Rumsfeld, down arrow: "Taking fire from TV retired generals for flawed war plan. And how did you miss the fedayeen?"
Meanwhile in reality...
[W]aving Iraqis lined the streets when the advance northwards to Baghdad was resumed...."Maybe this is the parade they had promised us," said Sgt Gary Harrison, as he returned a greeting with a wave. "They sure seem happy to see us. Let's hope they aren't the only ones." As they passed, hundreds, possibly thousands, of people emerged from their houses to signal their welcome.Whole families stood together outside their homes, the children smiling and their parents urging the Americans forward....Capt David Waldron, 31, commander of the Black Knights tank company, said: "When we drove into this town and I saw the crowds I told everyone to keep their head down. But they were so obviously friendly that I ended up waving back, too. "I even tied a Stars and Stripes to the end of my machinegun as they need to know who it is who is liberating them. "We've been hearing this from a number of areas now. It seems the message is getting through what we are doing here." ...Yesterday's demonstration was the first large-scale welcome the Americans had received. [Daily Telegraph, 4/1/03]
Hundreds of Iraqis shouting "Welcome to Iraq" greeted Marines who entered the town of Shatra Monday after storming it with planes, tanks and helicopter gunships. A foot patrol picked its way through the small southern town, 20 miles north of the city of Nassiriya, after being beckoned in by a crowd of people. "There's no problem here. We are happy to see Americans," one young man shouted. [Reuters, 3/31/03]
Triumphant Royal Marine commandos yesterday mopped up the final traces of resistance in the south of Basra...They received a warm welcome from the members of the 30,000-strong population, with children and adults giving the thumbs-up, smiling and shouting "Mister, mister, England good". One surprised Royal Marine said: "We were meant to be giving them food but they keep coming up to us and giving us stuff." [Daily Telegraph, 4/1/03]
Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks described several instances in which local residents had helped U.S. forces throughout the country, paving the way for successful attacks against "death squads" loyal to Saddam. In one case north of the south-central Iraqi town of Nasiriyah, 100 local tribesmen joined U.S. soldiers in capturing Iraqi military prisoners and removing explosives from a bridge, he said. In the western desert, Brooks said residents of a town led U.S. troops to a hospital where weapons, munitions and gas masks were found. He said the residents carried the cache into the desert where it was blown up. [Associated Press, 4/1/03]
Alter and his Newsweek clan must be pissed. [Thanks to Paul Blair for the heads up!]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Actress Janeane Garofalo (who earlier this month on FoxNew's Bill O'Reilly claimed that Bush is just as dangerous to the world as Saddam Hussein) made an appearance this past Friday (March 28) on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, where she stated that the U.S. attack on Iraq was "not fair" because it is an "unprovoked strike." Reports Ben Baker in his MRC CyberAlert:Garofalo appeared on the panel with talk show host Michael Graham and comedian/actor Larry Miller. Garofalo whined about Iraq as the victim of the U.S.: I would say a pre-emptive, unprovoked strike is not fair. This is a pre-emptive strike. It was not provoked. That is not fair."
Supposedly Saddam's attacks on his own people are provoked.
On anger at the Dixie Chicks: "You know what is good about these Dixie Chicks burnings or bashings? It's a wonderful, wonderful way for really stupid people to hook up. They meet, they throw some things on the fire, they talk about Vin Diesel, they tell stories about who their favorite Fox anchor is, they exchange phone numbers and in some cases has led to marriages."
As opposed to what: blocking some ambulance lanes, gushing over Noam Chomsky, telling stories about who their favorite murdering dictator is, and exchanging sexually transmitted diseases?
Graham recalled seeing this sign at an anti-war march: "We Support Our Troops...When They Shoot Their Officers." That set off Garofalo: "That one guy that had that one sign that you'll probably beat into the ground. You're going to use it over and over whether it actually existed or not. That's what all you right-wing radio hosts do. You make s??? up all the time."
No comment necessary.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." John Podhortetz asks in a NY Post op-ed that "Is Peter Arnett guilty of treason?"The question is whether Arnett's comments on Iraqi state-run television, a propaganda arm of Saddam Hussein's regime, constitute "aid and comfort" to the enemy. If you analyze his remarks strictly as a matter of rhetoric, the answer is unambiguously: YES. Arnett used his time on Iraqi television to praise the Iraqi government and people in a way that might stiffen their resolve and lead them to hunker down against allied forces. Certainly, in a 21st-century context, his words were a "comfort" at the very least. [...] Of course, the U.S. government will never attempt to try Peter Arnett. If he were to be charged with treason, reporters and news organizations everywhere would rise up to declare him a martyr. That's because of the bizarre notion that because people make their living by interviewing other people and delivering information to the masses, they are in some way released from their obligations as citizens of the nations in which they live. Their obligation is not to their countrymen but to "Truth" - as they define it. [NYPost, April 2, 2003]
Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky) also comments:
"I think he should be brought back and tried as a traitor to the United States of America, for his aiding and abetting the Iraqi government during a war," Bunning said in a conference call with reporters. Later in a speech on the Senate floor, Bunning said: "Mr. Arnett can apologize all he likes for being a `useful idiot' for Saddam and his barbaric regime. But that's not enough for me, and it's certainly not enough for our soldiers and many Americans." [Try Arnett for treason, senator says, Enquirer]
Peter Arnett's actions may or may not be treasonous (I am no constitutional lawyer); but they are desipicable--even for a modern "journalist." Comment's Paul Blair:
John Podhoretz arguing straightforwardly that what Peter Arnett did in Iraq falls under the meaning of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, and that he should be prosecuted for treason. I agree. If we have laws against treason, and they are objective laws, then we should identify what they mean, and enforce them.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Regarding the American POW that was rescued yesterday by American special forces, a long-time friend and military expert sent me an email with these observations:1. When you have less than 10 highly valuable propaganda tools, (AKA POW's) the only reason you would leave one of them within a couple of miles of the USMC is if your backfield is getting completely torn up. When the military professional journals come out next year we are going to find out just how effective we have been.
2. Our intelligence sources are getting better and better. Many Iraqis must be talking to us.
3. Don't make the American military mad at you. It is extremely bad for your health. If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't get within 10 miles of a US POW.
Now considering that the POW was a 19 year-old girl I can only imagine the wrath that was reigned down upon those Iraqis.
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
My letter to the editor made it into the New York Sun today:
Your article on Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova's expressed wish for a "million Mogadishus" in Iraq has various university figures congratulating themselves on Columbia's respect for the First Amendment and freedom of speech ["Professor Is Condemned for Speech, But Likely Will Keep Post at Columbia," Julie Satow, page 2, March 31, 2003]. Yet the freedom of speech includes the freedom to boycott; it does not require anyone to provide support for anyone else's ideas. Firing Mr. De Genova would not be a violation of the freedom of speech but an expression of it.
"Academic freedom," on the other hand, is the pseudo-right of tenured professors to be as irresponsible as they wish without accountability to anyone. Mr. De Genova's case is merely one result of our universities' stated policy of refusing to act against intellectual malpractice within their ranks. This policy explains why our universities have largely become factories of dishonest and destructive ideas. They will remain so until the American public wakes up and stops supporting its destroyers.
Paul Blair
Manhattan
The Sun also runs a follow-up:
Columbia University students arriving yesterday at a Latin history class taught by professor Nicholas De Genova were told the instructor feared for his life and had left the campus. "He has been receiving thousands of death messages," one of the professor's three graduate students told the undergrads....In [his talk at the anti-war "teach-in"], Mr. De Genova said patriotism was "inseparable" from white supremacy and said that "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." [New York Sun, 4/2/03]
Needless to say, death threats are a violation of the freedom of speech. But of those "thousands" of alleged death threats, how many are just people legitimately expressing anger? Have there been any actual death threats? I wouldn't believe it just because some grad student said it, particularly since the claim coincides with the professor's propagandistic interests.Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Newsday published the following Letter of mine. It earned me 5 minutes on WLIE 540 Talk Radio (Long Island, NY) this morning (April 2), with host John Gomez, who read my Letter on air and was 100% on my side. The same Letterwas published in the NY Sun and Jerusalem Post about 10 days ago:As a Canadian, I strongly condemn the decision of Prime Minister Jean Chretien to not support the United States (and its allies) in the justified war against Iraq. By adhering to the United Nations charade, he effectively and shamefully placed Canada on the side of abject appeasers, anti-American leftists, brutal dictators and Islamic terrorists.
History demonstrates that the root cause of war is dictatorship and its appeasement. Only a dictatorship can force its people to attack other countries. Only a dictatorship can extort money from its citizens to buy weapons of mass destruction and support terrorist organizations.
The UN is an inherently destructive organization - the worst enemy of global peace and prosperity - by the very fact that it legitimizes dictatorships and grants them the power to undermine a free country's sovereignty and right to self-defense. The United Nations should be the next to go after Saddam Hussein.
America is on the side of peace and prosperity because it is on the side of liberty and the right to self-defense, which includes the right to strike against threatening dictatorships, especially if they possess weapons of mass destruction. America is Canada's and the world's greatest benefactor. It deserves our wholehearted support and gratitude.
Glenn Woiceshyn
Calgary, Alberta
P.S. My wife and I attended a pro-American rally in Calgary on Sunday. About 1000 people showed up waving American flags, cheering for America, and booing their Canadian government. It was wonderful!
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
In the village where Ansar had their headquarters... Sheikh Malik Naqshbandi, a religious leader, [was returning] to his home after two years....Sheikh Malik's house was used by Ansar and destroyed by an American missile. He said he didn't mind. "I don't think there will be a happier day in my life." [Daily Telegraph, 4/1/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
The Socialist Workers Party, long allowed to keep its donors secret because of the danger of harassment, should continue to receive the special protection, Federal Election Commission lawyers say. The party asked the commission to extend its exemption from FEC reporting requirements that other political parties face, including identifying its contributors, the candidates it supports and the businesses it buys from....
The Socialist Workers Party advocates a Marxist revolution to overthrow the U.S. government. Taking the Russian and Cuban revolutions of the 20th century as models, it wants to replace the country's capitalist system with a government of workers and farmers. [Associated Press, 3/31/03]
Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
By the time you're reading this everybody knows it, but it's interesting anyway: "American troops have rescued Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who had been held as a prisoner of war in Iraq since she and other members of her maintenance unit were ambushed March 23, the Defense Department announced Tuesday. (AP, 4/1/03)" Without a doubt, by tomorrow she'll be the most famous woman in the world. Oh, Well Done!Apr 2, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to a mail sent out by Patriots for the Defense of America, there will be a pro-U.S. rally tomorrow (April 2) at noon, at Columbia University: "The location is above Alma Mater on Low Plaza. Security will be tight. It will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, then the National Anthem, then the speakers, none of whom will be allowed than 5 minutes each. There will be no Q&A. The whole event is scheduled to last 45 minutes."Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Men, women and children rushed to greet paratroopers as they advanced into the oldest part of Basra, completing the capture of Saddam Hussein's second city....[T]he British troops found themselves having to fight off not enemy attacks but swarms of smiling children asking for water and trying to practise their English. There was a succession of thumbs-up gestures, waves and salutes, while women wearing chadors appeared in doorways smiling and waving as the demise of Saddam's regime in Basra became apparent....English-speaking Iraqis came up to reporters to express their own delight. Among them was Saad Ahmed, a 54-year-old retired English teacher. "We have been waiting for you for a long time," he said. "We are now happier than you. You are victorious as far as the war is concerned, but we are victorious in life. We have been living, not as human beings, for more than 30 years." [Daily Telegraph, 4/8/03]
[But some angry residents are unhappy over the anarchy taking place...]
"We are caught between two enemies, Saddam and the British," said Osama Ijam, a 24-year-old medical student in the grounds of the rundown Basra General Hospital. "Is this what they call a liberation? We want our own government. We want our own security and our own law." The hospital, like many government buildings, stores and offices has been looted in recent days..."When I see my college looted and destroyed in front of my eyes I wonder why they (British troops) allow this to happen," said Ijam. "Are they here to help us or just to help themselves?" [Reuters, 4/8/03]
This is the mentality our "humanitarian assistance" is designed to appease and to cultivate: Those who stamp their feet at reality and demand that their wishes be enacted regardless of cause or context: "You started this war; this is your fault. Now satisfy us." To which the proper response would be: "We don't owe you a damned thing. This war is the fault of your government. We're not here for you; we're here for us." But no, such a response is too scary for those who worry about what the unthinking might think. There is no reason to care what they think. We don't need them.Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
From its beginning, America has stood for the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, individual rights, capitalism, the pursuit of happiness. The dominant trends in America today, however--trends endorsed not only by our leadership, but seemingly by the public at large--represent the opposite of these ideals. The talk explores this contradiction, along with our current moral cowardice, giving special emphasis to foreign policy. Dr. Leonard Peikoff will be speaking in Boston on Sunday, April 6, 2003 on "America vs. Americans." The talk will be held in the Blackman Auditorium, Ell Hall, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston. The lecture is free and open to the public. The auditorium will open for general seating at 4:15 PM.; for members of the Forum, seating will begin at 3:45 PM.Apr 1, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis sends along this paper published by the International Monetary Fund. Bruce says, "This paper says that the odds of a stock market bubble ending in a bust on its own are low, suggesting that the Fed's effort to prick the bubble was ill considered. That's classic Bruce: tactful and circumspect. I would have said: "This paper shows that Alan Greenspan's jihad against so-called 'irrational exuberance' trashed the American economy on a personal whim, without theoretical foundation and for no good reason -- and to add insult to injury, now Greenspan claims he didn't do it!" I guess I just don't have the high-level approach.
As opposed to what: blocking some ambulance lanes, gushing over Noam Chomsky, telling stories about who their favorite murdering dictator is, and exchanging sexually transmitted diseases?