Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Yahoo News ["Arabs share little of world joy over Saddam's capture"]:
Though officials in Kuwait hailed the arrest of the dictator who ordered the invasion of their emirate in 1990, those in other Arab states were subdued...
Perhaps worrying that they--who are dictators--might be next?
Many people in the streets of Cairo and Beirut openly cursed a victory for a United States they see as an arrogant and unjust power, while some even refused to believe their eyes and ears.
Refusing "to believe their eyes and ears"--i.e. rejecting the facts--is the only way that the principled support of freedom becomes "arrogance", retaliation against a genocidal maniac becomes "injustice", unsettling the status quo of appeasement of dictatorships becomes "unsettling world peace", and suicide bombers of innocent children become "freedom fighters."
...Eyes riveted to the television screen in a Cairo coffee shop, customers worried about this "American victory" and feared it would ensure the re-election of President George W. Bush next year...
Obviously Dean backers.
...Mustafa Bakri, the pro-Saddam editor in chief of the independent Egyptian weekly Al-Osbou, said on the television: "It's a black day in the history of the Arabs. It's a humiliation."
Only for Saddam Hussein and those Arabs--and "Old" Europeans, Chinese, Russians, CNN and BBC reporters, etc.--who supported him. For those Arabs who actually support freedom it is a day to rejoice--another dictator is effectively dead.
..."It's Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar and Sharon who should be put on trial," said Bakri, who organized several solidarity trips from Cairo to Baghdad before US troops invaded in March.
Have you considered bringing this up with the Hague? (The Hague--the so-called European "world" kangaroo court--would even guarantee not to kill Saddam. Now as for George W. Bush...)
...In Beirut, Doha Shams, a journalist with the leftist newspaper As-Safir, said: "It's great to be finished with Saddam but when will Bush's turn come? He is threatening world peace."
How did he do this? By allieing himself with over 50 plus countries and capturing the Butcher of Baghdad?
..."Thank God that he has been captured alive, so he can be tried for the heinous crimes he has committed" against the Iraqi and Kuwaiti peoples, said [Kuwaiti Information Minister Mohammed Abulhassan], who was Kuwait's UN representative at the time of the invasion.
No thank the American Armed forces.Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From FoxNews ["World Leaders Thrilled at Saddam's Capture", December 14, 2003]:
...Iraq's interim government has established a special tribunal to try Saddam and other members of his regime for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United States still hasn't decided what to do with Saddam, though Blair said Saddam could be "tried in Iraqi courts for his crimes against the Iraqi people." Ahmad Chalabi , a member of Iraq's Governing Council, said Saddam would be tried.
...In Yemen, Mohammed Abdel Qader Mohammadi, 50, said he was surprised Saddam didn't fight his capture. "I expected him to resist or commit suicide before falling into American hands. He disappointed a lot of us, he's a coward."
...The Spanish government, another supporter of the war, also hailed the news. "The time has come for him to pay for his crimes," said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, an outspoken supporter of the war to oust Saddam, despite widespread opposition at home. "He is responsible for the killing of millions of people over the last 30 years. He is a threat to his people and to the entire world," Aznar said.
And the French? From Cox and Forkum:
Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Howard Dean's website:
This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.
Sure, why should America--and George W. Bush--get the credit? Why not let those who opposed the war, like the French, Germans, the U.N., and Howard Dean get some credit and glory too!
Comments Senator Joe Lieberman, (D-Conn.) on Howard Dean via his website:
Saddam Hussein was a homicidal maniac, a brutal dictator, who wanted to dominate the Arab world and was supporting terrorists. He caused the death of more than a million people, including 460 Americans who went to overthrow him. This is a day of glory for the American military, a day of rejoicing for the Iraqi people, and a day of triumph and joy for anyone in the world who cares about freedom, human rights, and peace....This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.
From Cox and Forkum:
Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin:
Martin, who took over as prime minister last Friday, replaced Jean Chretien, under whose tenure relations with the White House had soured over his refusal to join the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. But in his run up to the date he took the keys to the Prime Minister's Office, Martin repeatedly emphasized his desire to cultivate "more sophisticated" relations with his U.S. counterparts.
What does "sophistication" consist of?
...Although no Canadian troops were deployed to Iraq, Canada has so far pledged $300 million toward rebuilding Iraq. [CTV]
From Cox and Forkum:
Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Mark Steyn:
A captured Saddam with a tongue depressor in his mouth. His tongue can't be half as depressed as the French, John Kerry, Howard Dean, The Guardian et al. They've all been saying for months that the Coalition needs to hand over more power and authority to Iraqis. Handing over Saddam to be tried in Baghdad is an excellent start. Or do they now want him on a plane to the Hague?
Dec 14, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From FoxNews ["Saddam Captured 'Like a Rat' in Raid", December 14, 2003]:
Without firing a single shot, U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein as he hid in the bottom of a hole at a farmhouse near Tikrit on Saturday...Asked about Saddam's state at the time of his capture, Sanchez said: "He was a tired man, a man resigned to his fate." Saddam is talkative and is being cooperative, the general said. He is being held at an undisclosed location...Washington hopes Saddam's capture will help break the organized Iraq resistance that has killed more than 190 American soldiers since Bush declared major combat over on May 1 and has set back efforts at reconstruction..."We are celebrating like it's a wedding," said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. "We are finally rid of that criminal." "This is the joy of a lifetime," said Ali Al-Bashiri, another resident. "I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule."
From Cox and Forkum:
Here is what Bush had to say:
Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.
The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.
And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals -- sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.
In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.
I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.
We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.
May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America. Thank you.
It will be interesting to see how, in the next few weeks, the "anti-war" coalition (United Nations, fascist Howard Dean, CNN's Christine "spokeswoman for al-Qaeda"Amanpour, Al "Presidential Joke" Sharpton, etc.) will try to twist the capture of Saddam into another one of Bush's failures. (Bush does have failures--most recently his condemnation of the free Republic of Taiwan; however, the war on Saddam's dictatorship, for the most part, was not one of them).Dec 13, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Suppose you have just turned 10 years old, and the President has decided to come to your birthday party.
You'd be excited, right? And if he decided to say a few words, you'd no doubt be honored, in a 10-year-old way.
But suppose he chose your birthday party to give a speech--you might begin to think he cared more about the propaganda opportunity than about you. And if he went on for two hours with his speech, well, you'd probably conclude that he had nothing but contempt for you and your birthday, and was trying to humiliate you.
No, it wasn't George W. Bush, it was Fidel Castro:
"This revolution does not depend on one individual, or two, or three," Castro declared in a speech of more than two hours at a birthday celebration in the courtyard of Elian's school in the child's hometown of Cardenas, about 85 miles east of Havana. [Havana Journal]
If this tells you what such a man is like, consider what it means for him to hold total, absolute, and arbitrary political power.Dec 12, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Howard Dean was already considered a frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nominee before Al Gore endorsed him this week. Now he's virtually a shoe-in, which is all the more reason to take a close look at the policies he's advocating. Last week we criticized Dean for his unwillingness to deal forcibly with terrorist-sponsoring states. In the same Chris Matthews' interview, Dean also revealed his desire to use the power of the FCC to inject his vision of "democracy" into big media, all at the expense of free speech. This is otherwise known as censorship.
DEAN: I would reverse [deregulation] in some areas. First of all, 11 companies in this country control 90 percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their television. That's wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions in every community. We don't have that because of Michael Powell and what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.
MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox? (LAUGHTER)MATTHEWS: I'm serious.
DEAN: I'm keeping a...
MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has "The Weekly Standard." It has got a lot of other interests. It has got "The New York Post." Would you break it up?
DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but... (LAUGHTER)MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?
DEAN: I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not, because, obviously (CROSSTALK)MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?
DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get... (LAUGHTER)DEAN: The answer to that is yes. I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.
MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You're going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?
DEAN: What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.
MATTHEWS: Well, would you break up GE? (APPLAUSE)DEAN: I can't-you...
MATTHEWS: GE just buys Universal. Would you do something there about that? Would you stop that from happening?
DEAN: You can't say-you can't ask me right now and get an answer, would I break up X corp...
MATTHEWS: We've got to do it now, because now is the only chance we can ask you, because, once you are in, we have got to live with you. (LAUGHTER)DEAN: No.
MATTHEWS: So, if you are going to do it, you have got to tell us now. (CROSSTALK)MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn't mean we're going to break up all of GE. What we're going to do is say that media enterprises can't be as big as they are today. I don't think we actually have to break them up, which Teddy Roosevelt had to do with the leftovers from the McKinley administration. (CROSSTALK)MATTHEWS: ... regulate them.
DEAN: You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy.
Dec 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The New York Sun is a right-wing paper, so one hopes that Annan's comments are not taken out of context in what follows:
In what was dubbed by one observer as "re-Baathification," Mr. Annan called for enlarging the American-appointed Governing Council making it "more inclusive" in order "to bring in national groups and individuals that have thus far been excluded or have excluded themselves."
The undersecretary general, Kieran Prendergast, said Mr. Annan meant adding some Baathists--or as he called them "Arab Sunni nationalists"--and Shiites to the 24-member council. The American policy has been to exclude all remnants of the Baath Party leadership from a future role in Iraq's leadership.
Mr. Annan also reserved some very sharp criticism to the evolving American policy of exerting military pressure in areas where terrorist activity is rampant, which some critics said mirrored Israel's tactics in its own occupied territories. Citing "military responses to threats to coalition forces, dispersal of demonstrations, raids on homes, and confrontations as well as at checkpoints," Mr. Annan called for "adhering strictly to international humanitarian law and human rights instruments."
...Mr. Annan concluded that as long as the U.N.'s conciliatory methods of dealing with security threats were not accepted by the coalition, the organization would not return to the perilous conditions of Iraq. [12/11/2003]
Good riddance!Dec 11, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
In yet another presidential disappointment, FoxNews reported yesterday: Bush Opposes Taiwan Independence."We oppose any unilateral decision by either China or Taiwan to change the status quo," Bush told reporters, "and the comments and actions made by the leader of Taiwan" -- referring to President Chen Shui-bian -- "indicate that he may be willing to make decisions unilaterally." The referendum, scheduled for March 20, would let Taiwan's electorate decide whether the island's government should demand that Beijing remove hundreds of missiles aimed at it and renounce the use of force. Chen's decision to hold the vote, under a new law that gives him power to call a "defensive referendum" when the island's sovereignty faces imminent threat, is also seen as a means of shoring up his own support as a re-election campaign looms. Chen is a strong proponent of independence for Taiwan, and both Bush administration and mainland Chinese officials say the referendum is an indirect step toward that.
How good can it be when President Bush and the Communist dictatorship of China share the same negative view of another nation's desire to be free from the threat of tyranny? Having earlier this year said that he would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan, now Bush is apparently willing to sacrifice Taiwan. And for what? Supposedly, maintaining the "status quo" with the Chinese dictatorship will encourage it to be part of the diplomatic "multilateralist" pressure on the nuke-seeking North Korean dictatorship -- thus maintaining regional "stability."
Sound familiar? These are exactly the same types of arguments used by leftists who were against invading Iraq.
And who is Bush to condemn Taiwan's unilateral actions to protect itself from an threatening nation? Isn't a willingness to act unilaterally, and preemptively if necessary, a fundamental tenet of America's War on Terrorism? It's not as if Taiwan is proposing to invade China -- they just want to vote on a referendum demanding that China promise not to annihilate them. And this represents some kind of evil "unilateralism" to Bush? Ridiculous. Absurd. Hypocritical.
Bush is saying "Do As I Say, Not As I Do," the type of admonishments he occasionally gives to Israel in its war against Palestinian terrorism. We see where that's gotten Israel. Bush's treatment of Taiwan is disgusting no matter how you slice it but not surprising. This prophetic Jeff Jacoby op-ed from September 2002 spells it all out: Taiwan is not China:
Taiwan is a free republic, a loyal American ally, a guarantor of civil liberties, and an engine of economic freedom. It does not deserve to be treated as an international pariah, or to be hastily shushed when it points out that it is China's political equal, not a rebellious Chinese province. The United States disgraces itself every time it fails to robustly defend Taiwan's right to freely determine its own future. The disgrace is compounded by the fact that the American unwillingness to embrace Taiwan, a [free country], is born of a desire to appease China, the world's foremost totalitarian dictatorship.
Though Bush often, in a very mixed sort of way, advocates pro-American foreign policies -- more so than, say, Howard Dean would -- Bush clearly does not apply those same principles to our allies. He apparently thinks there are some short-term benefits to selling out our allies to appease our enemies. But the long-term consequences of such policies are not in America's interests for the same reason that appeasing hostile Arab tyrannies has proven not to be in America's interests. Does Bush need a Taiwanese 9/11 caused by Chinese missiles to understand this?
If we are to come close to winning the War on Terrorism, we need a consistent, principled, uncompromisingly pro-freedom/anti-tyranny foreign policy. The expedient diplomatic abandonment of Taiwan is yet more proof that we do not have such a policy coming from the Bush White House.
At least Taiwan is being somewhat defiant. Reuters reports that "Taiwan Says Vote Still on Despite Bush Warning":Brushing aside a warning from George W. Bush, Taiwan's president reiterated his plan to hold a referendum alongside elections next March, but said neither independence nor the status quo with China would be at issue.
Hopefully the referendum will still demand that China renounce the use of force, but one commentator in the article above says the referendum may be watered down to merely say that "Taiwan is pro-peace."Dec 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the NYSun:
"Parents today are being forced to contend with a new threat -- big food companies targeting junk food at children," Mr. Lieberman said. "We cannot raise strong and healthy children if the best efforts of good parents all across America are being consistently undercut by corporations looking to profit by spreading bad behavior."
Dec 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A letter from Ed Thompson on progressive education:
"Progressive education" is a term calculated to mislead--who would oppose progress? But it is in fact regressive, designed to thwart cognitive development in favor of a group mentality, creating followers rather than leaders. It instills collectivism rather than individualism, pragmatism rather than standards or principles, range-of-the-moment thinking rather than objective, goal-oriented activity.
Man is the only species in nature capable of willfully crippling its young. Progressive education clips the wings of the fledgling mind before it leaves the nest, leaving its victims ill prepared for adulthood. It's not that Johnny can't read; it's that he cannot think effectively. It is no coincidence that multiculturalism, the misplaced notion that all cultures are equal, has gained a widespread following; it follows from progressive education. Only a society that has learned that there are no standards can disregard the differences between Western societies and primitive ones, e.g., the difference between Beethoven and a primitive drum. The same holds for political correctness, environmentalism, et al.
Most individuals are too benevolent to conceive of such a perverse program--hence, its success over the past 75 years. [Daily Sun]
Dec 10, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Isabel Vincent in Canada's National Post that UN-supervised Kosovo "has deteriorated into a hotbed of organized crime, anti-Serb violence and al-Qaeda sympathizers."
Though nominally still under UN control, the southern province of Serbia is today dominated by a triumvirate of Albanian paramilitaries, mafiosi and terrorists. They control a host of smuggling operations and are implementing what many observers call their own brutal ethnic cleansing of minority groups, such as Serbs, Roma and Jews.
...According to statistics collected by the UN criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague, 1,192 Serbs have been killed, 1,303 kidnapped and 1,305 wounded in Kosovo this year,...The violence continues despite an 18,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force and an international police force of more than 4,000.
..."The whole process of rebuilding Kosovo-Metohija as a democratic, multi-ethnic society failed due to both the inability of the UN mission and [NATO] forces to protect Serbs and other non-Albanians from large-scale ethnic cleansing, this time primarily against Serbs," said Dusan Batakovic, a Serb diplomat and leading expert on Kosovo.
...Now, more than 5,000 tonnes of heroin pass directly through Kosovo every month. In a recent article in Serbia's Vreme magazine, Kosovo was referred to as the "republic of heroin."...The Albanian mafia also control trafficking in cigarettes, weapons, gasoline and women. Dozens of young women from impoverished towns and villages in the region are forced into prostitution rings centred in Kosovo, security officials say. Many of the women are taken by mobsters to work in Western European countries.
..."It's a terrible situation," said Mr. Bissett. "If the United Nations and other organizations can't handle Kosovo, you wonder how they are going to do with something like Iraq." ["Crime, terror flourish in 'liberated' Kosovo" (December 10, 2003)]
How indeed.
Recommended Reading: Kosovo: Tribalist Quagmire by Andrew Lewis
Clinton Morally Wrong to Risk U.S. Troops to Impose a "Peace" upon Warring Ethnic TribesDec 9, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Detroit News:
"Bipartisanship is when the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something truly stupid and evil." -- M. Stanton Evans [12/7/2003]
Dec 9, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
"Democracy the Loser as Putin Triumphs" -- analysis from the right-wing Daily Telegraph:
Analysts at one financial firm, Aton, summed up the shock in a research note: "Yesterday's election shows what the people actually think: they are stridently nationalist, want wealth redistributed and have little interest in liberal or democratic values." Igor Mintusov, of Nikkolo M, political campaign consultants, said: "It is a sad day for liberalism. The liberals in Russia are finished in the short term." [12/9/2003]
Bear in mind that the election was entirely "democratic," the real loser was not majority rule, but individual liberty. "Liberal" in this context means, roughly, "individualist."Dec 9, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Yahoo News (December 5, 2003):
A fossil of a small sea creature extracted from a 425-million-year-old British rock formation is the oldest unequivocally male fossil known, researchers say....Details revealed include gills, eyes, limbs designed for swimming and the oldest known male organ in the fossil record. It was this last that led researchers to name the new species, Colymbosathon ecplecticos, which is Greek for "amazing swimmer with large penis."
Dec 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From Yahoo News:
[D]irty bomb warheads--24 ready to use, 14 dismantled--[are] missing from a storage depot near the Trans-Dniester Tiraspol military airport [in Moldova]....
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other agencies have expressed repeated concern about reports that the Trans-Dniester region is a major weapons smuggling center. Moldova is a former Soviet republic and thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition remain stored in Trans-Dniester....
Nantoi said reports first reached him in 1998 that Alazan rockets... had been fitted with warheads modified to carry radioactive material. Since then, the rockets and warheads appear to have disappeared from their storage area.... [12/08/2003]
