What is new is State's resolve to draw the only possible policy conclusion from its own findings of fact. My sources in and out of government all confirm that the Saudi designation is not the result of any particular Saudi action or American epiphany, but rather the product of the cumulative weight of stubborn facts. These include the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis; growing revelations of massive private and public Saudi funding of extremist groups and institutions worldwide (e.g., Pakistani madrassas); and continuing evidence of Saudi interference in American religious life, leading to the expulsion of some 70 Saudi nationals for abuse of diplomatic status since 9/11.
Designating Saudi Arabia as a country of particular concern marks "a sea change," notes Rep. Tom Lantos (D., Calif.), ranking member of the House International Relations Committee and co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. "For years there was an unspoken attitude that...friends like the British, the French, and the Germans could be criticized, but Saudi Arabia was beyond criticism," he says. "This is just a straw in the wind that Saudi Arabia will be treated just like any other country."
Just so.
Whatever the formal U.S. response taken under IRFA, business as usual with the Saudis is no longer acceptable.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/18/2004 12:04:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
But Howard, for a man routinely described as having no charisma, manages to hit just the right tone. The French got all the attention in the days after September 11 with that Le Monde headline — "Nous sommes tous Americains" — but even at the time I preferred Howard's take: "There's no point in a situation like this being an 80 per cent ally."
You can take that one to the bank. The "we are all Americans" stuff turned out to be not quite as straightforward as at first glance, and masked a ton of nuance, evasion, sly Yank-bashing and traditional Gallic duplicitousness as ripe as an old camembert wrapped in Dominique de Villepin's poetry. Even when they were touting that headline, the French were never more than 34 per cent allies. By comparison, that ABC radio interview three years ago where Howard did the 80 per cent riff is brimming with great material. I especially liked this bit: "I'm sure the Americans will behave in a targeted yet lethal fashion."
A comment worthy of a Rantburger
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/18/2004 9:54:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well he got my vote. Didn't even have to think about it. There was no competition. Same for the rest of Australia. National security followed by good economic management, were the keys.
And I love Steyn. If I loved him more, I'd have to raise his children.
Great article. But I was a bit disturbed by his need to slam on GW. Sure, he's not the world's best orator. But actions are greater than words. And a super-master of words should appreciate that.
#4
I was a bit disturbed by his need to slam on GW. Sure, he's not the world's best orator
Perhaps because if Bush's friends won't tell him what a disaster he (nearly) was during the first debate, he'll never straighten up and fly right in time to win the election. Steyn is doing Bush a favor.
#5
Lex, I disagree. It's cool to beat up on GW. I do it myself sometimes in order to loosen up my opponets and make them more apt to listen to me.
That being said, it's easy to complain about leaders, because they are just human and no one is perfect. But Bush has done a good job. No terrorist attacks (yet.) low interest rates, recovering economy, etc. etc. yada, yada.
Is he perfect? No. Do I disagree with him on some things? Yes. Is there anyone ...anywhere.. that I would agree with 100% of the time. No. I think for myself -thank you.
Bottom line is, it's easy to bash plain-speaking Bush, in order to make oneself feel "nuanced" and distanced from the Trent Lott wing of the party. But the bottom line is, good leadership is evidenced by results - not by suave bullshit. Bush isn't good with the suave bullshit - but he's good with results.
To stick with the theme of this article - his results have been targeted - yet lethal. I'm proud to say that I can see that he has been a good leader - despite the unpopularity of saying so. But I don't need a self-esteem boost in order to acknowledge that he's doing a very good job.
#6
I doubt that Steyn would disagree with anything you said. But the piece was on Howard, and appeared in an Australian newspaper, and therefore it's totally appropriate to allow the readers a little pleasure in noting the ways that their man compares favorably to both Bush and Blair.
We're a strong country. Bush is a fairly strong individual. Both he and we can tolerate some friendly gibes now and then.
#8
BTW, "Iraq was barely mentioned as a campaign issue," is most definitely not true. The media lost no opportunity to raise Iraq, including trying to pretend some non-news was breaking headline stuff. Early in the election campaign Labour brought Iraq all the time. About halfway through they suddenly shut up about Iraq. They are now saying becuase their polling told them it was a vote loser.
NYT, via Spiegel.de
There should no longer be any doubt that the war in Iraq is an exercise in lunacy. It was launched with a spurious rationale, the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a fantasy relentlessly stoked by obsessively hawkish middle-aged men who ran and hid when they were of fighting age and the nation was at war. Well, the nation is at war now, and they're certainly not hiding are they?
Now we find that we can't win this war we started. Soldiers and civilians alike are trapped in the proverbial briar patch, unable to move around safely in a country that the warmongers thought would be easy to conquer and then rebuild. So...your point is what exactly? That war is an unpredictable event?
There is no way to overstate how profoundly wrong they were. On some counts. On others they were dead-on, 100% correct.
Our troops continue to die but we can't even identify the enemy, which is why so many innocent Iraqi civilians - including women and children - are being blown away. Correction, YOU can't identify the enemy.
The civilians are being killed by the thousands, even as the dreaded Saddam Hussein is receiving first-class health care (most recently a successful hernia operation) from his captors. Killed by the thousands? Really?? There seems to be a unit of measurement missing there somewhere...do you mean per day, on a weekly basis, per year, per bomb drop??? Which is it?
Last week, in a story that read like a chapter from an antiwar novel, we learned that members of an Army Reserve platoon were taken into custody and held for two days after they refused to deliver a shipment of fuel to Taji, a town 15 miles north of Baghdad. They complained that the trip was too dangerous to make without an escort of armored vehicles. Several of the reservists described the trip as a "suicide mission."
The military said that was an isolated incident, but there is evidence of growing dissatisfaction among the troops, many of whom feel they are targets surrounded by hostile Iraqis -insurgents and ordinary civilians alike - in a war that lacks a clearly defined mission. The mission is clearly defined. Again, it is you who can't wrap your mind around it.
Even the heavily fortified Green Zone, which contains the U.S. embassy and the headquarters of the interim Iraqi government, was penetrated by suicide bombers last Thursday. At least five people, including three Americans who had been providing security for diplomats, were killed in the attack.
As the pointlessness of this war grows ever clearer, He means, he still doesn't understand. But it's not for a lack of trying.
the president's grand alliance, like some of the soldiers on the ground, is losing its resolve. When John Kerry, in the first presidential debate, mentioned only Britain and Australia as he mocked Mr. Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, the president famously replied, "You forgot Poland."
Poland has 2,400 troops in Iraq. But on Friday the prime minister, Marek Belka, announced that he will cut that number early next year, and then "will engage in talks on a further reduction." That was always Poland's position. Nothing new.
Mr. Belka has a political problem. He can't explain the war to his constituents. And that's because there is no rational explanation. This issue is far more complicated than your "no rational explanation" argument (which you are desperately trying to tie in with every assertion in this piece)
As for the rebuilding of Iraq, forget about it. Hundreds of schools were damaged by U.S. bombing and thousands were looted by Iraqis. It's hard to believe that an administration that won't rebuild schools here in America will really go to bat for schoolkids in Iraq. I would argue that this is more the responsibility of the Iraqi government, whether interim or not. But continue, please...
Millions of Iraqi kids now attend schools that are decrepit and, in many cases, all but falling down-lacking such essentials as desks, chairs and even toilets, according to the United Nations Children's Fund.
Military commanders are warning that delays in the overall reconstruction are increasing the danger for American troops. A senior American military officer told The Times, "We can either put Iraqis back to work, or we can have them shoot [rocket-propelled grenades] at us."
The president and his apologists never understood what they were getting into in Iraq. And you did?
What is unmistakable now is that Americans will never be willing to commit the overwhelming numbers of troops and spend the hundreds of billions of additional dollars necessary to have even a hope of bringing long-term stability to Iraq. Shouldn't you have waited until after November 2nd before claiming this as fact?
This is a war that never made sense and now we are seeing - from the troops on the ground, from our allies overseas and increasingly from the population here at home - the inevitable reluctance to forge ahead with the madness.
The president likes to say he made exactly the right decision on Iraq. Each new death of a soldier or a civilian, each child who loses a parent to the carnage, each healthy body that is broken or burned in this war that didn't have to happen, is a reminder of how horribly wrong he was. Yeah yeah yeah. Death, carnage and misery. Welcome to the planet Earth Mr. Herbert. You forgot to mention Sudan. Or the whole of Africa for that matter. Or about 90% of the world. You don't get out much often do you, Mr. Herbert?
I liked this little bit as well:
Cooperative agreement between SPIEGEL ONLINE and the "New York Times"
SPIEGEL ONLINE and the online version of the "New York Times" offer their readers a special service. Yeah I bet they do.
Approximately twice a week, you can read selected analyses and commentary from the "New York Times" on SPIEGEL ONLINE. In return, our colleagues in New York will publish selected and translated articles from DER SPIEGEL on their website each week. Oh great. A moonbat exchange program. Is the Guardian in on this as well?
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/18/2004 8:21:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is just another in a long series of articles by Bob Herbert expressing concern for the welfare of our troops. Oh no, wait, Bob Herbert to my knowledge never gave a rat's butt about the welfare of our troops until it became an issue he could use against Bush.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/18/2004 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's amazing how clueless someone can be when they simply don't want to understand the obvious.
If I, an ordinary citizen, have no trouble figuring out a whole bunch of reasons why we needed to invade Iraq, why else would Bob Herbert have so much trouble?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/18/2004 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nah. He's verbally too adroit to literally be a "moron". Could just be a lying bastard, though...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/18/2004 22:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dave D. I could believe that but I think he really needs to get hit with a clue bat too. Seeing where the opinion peice runs it's just so much anti american self loathing.
Maybe I can get some fellow sock puppets to get a clue bat after him?
#1
After reading "The Ottoman Centuries" by Lord Kinross, one of the best works out in paperback and to be recommended, I would not say "totalitarian", but extremely "authoritarian." A good comparison would be to a Mafia, where all activity is done for "the big boss", from whom also flows all largesse. In historical times, they had little if any government comparable to that of a modern state, and yet kept to such low-level controls as the ruler owning all lands, letting them be used by loyal subordinates for only one generation, not inheritable, before reverting in ownership to the ruler. The ruler has (keeping the Mafia analogy) Lieutenants, Consigliaries, and Torpedos. More complex than a typical Mafia, there are elaborate familial relationships and a quasi-governmental bureaucracy.
#2
Good book, Anonymoose. Based upon my readings from Arendt, I'd say that the Islamic system encourages totalitarian leanings, or at least a strong bent towards authoritarian systems. But the mechanism of government or civil discourse is left open enough in Islam that it can't be said to *necessitate* statist systems. Repressive, yes, but not necessarily totalitarian.
But, debate what? This is like asking: "Is there gravity, or does the earth sucketh?" Not a lot of wiggle room.
#2
Let's see if he's got the imagination or the brains to pull off another 9/11. I think not. He's a Jordanian throat-slitting punk living on borrowed time.
#6
Zarqawi is a palestinian with Jordanian citizenship.
I thought the Zarq was from a small Jordanian town on the Jordan/Palestine border. Do you mean he was originally Palestinian? A Palestinian refugee (is there any other sort?)?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
