Strangely, I’ve seen lots of this kind of thing, but I have yet to see any kind of “Down With Saddam” signs. Who, exactly do these people think we are going to war with?
Hesiod links to the following article and explains that this means the “pro-war” rallies are actually “pro-al Qaeda” rallies.
LONDON, March 15 — On three continents, Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have intensified their efforts to recruit young Muslim men, tapping into rising anger about the American campaign for war in Iraq, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.
In recent weeks, officials in the United States, Europe and Africa say they had seen evidence that militants within Muslim communities are seeking to identify and groom a new generation of terrorist operatives. An invasion of Iraq, the officials worry, is almost certain to produce a groundswell of recruitment for groups committed to attacks in the United States, Europe and Israel.
“An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups,” a senior American counterintelligence official said. “And it is a very effective tool.”
Another American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become “a battle cry, in a way,” for Qaeda recruiters.
Some of the information about Qaeda recruiting comes from interrogations of captured operatives and from materials found at the house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the third-ranking Qaeda leader, was arrested this month, officials say.
I’ve often wondered what, exactly, the UN’s critics proposed that we put in its place. Well, David Gelernter has risen to the challenge with results that are a bit … odd.
The core of the new organization–call it the Big Three–would be a Britain-Russia-America triumvirate. The underlying principle: No credible world organization could include only countries we like. But Russia’s fluid condition gives us an unusual opening. Russia is a big country with a vivid history. No organization that includes Russia could possibly be America’s cat’s-paw. Yet Russia is uncertain of what she wants; she is open to persuasion. Yes, that means money; but international prestige is worth even more, especially to a humbled former champion. Including Russia (but not China or France) in the ruling committee might impart just the right soupçon of anti-Americanism to the new organization, which must be credible yet not intractable
There is much one can say about this, the most obvious being that this ridiculous concept that time is going to stand still and the US, Britain and Russia will always be in the exact positions they are currently in is well…dumb. But, instead of writing a thousand words I’ll offer this instead:
I just saw some fair and balanced footage of rallies, with scrupulously equal time given to the story of the hundreds of anti-war rallies thoughout the world and the one “Patriot” rally in Atlanta on CNN. They reported that the pro-war rally had expected 10,000 but were happily surprised to have doubled that number. The organizers finally feel they are “getting their message out.”
To the melodic strains of Lee Greenwood, I watched one of the speakers whip the crowd into a frenzy by saying We thought they were the only ones out there…the ones with hairy underarms…lesbians or whatever. (much hooting and laughing from the crowd) We thought we were surrounded by…California. (booooooo) But that’s not true. We surround them!”
The commentator said that most of speeches were primarily concerned with criticizing Hollywood and anti-war protesters.
Has anyone heard a lot of speechifying at the anti-war rallies against fellow citizens? I have been to some and watched a bunch on C-Span, and I don’t remember anybody saying anything disrespectful of the American people, but instead confined themselves to the politicians who are making war policy — which, after all, is the traditional way of politics.
I could respond in kind and insult say…the entire red-state region with rude comments about certain rural stereotypes, but that wouldn’t be polite.
Here’s the transcript. I forgot about the “freaks in limousines.” Note the fawning CNN commentary:
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, promoters here were predicting a crowd of about 10,000 here at Atlanta, at the Rally for America, but they’re now saying on the podium that they have more than doubled that.
Let’s take a look at this crowd. People coming out today, decked out in their red, white and blue, thousands of people. Thousands of people carrying banners and signs, offering patriotic sentiments and supporting U.S. troops.
A part of what you’re looking at could also be the power of talk radio. Stations across the country have been promoting rallies for America. They’ve been striking a chord that seems to resonate deeply with people in this crowd. They are pro-U.S., pro-military.
And some of the featured speakers also taking shots at anti-war demonstrators, particularly Hollywood celebrities protesting war in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were starting to believe that we were surrounded by them, by the ones that are the freaks in the limousine, the ones with the hairy armpits and the lesbian, whatever that is. We thought we were being surrounded by California.
Today, today, I’m proud to tell you they are clear, we surround them
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Things wrapping up right now. They just had the song, “Proud to be an American” playing. People singing along with it.
Again quite a few thousand more people than they expected for this rally, particularly with this kind of rain. So promoters very happy with the showing here today and people leaving with a very good feeling that their opinion is being made known across the country.
Back to you.
WHITFIELD: And David, to make it clear, the folks that are assembling there in Atlanta say this is not a pro-war rally but instead, it is one showing patriotism, showing support of the troops, as you mentioned, as well as the president’s plans?
MATTINGLY: That is the theme here, support for the troops, for American soldiers right now in the Middle East. They say they don’t want a repeat of what they saw after Vietnam, where soldiers came home and were not treated with respect. They want to make sure that does not happen again this time.
But there are some political undercurrents going on. There’s a lot of signs here, a very partisan in support of the president, and a lot of signs critical of anti-war protesters, as we showed you before
ASTONISHINGLY GOOD COVER STORY from Daniel Kruger in today’s Spectator. His thesis is complex, but essentially he argues that the West as a whole is divided fundamentally into foxes and hedgehogs. The foxes, hippy-dippy postmodernist intellectuals who don’t believe in objective truth or ethics – the sort of people who can’t bring themselves to use the word ‘wrong’ without speech marks – are represented by France, Russia, Germany, Belgium, the UN and the EU. The hedgehogs, more simple and single-minded in their ideals, comfortable with certainty and moral truths, are represented by the United States, the UK, Israel, Australia and Canada and NATO. These camps have existed side-by-side for a long while, mainly because of hedgehog American military support for fox France. But that cannot go on:
We stand at a parting of the ways. The coming war with Iraq is going to decide which side goes forward to face the next great threat to the West. If it goes badly, the foxes win. If it goes well, the 1990s myth of a post-modern order – beyond power, beyond war – will be finished. The day of the hedgehog will dawn. He compares tomorrow’s chief hedgehog – Bush’s America – to that of the 19th Century – Queen Victoria’s Britain, and sees a similar role for her. This role is the assertion of liberty, democracy and the rule of law – the morally superior values that prevail in the West but are the right of all. Just as the British Empire saw its duty as the enforcement of its ban on slavery, America’s role is to fight for these values across the world, exterminating terrorists and stopping rogue states just as Britain used the Royal Navy to smash the slave trade. Neo-colonialism, he says, is America’s future.
Hedgehogs good. Foxes bad. Isaiah Berlin could have saved himself some breath, apparently.
And Pootie-Poot and the Russians are hippy dippy postmodernists just like their soul mates the pansy Belgians. Groovy. Who knew?
This fellow does have a little tiny bone to pick with Queen George, though:
A DAY AND A HALF after it was revealed, I still find it hard to believe that the business contracts for the rebuiling of post-war Iraq have all been given to American companies. It isn’t that the war itself has not yet begun that concerns me – planning for after it is over is just sensible forward-thinking. It is the blazen disregard for a loyal ally, and indeed for Iraq itself, which surely can be better served by a greater variety of countries bidding to offer the best services. On what authority were such decisions made? Doesn’t the next Iraqi government deserve a say?
Such actions are not only indefensible and petty, but they help put skin on the bones of paranoid conspiracy theories about the war being fought for the sake of US business interests. Just as these were finally being shown for the nonsense we knew them to be, every opponent of war is armed with a fresh arsenal of argument and some solid evidence.
I do not doubt for a moment that this war is right, but this incident alone has made me ask myself why Britain should not merely give America what America gave us as we fought the Battle of Britain single-handedly – our best wishes. Certainly, ending the Baathist Socialist regime in Iraq and disarming its weapons of mass destruction is in Britain’s national interest. But if the United States is going to do this anyway, why not allow them, support them and stay out?
I suppose part of the answer is Britain’s excellent training and special forces, which are of particular use where brute force and military might are not as effective as something more subtle. We can potentially make this war less bloody for the allies and end it more quickly. And by giving our help and making this an international force that is disarming Saddam, we show ourselves again to be the closest friends of the leading world superpower, which can only be a good thing.
But incidents like these do shake me, and make me ask rationally just what we gain from the special relationship. America’s support made an immense difference in the Falklands, certainly, but that was over twenty years ago – and if we are going back decades it seems rather to have been cancelled out by Eisenhower’s folly at Suez in trying to curry favour with the Arabs by opposing Britain, France and Israel – a ploy that failed miserably.
If the IRA starts up again in a few years time, will the US help us exterminate terrorism in Ulster the way we helped them in Afghanistan? They’ll do their bit with regards intelligence, certainly, and it would be unfair to expect America to fight a threat to Britain alone the way Britain treated a threat to all of Western civilisation. So perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect such help. But that still leaves unanswered the question of what we get out of it. I certainly support the United States and the Bush Administration, but active support is another matter altogether. I think if Britain is to engage in active support for the US, it is right to expect some active support in return. Yesterday’s revelations shook my confidence that we do receive such a thing. If they are a freak occurrence, they can be forgotten at once. But if, as is possible, they represent a more general trend, some serious questions need to be re-examined.
Was he under the impression that we were going to share in the spoils of post war Iraq? That Queen George feels some sort of loyalty to the United Kingdom?
Piss off you limey loser. The US ‘o A is the only right and true true hedgehog on the entire goddam planet and you’d better get used to it.
Thanks to Baskett’s Case for the link. Lotsa good stuff there.
As usual, the Republicans are in a big hurry. Urgency and technicalities are their main governing principles.
But Republican and Democratic pollsters, economists and operatives said part of the urgency for Bush is tied to his political standing at home. They said the uncertainty related to the war is depressing consumer confidence and postponing the sort of robust economic recovery Bush will need to win reelection.
A Gallup poll this month showed a decline in Americans’ confidence to a seven-year low, with 36 percent satisfied with the country’s direction and 61 percent dissatisfied. It is a decline that began in December 2001. The ABC News-Money magazine’s gauge of consumer confidence released this week showed that 23 percent of Americans thought the economy was in good shape, the fewest in more than nine years.
“The number one concern is the impact [Iraq] is having on the economy and the harness it’s putting around certain sectors and causing negative growth,” GOP strategist Scott Reed said. “It’s reaching into all nooks and corners, and causing great concern in both corporate boardrooms and small businesses and their bankers.”
If consumer confidence and employment are not growing substantially by early next year, Bush’s reelection could be jeopardized…
[…]
Analysts said a further delay also poses risks to Bush’s political standing that go beyond the economic. In the most recent poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 54 percent of Americans approved of his job performance, 3 percentage points higher than in August 2001. At the same time, narrow majorities of Americans favor military action against Iraq without allied support. Both gauges will jump once hostilities begin, but “the question is how long it’s going to last,” poll director Andrew Kohut said.
[…]
Since last year, administration officials have said the weather would be too hot to launch an attack after early spring. But in recent weeks, defense officials have said that is less of a concern than originally believed and that another month’s wait could be tolerated.
This is completely illegitimate, I’m sure. Jay Rockefeller wants to have a little investigation into how we happened to be using blatently forged documents to bolster our case that Iraq has nuclear weapons.
Sarah Ross, a spokeswoman for Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts, said the committee will look into the forgery, but Roberts believes it is inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point.
The documents indicated that Iraq tried to by uranium from Niger, the West African nation that is the third-largest producer of mined uranium, Niger’s largest export. The documents had been provided to U.S. officials by a third country, which has not been identified.
A U.S. government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it was unclear who first created the documents. The official said American suspicions remain about an Iraq-Niger uranium connection because of other, still-credible evidence that the official refused to specify.
In December, the State Department used the information to support its case that Iraq was lying about its weapons programs. But on March 7, Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries.
Rockefeller said U.S. worries about Iraqi nuclear weapons were not based primarily on the documents, but “there is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.”
Yah think?
Personally, I don’t see any reason to investigate this until all congressional committees finally clear up the issue of whether Hillary was involved in firing the travel office staff back in 1993. They only spent 4 years on that subject, so I can’t really feel confident that they got to the bottom of it. You’ve just got to have some priorities.
Forrest Sawyer just asked David Gregory if the White House is in chaos. Gregory said no, the White House says it is “pivoting” in a number of different directions.
The United States is now more isolated from its major allies and more internally divided over foreign policy than at any time since 1945. The strategy of the Bush administration-and not merely its style-is to blame.
The grand strategy of the Bush administration rests on three axioms: American global hegemony; preventive war; and the so-called “war on terror.” All three axioms are fallacies that inevitably produce counterproductive and misguided policies. What the great French diplomat Talleyrand said of Napoleon’s execution of the Duc d’Enghien applies with equal force to Bush’s grand strategy: “It is worse than a crime; it is a mistake.”
With Democratic presidential candidates under fire for their reluctance to speak out about Iraq, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry delivered a major policy address in San Francisco Thursday — and omitted any substantive mention of the looming war.
In a 40-minute speech to a packed hall sponsored by the Commonwealth Club of California, Kerry offered a stinging indictment of Bush domestic policies on the environment, homeland security, eroding civil liberties and the declining economy. But he saved his comments on the war for a question-and-answer session afterward, and even in those tempered remarks, his position on Iraq was less than clear-cut.
The ongoing failure of the Bush administration to win allies in the U.N. Security Council “displays some of the weakest diplomacy we’ve ever seen in the history of the continental U.S.,” Kerry said after the speech.
Although he voted last fall to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq and said Thursday that he did not regret his vote, Kerry did not say whether he still believes force should be used — or if so, when. “The United States should never go to war because it wants to go to war,” he said, echoing statements made in January. “We should go to war because we have to go to war. And that is not clear at this time.”
He did flesh out a rather fine critique, however, of the Bush administration’s handling of the diplomacy. Why he couldn’t do it in his speech is anybody’s guess, but I assume it’s because he’s afraid of Sean Hannity and Ari Fleischer:
Only one-third of the job of president is to be “CEO of the domestic choices of the country,” he said in response to one question. “Two-thirds of the job of president is head of state — therefore chief diplomat.”
And the international chaos of recent months proves the need to have a strong person in that position, he said, suggesting that neither Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell have measured up well in the job.
In 2002, there was clearly a path to the inspections process that brought legitimacy and consent to an international endeavor, he said. What led to its demise is an endemic unwillingness to strengthen relationships with European nations. “I don’t know if they put the lock and key on the airplane so he [Powell] isn’t allowed to travel,” Kerry said, “but somehow this has been a secretary of state who’s been unwilling to go over and build those relationships.”
“I regret the way this administration has conducted foreign policy and given the back of its hand to so many nations,” he said. “The United States, the strongest military power on the face of this planet, has not had diplomacy that matches it.”
I don’t understand why Kerry can’t just say that he is for ousting Saddam, but that they hashed it up so much and are so incredibly incompetent that the congress is going to have to assert itself like never before to ensure that they do not create complete chaos in the region, and the next president is going to have to clean up the mess that’s been made of our international relations. He should be thundering his criticism of the unilateralist bent of the administration and their inability to convince the world that the invasion scheme is the right one.
He voted for the damned war. If he’d stick to his guns and use the opportunity to show how the Republicans have compromised their own goals, he would be a principled politician that even the doves could respect. Instead, he just seems vague and scared.
People are not going to vote for a candidate who is trying to split the difference on national security.
These Democrats have got to realize that there is no margin in trying to appease the GOP. They are going to get it coming and going, no matter what they say. They have to concentrate, instead, on laying out a principled alternative to Bush Imperialism and let the chips fall where they may. The have got to step up and fight and that does not mean that they must be doves. It just means they must stand for something.
And, it’s not like the Republicans haven’t given them enough to criticize, for gawd’s sake. They’ve fucked up even on their own terms. How hard is it to make a passionate speech about Bush’s failure in international relations?
