Iraq War Will Squelch Terrorism
This op-ed by James Taranto, which I heard him present the other night, is worth reading. It takes on the bromides of the antiwar position--among them that America is "rushing to war" and that invading Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on Al Qaeda. What interests me most is his third one, which I've been hearing a lot lately: that military action against Iraq will lead to more terrorism:It will [allegedly] inflame the "Arab street," whip up anti-Americanism and expand the number of potential terrorists.The central motive behind bin Laden's attacks on 9/11 was to reveal to the world that America is weak, that it is a paper tiger--because he thought that doing so would rally Arab support. In other words, the person who's in the best position to know, and who's bet his own life that he's right, believes that the perception of American weakness helps encourage terrorists and that the perception of American strength makes potential terrorists give up in futility.
This, it seems to me, misunderstands the Arab street entirely. What inflames the Arab street is not American strength but the perception of American irresoluteness. Before the Gulf War, the Arab street protested fervidly in favor of Saddam. After the Gulf War, it was quiet. On Sept. 11, the Arab street whooped with delight at America's suffering. It was quiet after we liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban.
Recently I met an Iraqi-American woman who told me that whenever she travels to places like Egypt and Syria, people respond with great enthusiasm...: "[Saddam is] wonderful because he stands up to America."
As long as Saddam is in power, he remains a symbol of defiance against the feckless free world. He personifies the disorder that prevails throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. This is what breeds terrorism. This is why liberating Iraq is a crucial part of the project America began on Sept. 11, 2001. [OpinionJournal.com, 3/6/03]
To the question: "What if you're wrong?" I answer: What if you're wrong? Why do you find the risk of inflaming terrorism by going to war to be unacceptable, but the more realistic risk of inflaming terrorism by not going to war to be acceptable?
And even if it were true that attacking Iraq would swell terrorist ranks: Which is more of a threat to us, a few terrorists armed with poison gas, smallpox and nuclear weapons, or a large number of terrorists armed with conventional weapons? Most of these people have no chance of reaching America anyway; but with weapons of mass destruction the arrival of even a few of them would have a devastating effect.
Pave France
Make sure to browse the photos (from the PaveFrance.com site) of a "friendly little protest at the French Embassy" in Washington, D.C. Some of them are absolutely hilarious:
Here is the best in late night talk show French humor:
"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people."--Conan O'Brien
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!"---Jay Leno"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."--David Letterman
And while I am at it, let's not forget Cox and Forkum who have made short work of France's Minor League Quarterback Chirac.
Man Arrested for Tresspassing
Those AP folks always put an interesting spin on articles. Take the recent piece titled by the AP: "Man Arrested for Wearing Peace T-Shirt". Comments the police chief who made the arrest:"We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property," Murley said.
How about "Man arrested for tresspassing and physically refusing to leave despite being asked peacefully to do so"? Malls are places to shop, just likes roads are throughways to drive. They are not created to advertise your support for keeping a ruthless dictator in power. That's what garbage dumps and the Berkely campus are for.Harry Belafonte, Go Away on Your Banana Boat
Singer Harry Belafonte should be thrown on a banana boat and cast to sea for his un-American opinions of late. Here's his latest analysis of President Bush, which began by calling him "evil":"I think he has a very selfish, arrogant point of view. I think he is interested in power, I think he believes his truth is the only truth, and that he will do what he wants to do despite the people."
Obviously this is meant to be an insult, but think about it for a minute. If GWB is selfish the alternative is non-selfish, i.e., the selfless, i.e., that he would be willfully sacrificing America's interests to our enemies. If Bush is "arrogant," the alternative would be that Bush is self-doubting of America's power to defend itself. If Bush is interested in "power" (a very vague expression) the alternative is that he cowers from his reponsibility to use America's power. If Bush believes "his truth" is the only truth, the alternative is that he thinks Osama Bin Laden and the rest of them are no more wrong that Americans are. If Bush will do what he wants despite the people, the alternative is that he cowers to public opinion, or worse, to international opinion that includes murderous, oppressive, totalitarian dictators that are hell-bent on seeing the end of America.
Belafonte makes it clear in spades. In his opinion GWB is evil because he is not sacrificing America's interests, he is not self-doubting, he is not a coward, he does not respect Osama Bin Laden's (or Belafonte's) world-view, and Bush cares about reality over other people's opinions. Belafonte wants an American president who will capitulate to terrorists, who will let terrorists continue murdering Americans until there is no America left. That is, apparently, his ideal president.
So you decide who's evil: Belafonte or GWB.John Gibson and Shephard Smith on Fox News Cracked Me Up!
Watching Fox News today I almost fell over with laughter. John Gibson was reporting that the idiot sub-human shields in Iraq fled in shear panic when they realized that they were pawns to Saddam. They thought they'd shield schools (as if Bush would attack schools which were not cover for nuclear plants), but Saddam made them shield power plants and other obvious military targets. (Duh!) They told reporters they were duped by Saddam. John Gibson and Shephard Smith were hysterical: they were acting like they were surprised by it all.
"Saddam was deceptive? No!"
"Saddam Lied? No!"
It was classic.
Too bad the sub-human shields fled Iraq already. I was hoping they'd catch some JDAMs. Oh well.