)

Who are we? We're Ted Bundy, and we're Todd Beamer. We're Charles Lindberg and Charles Manson. Ghandi and Stalin are in there, too, arguing...the one determined to topple the other. When examined down to the brass tacks, is there any meaningful difference between them? Are they seperate but equal philosophers, each right in his own way, according to his point of view? Since they each sprang from the same human gene pool, who among us--sprung from that same muddled puddle--can pass judgement on what is right and what is wrong? On what then should our moral choices be based? Should we even bother to agonize ourselves over "moral" choices at all?

Werner Heisenberg, the great German physicist, had a choice to make. Nazi Germany was taking shape...a twisted shape. With war raging and Hitler expanding his reign and his weaponry and what with concentration camps filling up with people and all, Albert Einstein fled Germany for America. Neils Bohr fled Denmark for America. Nuclear physicists, under cover of some of the darkest of all European nights, were escaping Hitler's realm, lest they be "invited" to work for the Nazi nuclear program.

Heisenberg's main achievement was his "Uncertainty Principle"; the realization that the more we established a particle's velocity, the less we are able to determine it's location, and vice-versa. And not just because of a technically limited ability to measure those properties, but because uncertainty is a basic property of sub-molecular form. Uncertainty at the base level of matter was a new and fascinating notion. Extending the idea from the microscopic to the macroscopic world was philosophically inviting. Nietzsche's "Beyond Good And Evil" was a popular read among the intellectuals of 1930's Europe, and it had two well-placed admirers.
Heisenberg found Nietzsche's thesis intriquing. Hitler found it useful. Finding no certain justification to condemn the morality of Hitler over any other, Heisenberg led Hitler's nuclear project, his quest for the atomic bomb.

In America, Albert Einstein implored President Roosevelt to get to work on an atomic weapon...as Heisenberg would surely be making significant progress. Although having made a late start, the Robert Oppenheimer-led Manhatten Project succeeded where Heisenberg's project had failed. Perhaps it was because the best scientists had fled Europe, or perhaps it was because Heisenberg's heart wasn't wholly in it. Either way, one thing that the Nazi atomic bomb project lacked was moral purpose.

It isn't very "intellectual" to talk about moral purpose. Intellectualism is, by default, academic; thoughtful, unextreme...inconclusive. But one wonders in what way that kind of academic non-definitiveness applies to the real world. Moral relativism may be a kind of denial; an "intellectual selflessness". But since when are we ever not ourselves? That amorality is a kind of unreality poetically seems to be self-evidenced by the fact that when a particular point is moot we call it "academic." Thought experiments that don't interface with life experience are moot. They are academic.

France (at times anyway) doesn't consider morality to be a moot point. When Princess Diana et al were killed in a car crash resulting from a high-speed evasion of paparazzi photographers on motorbikes, French (or, perhaps, merely Parisian) law was to come down hard on the bystanders, including the paparazzi, who offered no assistance to the crash victims. Parisians agree, then, that bystanders to a tragedy are not innocent, they are involved in the moment at hand just as much as are the victims and victimizers. To excuse one's self from the events at hand, especially moments of tragedy and/or atrocity, is to have chosen alienation over empathy; selfishness over selflessness. Amorality then reveals itself to be more than a bit self-serving.

Elie Weisel spent some time in a Nazi concentration camp. He's a Pulitzer Prize winning author whom wrote, in "Man In Search Of Himself", about that experience; and his education as a result of it. I remember clearly he imploring President Clinton (at--if memory serves--the 50th anniversay of D-Day commemorative service on June 6th, 1994) not to look the other way while "ethnic cleaning" scourged within what was left of Yugoslavia. What struck me the most was that I discerned a curious expression on the President's face as Weisel, staring to his right and directly at the President, called for what sounded like international intrusiveness. Clinton's expression seemed thoughtful...yet agitatedly so. Actually, the expression had an almost nervously self-conscious dismissiveness to it. Aw hell; Clinton seemed downright irritated by the appeal, as if he were mulling through his mind "Who are we to do this?"

Bill Clinton did eventually do it. He knew he had to intervene because, morally, it was right. And, instructively, he didn't waste time trying to corral the U.N. He simply chose not to join in the synchronous writhing of the Security Council's endlessly contorted academic self-doubt.

Today, with respect to Iraq, the U.N. is trying to decide if it cares whether or not it enforces it's own resolutions. It seems to me that the time has come to either enforce them, repeal them, or just whistle merrily down the same path to obsolescence first blazed by the League of Nations. Wake up and smell the East River, boys; to lead is to choose.

I've seen coverage of the large anti-war rallies that have recently filled world capitals...heard their arguments...witnessed their vitriol at the very idea that we have a "right" to depose a "sovereign" tyrant. In New York I saw Americans; Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, African-Americans, German-Americans. But we have to ask: where were the Iraqi-Americans? More specifically, where were the Iraqis whom are free to protest?

They were in Jordan, having crossed the border under cover of the darkest nights they've ever had to find the strength to see each other through. They were in American cities, too, pleading for the libertation of their country and their countrymen. We won't find Iraqi-Americans at the anti-war rallies, because they know all too well something every willfully ethically conflicted academician will never know: moral purpose. Iraqis know what evil is because they've seen what it does.

And so have we. Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and the others...all the others; the guy with a steak knife ready to take on his first fight since 2nd grade...the flight attendent with the pot of piping hot coffee--ready to splash it over a high-jacker's face and hands...the Air Force pilot who would take the hot seat if the insurgence were to be--fingers crossed--successful.

Each woke up that morning an average Joe, a plain ol' Jane...same as we had. They, too, had grown up with cats and dogs and slingshots and Mr. Rogers... only they suddenly found themselves in a circumstance where they'd make themselves fully locked and loaded and determined to assault their captors with a brutality that they, up to that moment, probably thought could only arise from within a darkened heart. Yet, all they did was refuse to accept that their fates were sealed.
They knew that they were likely to die trying. And if they couldn't take back that plane, they would at least spare the lives of others at the sheep-shaggers' intended target.

Morality is something we can--and should--examine; but not as a maze of semantic vaguery that we'll never be able to exit. Sometimes we don't think we know that as clearly as we do. The passengers of flight 93 weren't constipated with some academic uncertainty when they faced their moment of decision. They made a choice (perhaps--I hope--the only choice that we could have made), and it was correct. We know that because we honor their choice.
And not just because it may have saved others on the ground. We, I think more deeply, honor their choice because of what it showed us about ourselves. We may have Ghandi and Hitler within us, hiding and arguing somewhere in an unexplorable recess of our psyche; but we know now, through vivid example, that we have every reason to expect that we too can rise above isolation, alienation, and fight...yes, fight...for the reclamation of life, liberty and dignity.

I am a very reluctant warrior, and it's taken me a long time to come around to support the mission to liberate Iraq. And it will be a struggle; ground troops will have to go in (you can't occupy a country from 15,000 feet). But I believe that the degree of horror that is Saddam's method--judging from what is known of it and what is feared to be discovered--as it terrorizes a nation, is enough madness to call us to reclaim the human nature of moral clarity from the soft-bellied doubt of a cynical academia.

Do we have to free a nation--or a region--from the terror in the mirror we call Saddam? No. But we know we can do it. And maybe that's all we need to know--because, even more deeply, we know we will do it, because that's who we are.

YOU LEAVE ME NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ASK YOU NICELY AGAIN

Apparently the "severe consequences" mentioned in UN res. 1441 that were to befall Saddam should he fail to disarm--or show proof that he has disarmed--did NOT refer to military action in the mind's of the French, German et al UN delegations. The "severe consequences" were to be more debate and, possibly, more resolutions.
Judging by the headache all of this is giving me, those are indeed severe consequences. Not for Saddam, of course, but for free people around the globe, and especially those yearning to breathe free in Iraq.