Some wits have suggested that the post-WWII social democracies of Europe were set up in that way by America, both as accomplises to the naive leftists in the US, and by more conservative and far-sighted Americans to insure that they would have a defective economic and social model that would be in weakened competition with the US, and in no competition at all militarily.
That is, the democrats wanted them to be liberal-leftists societies, and the republicans wanted them to be the same, because they knew how ineffectual liberal-leftism is, as a form of government.
But whatever the intent of its inception, it is obvious that Europe is descending into both economic torpor and social unrest, excluding military aggression. At the same time, we in America can stand back and look at their deficiencies and know their proximate causes.
Today we see what might be, what might have been planned to be, a European-wide intefadah. Where 10% of the population try to use force and violence to control the other 90%, much like in Syria or Iraq. Yet uncomfirmed, I suspect that these "days of rage" are indeed carefully orchestrated, and their intention is that they spread to every European capitol with any significant Moslem population.
"Europe burning", is their concept. To cause the weak, ineffectual, and demilitarized Europe to collapse. In the land of gun control, to conquer it all with a revolver. Of course, few of them would believe it possible all at once, but they will take what they can get, and destroy as much as possible in the meantime. The Ottomans were masters of gradualism punctuated by vicious and destructive warfare, using every available means at their disposal.
This is both because they see chaos as their ally, and because it is a goal in itself. Their beliefs cannot co-exist with modernity, so they must destroy modernity and civilization in their entirety. Non-Moslem Europe must be as devastated as Beirut, or the Gaza Strip. The Louvre must be burned, unless it is owned by Moslems.
The European Moslem young man is an interesting creature. The prisons across Europe are filled with his kind, with far fewer natives and only a smattering of other prominent minorities, such as Hindus. These young Moslems view their religion as minimally a religion, more a license to personal villany, misogeny and criminality. Allah justifies their running amok, in their concept of Islam.
But they are far more than the children of a corrupted Islam. They are more than aware of such half-competitors/half-peers as communists, anarchists, neo-Nazis, punks, and other such underground dwellers. And there is an overlap in their worlds, sharing far more than the lexicon of the street. From them, they learn strategy and tactics--how best to foil the policeman.
And indeed they are underground street dwellers. This goes back to the failure of the European economic and social model. With the building of immense suburban ghettos, what in America are called "projects", into entire cities of such people.
By comparison, the conditions that exist there would be the same if every illegal alien caught in the US was allowed to stay, but only in "projects" that ringed the major cities of the southwest. Los Angeles, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Dallas, etc., surrounded by ghettos of perhaps 10 million Mexicans.
Not "Americans", "Mexican-Americans", "Chicanos", or even "La Raza", but Mexicans. Disenfranchised, poor, with high unemployment, and condemned to live in their ghettos.
The analogy could be continued with some agitators, perhaps sponsored by Chavez of Venezuela, entering those ghettos then spending years planning a challenge to authority, an uprising, with the intent of "reclaiming" the southwest, either as a province of Mexico, or as an independent, Hispanic-only country.
While terribly far-fetched, this is not beyond the pale in the equivalent Moslem philosophy. Even recently, a prominent Imam called for the conquest of a portion of Spain, claiming that it was Moslem property. "Any land over which the banner of Islam is flown is forever Moslem", is the concept. But again, they will take what they can get.
To justify this suspicion, that Moslem agents-provacateur have long been in the ghettos surrounding the major French cities, and perhaps in other European capitols, we have only to wait. If the French response is muted, then suddenly there are outbreaks elsewhere, it would explain why Europe has been relatively quiet for the last few years, as far as terrorism goes.
Otherwise, it makes no sense. Huge numbers of terrorists are close to Europe from several directions. Travel there is not daunting. Several countries have long been on tenterhooks against attack, because of their participation in the WoT. And yet, nothing has happened to precipitate a major crackdown with something like mass deportations.
The Europeans failed with their economic and social system, their unchecked immigration coupled with an unwillingness to force integration of the immigrants, and their efforts to quarter them in ghettos with no prospect except despair. For their part, the young men of these ghettos are a ruthless semi-urban-combat-trained army-in-waiting. If inspired to mischief and given even marginal strategy, the amount of destruction they can create in Europe is impressive.
So, much is on the shoulders of the French right now. A return to the status quo seems unlikely. So either they capitulate and allow the ghettos autonomy to some extent, or they realize that a hostile foreign army exists on their soil.
Ironic that they, and much of the rest of Europe, after so sanctimoniously condemning "ethnic cleansing", are forced to do so themselves, against a substantial threat to their people, their way of life, and their society.
Transcript of Mark's appearance on Hugh Hewitt yesterday; EFL.
HH: And so, you're not going to Paris anytime soon?
MS: I'm actually thinking of going to Paris. I went to one of these suburbs that's currently ablaze three years ago. And what was interesting to me is I had to bribe a taxi driver a considerable amount of money just to take me out there. They're miserable places. But what was interesting to me is that after that, I then flew on to the Middle East, and I was in Yemen, and a couple of other places. And what was interesting to me was that I found more menace in the suburbs of Paris than I did in some pretty scary places in the Middle East. I mean, there is a real...this, I think, is the start of a long Eurabian civil war we're witnessing here.
HH: Now that's a pretty provocative statement. Let's begin by...describe these for us. Are they like the Moscow or the Leningrad or the St. Petersberg tenements that stretch on and on?
MS: Well, actually, I would say they're more miserable than that...
HH: Wow.
MS: ...because a lot of them are like concrete bunkers. They have very strange things there...these public buildings that you have to have a kind of security card to get into. So, you'll be going to see someone, and you'll be frantically sticking this kind of key card in the door, while you're standing outside on this very exposed sidewalk. They're places where people who are not Muslim feel very ill at ease. They're places where the writ of the French state does not run. The police don't police there. They basically figure if you go there, you're on your own. You're taking your own chances there. I mean, I don't think Americans understand quite the degree of alienation of some of these groups. You know, there's a French cabinet minister whose title is the minister for social cohesion. And I think that would be a pretty odd title to have for a cabinet secretary in the United States.
HH: Or the U.K. for that matter. Now, it's the seventh night of rioting as we speak, and it got very violent last night. I don't know what's going on tonight. Do you...how do they solve this? I mean, what do they even do in France to get a handle on this?
MS: Well, I think this is the dispute that's going on between Monsieur Sarcosi, whose the, what passes, I think, for a conservative figure in French politics, who really wants to crack down, and who wants to say to these people you can behave like respectable French citizens, or we're going to take action and we're going to clean up these street. And then Monsieur de Villepin, whose currently the prime minister, whose line is basically that we should accommodate their grievances, and all the rest of it. And judging from Chirac's speech, where he says we have to understand their grievances and their alienation, I think the European tendency to appease these people is coming into play in the French cabinet. And I would say the one consequence of that is that a lot more people are going to be voting for fringe parties in the next election. We forget. The last presidential election, 20% of the French electorate voted for the fascist candidate.
HH: For Le Pen. Yeah. This is what...what option do they have if these riots continue, though? They can't appease people who won't be appeased.
MS: No, they can't. And essentially, you're dealing with communities that are totally isolated from the mainstream of French life. Where all kinds of practices that wouldn't be tolerated, that are not officially tolerated by French law, such as polygamy, for example. Polygamy is openly practiced in these...in les Bonlier, as they call these suburbs, these Muslim quarters of Paris. I mean, we're talking about five miles from the Elysee Palace. Five miles from where Jacques Chirac sits. And you finally got...you know, we kept hearing all this stuff ever since September 11th, you know, the Muslim street is going to explode in anger. Well, it finally did, and it was in Paris, not in the Middle East. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/04/2005 13:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
'If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. ... Now, let's imagine the future. What if [Saddam] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction ...? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."
George Bush in 2002? Dick Cheney? Nope. Clinton and Gore in 1998.
The conviction that Saddam had WMDs was shared by France, Israel, China, Russia, Britain, the United Nations, the CIA and the entire national security team of the previous Democratic administration. Germans believed Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within 36 months. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee - now a full member of the "Bush lied" team - said, "I do believe that Iraq is an immediate threat."
Sens. Evan Bayh, Joseph Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, and former Sen. John Edwards all voted for the war.
Most of these Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the president. But now, Democrats have decided that they cannot accept their own responsibility in what they clearly consider to be a mistake. They cannot even criticize the CIA for yet another horribly botched job. Instead, the same CIA liberals derided for years is now heroic and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has decided - now that the Fitzgerald investigation has fizzled - to dedicate his party to slandering the president.
Meanwhile, they cannot even admit they made a mistake supporting the war - except in that they believed Bush's "lies." But how could Bush have lied? How was he to know the intelligence was wrong? Without knowing that, he could not have lied. But the Democrats will not allow for the possibility the intelligence which caused Clinton to bomb Iraq was the same which caused Bush to topple Saddam. And they will not even concede that after Sept. 11, the argument over WMDs wasn't the best, never mind sole, argument for toppling Saddam, but the easiest one.
"Never again" was the new rule after Sept. 11 and - after ousting the Taliban - Saddam was the next obvious target. He applauded the attack, funded suicide bombers, defied the international community and, we now know, pretended he had WMDs. Remember: "Regime change" became the official policy of the U.S. in 1998, not 2002.
But the Democrats don't care. They don't care that their shabby accusations feed the very worst theories about America's role in the world. They don't care that Iraq is poised to either become one of America's greatest achievements or its worst debacles. They want timetables, apologies and scalps.
But does anyone doubt that if there was no insurgency and Iraq was as far along in the democratic process as it is now, the Democrats would be boasting about their bipartisan support for the war and cackling about how Democrats were right about "nation-building" all along?
But they don't care. In Pelosi, Reid and Dean's America, partisanship begins at the water's edge.
Examiner columnist Jonah Goldberg is editor at large at the National Review Online and a syndicated columnist.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/04/2005 12:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
President Bush's public support has eroded to its lowest level yet, with the Iraq war dragging on, a top White House aide facing felony charges and the White House rushing to replace a failed Supreme Court nominee.
Concerned that the president has lost his footing, some Republicans have suggested Bush should shake up his staff.
A new AP-Ipsos poll found the president's approval rating was at 37 percent, compared with 39 percent a month ago. About 59 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved.
The intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42 percent now saying they "strongly disapprove" of how Bush is handling his job _ twice as many as the 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."
"This is the poorest excuse for a president this country has ever had," said Max Hollinberger, a businessman from Stanwood, Wash., who leans Democratic. He cited "the economy, the economy? What's wrong with the economy? going to war in Iraq for no reason, Gee, do ya think Saddam would have WMD's today? the way we can get to the tsunami victims before Katrina victims the Governor of Louisiana wasn't involved there _ the whole business."
A year after his re-election, Bush's second term has been marred by rising U.S. casualties in Iraq, not to mention some notable, tho unreported, successes a failed attempt to restructure Social Security, Hurricane Katrina missteps, rising fuel costs and his forced withdrawal of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.
In a case involving the public naming of a covert CIA operative married to an Iraq war critic, Vice President Dick Cheney's former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pleaded not guilty on Thursday in federal court to charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators. The case casts a continuing cloud over Cheney and keeps Bush's closest adviser, Karl Rove, in legal jeopardy. Read Zell Millers column at ajc.com (Atlanta Journal Constitution)
Republicans are starting to worry about the 2006 elections and hope Bush can reverse his slide. It's a quagmire!
Several senior Republicans who are close to the White House and Rove say there has been a lot of talk inside and outside the White House about the need for him to leave, but they're picking up no indication from him or his associates that it's going to happen _ at least anytime soon.
Neither Bush nor Rove has seemed to get the message, the Republicans say. Because there is no "there" there.
Democrats have kept up the attack. "The 2006 midterm elections will be our next opportunity to change the environment of corruption and incompetence in Washington," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday in a fundraising letter to Democrats. Reid has called for Rove's resignation and a "thorough house cleaning" at the White House.
In the AP-Ipsos poll, nearly one in five Republicans disapproved of Bush's handling of his job, compared with nearly nine in 10 Democrats. Nearly seven in 10 independents disapproved.
Four in five Republicans still back the president.
"I think he's done a wonderful job," said Gloria Bloecher, a Republican from Sherman, Texas. "He's done wonderful things for the economy. The same economy the guy above cited as a bad thing? He rescued people who needed help in Iraq _ it was the Christian thing to do. I still trust his people and the people he picks for the Supreme Court."
The president has lost support from some key groups of constituents over the past year. He's dropped 16 points in his approval rating with men in that time, 18 points with people who have a high school education or less, 16 points among Southerners and 13 points among Republicans. How many points with the Dems?
The poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 31-Nov. 2 among 1,006 adults nationwide. The margin on sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Assuming a 'representative' sample, of course, and fair and unbiased questions.
Congress isn't faring much better. In early October, 35 percent of poll respondents approved of the job being done on Capitol Hill, down from 44 percent in February. Schadenfreude!
In December 2004, soon after Bush's re-election, 51 percent approved of his handling of his job, while 47 disapproved, and 28 disapproved strongly.
"I'm surprised it's not even worse," GOP consultant Rich Galen said of Bush's latest poll numbers. He cited three months of unrelenting bad news that have Republicans "beginning to scratch their heads."
Away from Washington, Republican leaders seemed concerned about Bush's drift downward in the polls and about Iraq, where the 2,000th U.S. military death was recently recorded, and less troubled about the CIA-leak case and the controversy surrounding Rove and Libby.
"I think the war in Iraq being on the front page every day has taken its toll," said Van Poole, former Florida GOP chairman and now a Tallahassee lobbyist, who expects Bush to bounce back. "Americans are impatient. Whatever our job is, Americans want us to get it done."
Associated Press writer Tom Raum and AP polling director Mike Mokrzycki contributed to this report.
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/04/2005 11:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only reason anyone reads the AP is to find out what the spin and talking points of the democrats are. No one who really follows the news takes it any more seriously than Pravda - and do those who don't follow the news really matter?
Senate Democrats employed a stealthy maneuver the other day, to reinforce their demand into an affair they like to call âPlamegate.â They are right that an investigation is required. But they have gotten the subject matter wrong.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that the real scandal is the genesis, not the unmasking, of an irregular and highly questionable mission: âthe Wilson Gambit.â It is time for serious examination, equipped with the tools of subpoena and testimony under oath, into the genesis and conduct of this anomalous operation.
The mainstream media, of course, is entirely uninterested in determining why the Wilson Gambit was undertaken. Once upon a time, the New York Times and the rest of the American liberal establishment worried about CIA dirty tricks aimed at influencing domestic politics. The more effervescent leftists fulminated about a âsecret governmentâ and muttered darkly about a threat to democracy itself, emanating from Langley.
How times (and The Times) have changed! Today, the darlings of the American left and its house organ are a CIA employee and her husband, who set up and implemented a highly irregular operation which, if not explicitly designed to do so, has had the net effect of discrediting an elected leader and his foreign policy. The Wilson Gambit was a stealth operation undertaken outside normal procedures and supervision, used as a political weapon, complete with lies spread by a cooperative media establishment interested in bringing down a leader and his policies which they detest.
Former Senator Zell Miller, a man of enormous stature, has done the nation a great service in publicly raising questions about the intent behind about the Wilson Gambit.
Itâs like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officerâs resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.
But the rules on agents are clear. They canât purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.
But their spouse can!
Senator Miller has substantial circumstantial evidence on his side when he infers that the Plame/Wilson imbroglio may have been just such a set up. The list of irregularities surrounding the Wilson Gambit is formidable. Here are just a few:
Why didnât the Agency require Wilson to sign a non disclosure agreement respecting his trip to Niger?
A good question, indeed, because this stunning lapse allowed him to make false charges about it, to which the Administration could offer only a limited, ineffective response without first declassifying information. I donât know the answer to the question, but it certainly does suggest that those who believe this jaunt was a set up against the Administration have more than a little basis for that belief. Congress should make this question a prominent part of its inquiries into the matter.
Why did they send him at all?
The U.S. Ambassador to Niger said it was unnecessary and, as we know, Cheney didnât ask for this mission, despite Wilsonâs intimations to the contrary.
Who determined the specific questions to be asked in Niger?
The questions Wilson posed were essentially meaningless. He asked the same questions General Fulford had just asked. And those questions (drafted by the CIA) were hardly intended to elicit meaningful information. Moreover, Fulford had asked current officials and Wilson did not. The inquiries never were about whether the Nigerien officials had been approached by any countries to purchase uranium. The Ambassador to Niger noted âwe raised the issue in more general terms rather than specifics.â Even with these limitations, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence notes, Wilson learned there had been a visit by a trade delegation from Iraq.
And since Nigerâs other major export is cow peas, the Commission felt his report strengthened, rather than undercut the British report that Iraq had been attempting to buy yellowcake in Africa.:
On February 24, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Niamey disseminated a cable When the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting surfaced in early February, Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick decided to ask General Fulford to use the previously scheduled meeting to raise the uranium issue with Nigerien officials. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick prepared talking points for General Fulford to use during his visit and the CIA coordinated on the talking points.
At the meeting, Nigerien President Tandja assured the ambassador and General Fulford that Nigerâs goal was to keep its uranium âin safe handsâ He [redacted]. In the comment section of the cable, the embassy noted that in the past, âprevious Nigerien governments have suggested that the best way the [U.S. government] could keep Nigerâs uranium from the wrong handsâ was for the U.S. to purchase it. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff that during her meetings with Nigerien officials, she never asked whether the officials had been approached by any countries to purchase uranium. She said, âwe raised the issue in more general terms rather than specifics.â
On February 26, 2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerien officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector.
The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick [redacted], Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was ânothing to the story.â Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying âhe had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.â
Why did the Agency pay only his expenses?
If Wilsonâs services were required â and they certainly appear to me not to have been â why was he only reimbursed for his expenses? I think it not impossible (having worked for the government myself) that doing so would avoid having to go through the bureaucracy, having to justify the trip, and leaving a paper trail in the personnel and accounting offices. Paying only his expenses, which might be hidden in the discretionary expenses of such an operation, would have further disguised the Mission from superior officials in the Agency.
Indeed, when Wilson leveled his charges, George Tenet seemed to have been unprepared immediately to respond, as if he had no knowledge of the Mission. And this gave Wilson more time to spread his lies unchecked by a quick refutation.
Why have his report remain oral?
This also seems inexplicable to me and certainly adds to my suspicions that the Mission was designed to minimize its paper trial. If minimizing a paper trail was important, for what purpose? To sandbag the Administration remains after all this time my best guess.
Why refer this to Department of Justice before completing an in-house inquiry?
Indeed, why refer it at all, since it doesnât appear she was covert and the Mission itself ceased to be a secret once Wilson started talking about it in May of 2003? It is my understanding that, generally, a full in- house assessment is made before a decision to refer the matter outside for investigation, and to the best of my knowledge that wasnât done here. Again, if my factual predicate is right, what other conclusion but a deliberate plot to tie up key Administration officials could there be?
Who leaked the referral letter from the CIA to the DoJ requesting an investigation of the leak? And why was this information, itself apparently classified, leaked?
Andrea Mitchell (who works for Tim Russert, a key witness in the Libby case) first reported the transmittal letter. She also has publicly admitted that she knew of Plameâs employment with the agency before Novakâs âoutingâ of Plame. From whom did she get this classified information? Was it from the CIA or the DoJ? And why was this leaked so quickly except to maximize the damage to the Administration?
Why did the Agency not do more to prevent the publication of the Plame story by Novak after it knew he intended to publish it?
As Tom Maguire notes, re the latest leak about the Al Qaeda prisons, the CIA called the editor of the Washington Post and asked that certain details not be published for national security reasons and the paper complied with that request. Thereâs a great deal more than who Novakâs sources were that we donât know. But at the moment it appears to me that Millerâs proposed Plame Rule, applying the same limits to piblic comments by spouses of CIA employees as to employees themselves, is both warranted and more than two years overdue.
Congress needs to hold hearings promptly.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/04/2005 10:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
On the John Batchelor Show last night, Gen. Paul Vallely said that he met Wilson in the green room at Fox News in 2002 and Wilson told him that his wife worked at the CIA. Vallely also said Wilson's comments on Iraq were misleading or just wrong and added that he called him on them, leading to a lengthy discussion. If I were Scooter's lawyer, I would call the General to the stand to tell his story.
Posted by: Tibor ||
11/04/2005 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
EFL Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee this week, Newt Gingrich â a historian before he entered politics â said that Ahmadinejad's threat âcalls to mind the reported response of a Holocaust survivor. When asked what lesson he had drawn from the experience, he answered, âWhen someone tells you he wants to kill you -- believe him.'"
Little commented on has been the section of Ahmadinejad's speech where he put his threats against Israel into broader perspective, into the context of a long war between what he sees as rival civilizations.
âWe are in the process of a historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years,â he said.
"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.
"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-a-vis the World of Arrogance.â
That will change, Ahmadinejad promised. He said that when people ask him if it is really âpossible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?â he replies: â[Y]ou had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.â
There is every reason to believe him and other Islamist Fascists. There is every reason, this time around, to do whatever it takes to stop them.
#1
Arrogance (lol) vs Barbarism. Okay, you're on Ahmedjihadi, we'll vis-a-vis your collective Islamic ass permanently, this time. Enjoy 2005, Mr President, it'll be your last.
#2
#1 Arrogance (lol) vs Barbarism. Okay, you're on Ahmedjihadi, we'll vis-a-vis your collective Islamic ass permanently, this time. Enjoy 2005, Mr President, it'll be your last.
I hope you're right, but there still seems to be a curious passivity toward the mullahacrocy in our elite circles.
Part of it is no doubt rooted in the challenges that Iran presents, but part of it is also rooted in the deluded notion among Foggy Bottom types that we have a modus vivendi with Iran re: the Shi'ite parts of Iraq.
Obviously the mullahs will only "work with us" as long as it is in their self-perceived interest to do so.
The question is: will we recognize that things aren't as nuanced as we'd like to believe, and that we need to get the machinery in motion for the confrontation with this regime?
I hope that we don't continue to be too clever by half with these clowns, because that's usually when we get in trouble.
This is from Media-ratings http://www.m-r.fr/accueil.php a french website examining the ethics of MSM (for a website solely aimed at countering bias agaisnt Israel, see "Honest Reporting"-like http://www.acmedias.org/. Note that I had heard about the Dominique Galouzeau "de Villepin" (who's a man) quote later in jewish websites (can't remember if this was repored in msm), and IIRC there was supposedly a discreet diplomatic row over it at the time. Sad thing is, what Dom said is only what the "arab street" at the Quay d'Orsay thinks, and thus the basis of the french Arab Policy(Tm).
November 2nd, 2005
The Iranian president declared Wednesday October 26, during a conference - âThe world without Zionismâ - that Israel had to be â wiped off the mapâ. These remarks were repeated the following Friday before being downplayed the next day by Iranian diplomats.
This speech was condemned by a broad spectrum of French media and by Western diplomats.
The swift, stormy reaction, was as hypocritical as it was artificial, the current Iranian president being not the first nor the only one to make such comments.
Let us recall that for a long time, Hamas has been calling (articles 11 and 15 of its charter) for the elimination of the State of Israel.
Moreover, the PLO, whose second-in-command is Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and which created the Palestinian National Authority, has never abrogated the articles of its charter which call for the destruction of the State of Israel.
It is interesting to point out, too, that representatives of Hamas and of the Palestinian Authority attended the conference where Mr. Ahmadinejad pronounced his devastating remarks. No condemnation was heard from them.
For those who are not aware of this anticipation, it has been brought up by Jean-Marie Colombani, the director of the newspaper of reference, Le Monde. In his book published in February 2002, âAll Americans?â , these comments were attributed to âpeople close to president Chiracâ. Colombani was asked in private who he was referring to, and he said it was Dominique de Villepin. In June 2002, having become France's foreign affairs minister, Villepin was asked if he admitted having made those remarks.
He did not contradict them formally.
Strangely, many recriminations against the Iranian president have come from the same French media which has suddenly lost its memory with regard to its own current political leaders.
Jacques Chirac's remarks corroborate this analysis. The French president has certainly condemned Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments, qualified as âfoolish and irresponsibleâ, but only for one reason: his Iranian peer ârisked to have Iran, which is a great country, banned from the international community.â
A precise analysis of Jacques Chiracâs declaration shows that he worried only about Iran's risks, not about another state being wiped off the map.
To support this analysis, there was a column worth to look at, published in Le Figaro on Friday, October 28. It was written by Pascal Boniface, the president of IRIS, a think tank specializing in geopolitics, and the frequent, unofficial spokesman of Quai d'Orsay, the French foreign affairs ministry. The title of the article â âWhen the Iranian president hurts Iranâ - shows what are the main concerns of this strategy analyst, similar to the French president's.
In order to have a better appreciation of the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remarks that the French media did not consider useful for publication, we have provided below a few extracts. They should be compelling enough for those who might think that the State of Israel is the Iranian president's unique target:
â The creation of the regime which occupies Al-Quods (Jerusalem) was a significant move by the world dominating system and by the Western civilisation against the Islamic world. An historical battle is being carried out between the Oppressing world and the Islamic world, and the roots of this conflict are hundreds of years old.
The occupying State (Israel) is heading the Oppressing world into the heart of the Islamic world. They have built a base in order to extend their domination on the entire Islamic world. This objective is the only reason for being part of that entity.
Therefore, the current battle in Palestine is at the forefront of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressing world. Today, the Palestinian nation fights the Oppressing world for the entire Islamic community.â
A few months old but interesting, and may have relevance concerning the future of Europe notably. Will the islamic pressure brings more populist gvts ready to listen to their people and take the necessary measures the Enlightened Elites have been unwilling to enforce?
On both sides of the Atlantic, the political class has become convinced that the people do not know what is best for them.
by Frank Furedi
(see at link)
#1
Seems to me we have already had the discussion of whether people are too stupid to govern themselves. I thought that the whole point of our "experiment" was that we don't need royalty, of whatever ilk, to rule us. One of the reasons we aren't in Europe any longer (at least my predecessors).
#2
But there was some built-in protection against the hicks, such as the Electoral College. Jefferson, however, thought the key to political intelligence was education: "Establish the law for educating the common people. This is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan."
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/04/2005 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Its why the left doesn't support Democracy in Iraq. They don't support it in America either. Only approved members of the inner party are entitled to rule the people.
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.
