“This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.” ― Euripides, The Phoenician Women
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Al Dura Affair Exposed
This Commentary article by Nidra Poller documents how French TV perpetrated a hoax in the Al Dura affair, when reporters blamed Israel for killing a Palestinian boy murdered by Palestinians. (ht New Sisyphus)
I suspect things like this may still go on in mainstream "journalism" and "human rights" reporting, whenever hidden political agendas clash with inconvenient facts...
I suspect things like this may still go on in mainstream "journalism" and "human rights" reporting, whenever hidden political agendas clash with inconvenient facts...
Thoughts from Bob
Thanks to Google's new blog search feature (see below), I found this interesting website, that has some thoughts about monopoly and the problems in New Orleans.
Making one big super-agency (FEMA/DHS) with a monopoly on disaster relief made things worse than having a number of competing agencies, according to this theory.
I believe it.
Making one big super-agency (FEMA/DHS) with a monopoly on disaster relief made things worse than having a number of competing agencies, according to this theory.
I believe it.
Mark Steyn on Pennsylvania's Flight 93 Memorial
Most of us are all but resigned to losing New York's Ground Zero memorial to a pile of non-judgmental if not explicitly anti-American pap: The minute you involve big-city politicians and foundations and funding bodies and 'artists' you're on an express chute to the default mode of the cultural elite. But surely it's not too much to hope that in Pennsylvania the very precise, specific, individual, human scale of one great act of American heroism need not be buried under another soggy dollop of generic prettified passivity. A culture that goes to such perverse lengths to disdain its heroes cannot survive and doesn't deserve to.(ht Little Green Footballs)
BTW, I'm not resigned to losing NYC's Ground Zero. New Yorkers could just rebuild the World Trade Center, as Washingtonians did with the Pentagon. No museums, no "artists". To paraphrase Christopher Wren, New Yorkers could say: "If you seek their monument, look around you." It's the same reason Churchill rebuilt the Houses of Parliament exactly as they were after the Blitz--to show that the Nazis couldn't destroy it. New Yorkers still have a chance to do the same...
Bush Joins "Incompetents Anonymous"
The Bull Moose has a cute post today:
The rest is funny, too. Read the rest of it here.
The Moose notes that the President has enrolled in a twelve-step program.
"Hi, I'm George W. and I'm an incompetent." That is what the President tentatively declared yesterday when he accepted "responsibility" for the Katrina fiasco. Ok, maybe he just implied it. But it is clear that the President just enrolled in Dr. Karl Rove's (Director of the Federal Emergency Image Management Agency) Twelve Step Poll Recovery Program.
Dr. Karl insisted that his patient enroll in the program when it became apparent that the "shift the blame to the locals" strategy wasn't working. Even Brit Hume was having difficulty with the talking points. Panic has stricken the ranks of the President's supporters as there is a fear that old Rush will reach for the Vioxx again and the GOP Congress will go on an inebriated spending binge.
The rest is funny, too. Read the rest of it here.
Will Leahy Block Roberts?
Darren Allen writes in the Montpelier (VT) Times-Argus that Senator Leahy is growing "frustrated" with Roberts. This is the ranking Democrat's hometown paper, and may give some indication that Leahy will attempt to block the confirmation. The grounds would seem clear: According to Leahy Roberts lacks candor before the committee. In other words, they don't trust him:
Can Leahy pull this off? I'm sure the Democrats are counting votes right now. If I were a Democrat, I'd throw as much sand in the gears as possible over the next few days, while Bush is at a record low in the public opinion polls...
MONTPELIER – Without more specific answers from Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, Sen. Patrick Leahy said Tuesday he will have to make up his mind based on what he already knows about the president's pick to be the 17th leader of the Supreme Court.
And, if his growing frustration with a man he has become more critical of since his nomination earlier this summer is any indication, the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat isn't satisfied with what he's heard in the two days of confirmation hearings.
"He makes a wonderful appearance, he's very bright, but I think he is taking too much to heart what a lot of Republican lawmakers are telling him," Leahy said in a brief telephone interview from Washington, referring to the GOP's advice to not give answers to questions seeking the judge's personal opinions.
"In some areas he has not been as forthcoming in the hearing as he was in private meetings," said Leahy, who is now poised to weigh in on his 11th Supreme Court nominee. The Vermonter has met privately with Roberts twice over the last two months. Some of the most troubling issues, Leahy said, have to do with individual rights, the right to sue, abortion rights and whether or not the president is above the law.
Can Leahy pull this off? I'm sure the Democrats are counting votes right now. If I were a Democrat, I'd throw as much sand in the gears as possible over the next few days, while Bush is at a record low in the public opinion polls...
Bush and the "R" Word
Belgravia Dispatch reflects on the President's upcoming speech:
Attorney-General Janet Reno accepted "responsiblity" for the Waco tragedy--but didn't resign, either. IMHO, that led to a Republican House and Senate.
Whatever Bush says, it no longer matters.
Meantime, in closing, a word on the "R" word. I seem to recall that Don Rumsfeld, around the time of Abu Ghraib, also said he accepted 'responsibility' for what happened. But it's one thing to utter the R word, another thing to really mean it. This seems to be something of a peculiar Washington phenomenon, doesn't it? Some grandee states, flatly, that they accept responsiblity for this or that outrage. And then, in practice, they really don't. Nothing happens to connect the statement of assuming responsibility to, you know, some action that might evidence a connection between stating they take responsibility and, well, taking it. But, hey, they said they did, and so, you know, all is well and one garners kudos for all the Trumanesque 'buck stops here' bravura. But we always knew Washington was a strange place, right?
Attorney-General Janet Reno accepted "responsiblity" for the Waco tragedy--but didn't resign, either. IMHO, that led to a Republican House and Senate.
Whatever Bush says, it no longer matters.
The Guardian on Rioting in Northern Ireland
Here's The Guardian's account of recent riots in Northern Ireland.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
I Love This Feature
The sitemeter box on the left has a link to an animated world map that shows the last 100 places that have looked at this blog. It's nice to see hits from around the world...
Where Have We Seen This Before?
Hat tip to Roger L. Simon for this photo of a burning synagogue (abandoned, luckily) in Palestinian-controlled Gaza (you can read the accompanying article here)...
What's Cooking?
Enjoyed Gurinder Chadha and Paul Mayeda Berges first film on DVD, What's Cooking?(2000). An ensemble melodrama, set at Thanksgiving, the picture criss-crosses four family holiday get-togethers in the same Fairfax neighborhood in Los Angeles--one Mexican, one Vietnamese, one African-American, and one Jewish. Each one has its share of fights and tensions, and it is really a different look at Thanksgiving, which is refreshingly unsentimental. Yet the filmmakers have a heart. A tough balancing act, but they pull it off. It reminds me a little of film school, but there's some nice acting. You can see the seeds of Bend it Like Beckham, and Bride and Prejudice. The themes of multicultural family and multicultural romance are the same. They seem to be getting better and better...
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Will Bush Nuke Iran?
The Washington Post headline readsPentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan. And it seems to be a threat to Iran.
Unfortunately, Bush has lost credibility due to both Katrina and the WMD issue in Iraq. Were he to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran, or North Korea for that matter, Bush would risk more than impeachment with his gamble--he would risk war crimes trials for making aggressive war and killing innocent civilians. Especially if the rest of the world is not convinced that he were justified. Ironically, Chinese and Russian judges might condemn George W. Bush to death at the International War Crimes Court.
Maybe he needs to think things through a little, since his strategies have not worked so far, and this proposal sounds both dangerous and irresponsible, at least to a layman who grew up in the era of Mutual Assured Destruction, and remembers that the Russians still have 7,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal.
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would 'respond with overwhelming force' to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said 'all options' would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Unfortunately, Bush has lost credibility due to both Katrina and the WMD issue in Iraq. Were he to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran, or North Korea for that matter, Bush would risk more than impeachment with his gamble--he would risk war crimes trials for making aggressive war and killing innocent civilians. Especially if the rest of the world is not convinced that he were justified. Ironically, Chinese and Russian judges might condemn George W. Bush to death at the International War Crimes Court.
Maybe he needs to think things through a little, since his strategies have not worked so far, and this proposal sounds both dangerous and irresponsible, at least to a layman who grew up in the era of Mutual Assured Destruction, and remembers that the Russians still have 7,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal.
Andrew Sullivan: The More You Look, The Worse It Gets
Writing in the London Times, Andrew Sullivan lays into the 3 Cs of the Bush administration: cronyism, corruption, and "conservatism." His verdict on Bush?
He campaigned fundamentally on his ability to run the country in wartime, on emergency management, on protecting Americans from physical harm. That was his promise. It was swept away as the waters flooded New Orleans. And Al-Qaeda was watching every minute of it.
The Constant Gardener
Just saw The Constant Gardener with Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. As I see everything through the prism of Antigua, now, it was interesting that Fiennes played a British diplomat. His relation, Sir Eustace Fiennes, was Governor-General of Antigua during the colonial period. On his death, Sir Eustace left a bequest that pays for the Fiennes Institute, an almshouse and old-age home that cares for needy Antiguans to this day. An earlier Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, was the founder of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. His descendant, a cousin of Ralph Fiennes, still lives in Broughton Castle. We toured this National Trust home, and it is worth a look. It is quite possibly the homiest castle in England.
In any case, although the plot was ridiculously PC (why kill people over a report that sounds like dozens already posted on the internet--or tonight's 60 Minutes story about Amgen?), everything else about the movie was first rate--travelogue, suspense, acting, sets, costumes, music, lighting, and so forth. So, forget the storyline, and just take a bath in Anglophile porn.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Pew Poll: Bush Sinking
Andy Kohut summarized this Pew Poll on the same Lehrer Newshour (a really good show, btw). Bush is ahead of Richard Nixon in the middle of Watergate, but that's about it. His popularity is way down, sinking fast in the Big Muddy...
This may turn out to be Bush's Waco. After the Clinton administration botched the David Koresh operation, the country turned to the Republicans, who swept into Congress. In 2006, if the Democrats play the good government card instead of the race card, they can pull off the same trick.
Then, impeachment looms for Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. One reason for Democrats to try and hold off confirmation of Supreme Court nominees for a year or two...
Calling Clark Kent (Ervin)!
I watched the former DHS-IG on the Lehrer Newshour last night talking about New Orleans, and was impressed with the content of his comments as well as his manner. Ervin deftly inserted the needle in Bush administration positions (his style reminded me a little of Robin McNeil). Here's what Ervin told Margaret Warner last night, about FEMA chief Michael Brown:
I question whether it makes sense to put Brown back in Washington to be in charge of overall FEMA efforts since obviously this kind of thing can and likely will happen again. I think the larger issue is whether there's leadership at the top of FEMA that has the competence that's necessary to do the planning and preparedness that is necessary to make sure this kind of response doesn't happen again.
Ervin was so impressive--Who is this guy? I thought--that I googled him.Here's another quote:
CLARK KENT ERVIN: Well, it seems to me at the Department level as a whole there has been a lack of attention to detail, a lack of focus on management. And I think we're seeing the consequences of that. It seems to me absolutely inexcusable that, frankly, both the secretary as well as the FEMA director said it wasn't until Thursday that they learned there were thousands of people stranded without food and water when all you had to do was turn on the television set to see that. So it seems to me a lack of attention to detail. And it is just inexcusable. It is inexplicable. I don't have an explanation for it. I don't know that there is one.Turns out that until he was canned, Ervin had been a loyal Bushie, from Texas. He was apparently purged, best as we can figure out, because he was competent and good at his job (which made some Bush cronies look bad). Here's the USATODAY story on his departure from government service. Title: "Ex-official tells of Homeland Security Failures."
While in office, Ervin made some scathing findings. He reported that:
• Undercover investigators were able to sneak explosives and weapons past security screeners at 15 airports during tests in 2003.
• Federal air marshals, hired to provide a last line of defense against terrorists on airlines, slept on the job, tested positive for alcohol or drugs while on duty, lost their weapons and falsified information in 2002.
• Department leaders should have taken a more aggressive role in efforts to combine the government's myriad terrorist watch lists since the department was created in 2003.
• The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) gave executive bonuses of $16,477 to 88 of its 116 senior managers in 2003, an amount one-third higher than the bonuses given to executives at any other federal agency.
• The TSA spent nearly $500,000 on an awards banquet for employees in November 2003. The cost included $1,500 for three cheese displays and $3.75 for each soft drink.
The department complained that many of Ervin's reports were based on outdated information. After the report on air marshals, border and transportation chief Asa Hutchinson said the problems had long since been fixed.
Ervin, a Harvard-trained lawyer who worked for Bush when he was governor of Texas and for Bush's father in the White House before that, couldn't explain why he didn't get the nod to continue his work. It "will be an enduring mystery to me," he said.
Ervin currenlty heads the Homeland Security program at the Aspen Institute.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Mark Helprin on 9/11's Fourth Anniversary
He lets loose with both barrels in The Wall Street Journal.
Rotting Oranges in Ukraine?
Yushchenko has fired everyone due to a corruption scandal, and Kommersant has this analysis of recent developments in the current Ukrainian crisis.
British Expats Won't Leave New Orleans
This is an interesting story about Britishers staying put in the Big Easy...
Japan Today: Barbara Bush Blunders
Hurricane Katrina is taking a toll on America's international stature. I watched Karen Hughes funble her way through a BBC World interview last night talking about "elements" in New Orleans; and the Japanese press seem to be picking up on Barbara Bush's Marie Antoinette approach:
U.S. President George W Bush is not the only member of his prominent political family to be drawing criticism for public utterances about Hurricane Katrina: His mother has raised eyebrows too.
In widely reported comments after visting evacuees at a Texas sports arena, former first lady Barbara Bush on Monday seemed to suggest a silver lining for the "underprivileged" forced from their flooded homes in New Orleans.
"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," she said in a radio interview from the Astrodome in Houston, Texas.
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this is working very well for them," she said.
The Horse's Curse
Last night at a dinner party, met children's book author Fiona Darling, who wrote The Horse's Curse. The book is about St. Patrick, who drove the snakes from Ireland, and his horse, among other things...
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Great Job, Brownie?
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link to this Florida Sun-Sentinel editoral pointing out that they called for Brown's firing a year ago, due to his incompetence!
I'm sure the Democrats are looking into FEMAs business dealings with former FEMA head and Bush crony Joe Allbaugh, as well as any contracts with Dick Cheney's Halliburton or Kellogg, Brown & Root.
If they find anything, they can impeach Cheney first, then go after Bush. So maybe the Republicans might want to act so they can pick Bush's replacement, instead of the Democrats. Also, if I were the Democrats, I'd hold off any Supreme Court confirmations for a long time...
But nothing can restore FEMA's full functionality so long as the agency's incompetent director, Michael Brown, remains at the helm. Brown, a patronage appointee with no previous disaster management experience, embarrassed himself last year with his attempts to justify FEMA's waste of more than $31 million in hurricane relief given to areas not affected by a hurricane. After a South Florida Sun-Sentinel investigation exposed the waste, the newspaper called for Brown to be fired. It now repeats that call.
This year Brown embarrassed the whole country. Three days after Katrina struck, he admitted to being surprised to learn that thousands of people were suffering without food or water in New Orleans' convention center. This from the man who was supposed to be in charge of federal relief efforts.
Brown is in over his head. If FEMA is ever to become effective again, his dismissal must be the first step.
I'm sure the Democrats are looking into FEMAs business dealings with former FEMA head and Bush crony Joe Allbaugh, as well as any contracts with Dick Cheney's Halliburton or Kellogg, Brown & Root.
If they find anything, they can impeach Cheney first, then go after Bush. So maybe the Republicans might want to act so they can pick Bush's replacement, instead of the Democrats. Also, if I were the Democrats, I'd hold off any Supreme Court confirmations for a long time...
Willa Cather on TV
Last night, to take my mind off disasters, I watched the PBS American Masters documentary about Willa Cather. It was sort of interesting, and made me think of my internship with TV producer-director Glenn Jordan, who did a Hallmark Hall of Fame based on O Pioneers! in 1992, starring Jessica Lang. Turns out that there are quite a few Willa Cather stories on IMDB's list of her tv movies. They have been directed by A-list talent like Jack Gold, Joseph Sargeant, and Karen Arthur.
I learned from the PBS show that Cather wasn't much of a country mouse at all; rather, a Greenwich Village bohemian (she lived on Bank Street), who left Nebraska as soon as she was able to do so. She was obviously a lesbian, a very successful editor at McClure's Magazine, and became a best-selling author despite the failure of her first novel. She began writing later in life, and in the 30s fell afoul of the Communist Party types who wanted proletarian novels. Her work has stood the test of time, and her interesting personality has made me interested--for the first time--in reading what Willa Cather wrote. It wasn't all about wheatfields and praries, it turns out...
The Lincoln Memorial, Revisited
On Monday, with an old friend from UCLA Film School, I went to see the Lincoln Memorial after many years. (He pointed out that it was featured in the last scene of the 2001 remake of Planet of the Apes). It had been at least a decade since the last time I climbed the steps leading to the statue of the Great Emancipator that stares down the National Mall to the US Capitol. The World War II and Korean War Memorials had been added since my previous visit. Now, flanking Lincoln's left and right were remembrances of failed or stalemated military episodes: Vietnam and Korea. Straight ahead were America's successes, WWII, the Washington Monument (remembering the American Revolution), and the US Capitol -- itself surmounted by a goddess of liberty.
The Lincoln Memorial seemed to be in a state of disrepair. It looked like mold was growing inside, and moss seemed to be on the exterior marble. The grass was uncut in places, and construction work put piles of dirt and debris on the side, as well as unsightly chain-link fences.
In the basement of the monument there is now a small museum. It has a section devoted to Martin Luther King's March on Washington, and a small selection of Lincoln quotes about slavery and union, installed at the instigation of visiting schoolchildren in 1990, who collected pennies to pay for the exhibit because there was nothing about Lincoln's life in the temple-like statuary hall above.
The statue of Lincoln was kept pretty clean, but the rest of the imitation Greek Temple was in need of some upkeep. It almost reminded me of visiting Chor Minor or the Lodi Gardens in Delhi. Lincoln seems to be fading into the distant past. His accomplishment, and its relevance to the American purpose of proclaiming liberty throughout the world, seems to be in danger of being forgotten as well.
My friend didn't believe Lincoln was against slavery--and that if even if he had been, so what? Slavery was obviously wrong, against the Declaration of Independence, against Scripture, against simple human decency. Of course, he was right.
Yet, Lincoln did face a struggle to end the practice in the United States--whether its end was the result of or the cause of the Civil War, in the end, is a mere debating point. The fact is that before Lincoln's presidency, the US was a slave society, and afterwards, it was no longer. Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died in the struggle, not defending their homes, but defending a principle. It makes little difference whether you call that principle Union or Freedom; because the Confederacy's principle had been slavery.
This fight for freedom continued in America's wars around the world--including Vietnam and Korea. The Korean memorial has its motto engraved in stone: "Freedom isn't Free." A cliche, perhaps, yet one that has truth to it. There is slavery in North Korea but not in South Korea. Of course, Vietnam and Cambodia both became slave societies after the American withdrawal.
So Lincoln's struggle is not ancient history. Slavery is a constant threat to humankind that must be fought in every generation. It existed in the former Soviet Union, a slave society, with slave labor camps. Slaves built the Moscow metro, the grand boulevards, the Stalinist skyscrapers--and cut timber in the camps of the Gulag, as well. Slavery existed in Nazi Europe, they built the V-2 rockets that exploded in London, they made chemicals for IG Farben, and after being worked to death, were exterminated at places like Auschwitz and Treblinka. China had a slave system, of course, on the Soviet model.
There is widespread slavery today, according to the Anti-Slavery Society. There is slavery in Saudi Arabia , and the Sudan. Anywhere where people are forced to work without being paid, can be physically abused or killed by their bosses, there is a slave system.
And if Osama Bin Laden gets his way, we shall all be "slaves to Allah." That is why the Global War on Terror is worth fighting--it is in fact a Global War Against Slavery.
Which is also why the Lincoln Memorial remains deeply relevant, and deserves better upkeep than it seems to be getting from the Bush administration (if only it looked as nice as the official photo above...).
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
And Now For Something Completely Different...
There's been so much bad news, that I didn't have a chance to mention that Hammasa Kohistani was chosen as the new "Miss England" for the annual "Miss World" contest. She was born in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and hopefully will help improve the image of that very interesting country. There's a nice webpage devoted to her British beauty contest victory at The Jawa Report.
FEMA and DHS
All this talk about taking FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security raises the question: If the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn't belong there, what does?
After all, FEMA would have to take care of the aftermath had it been an atom bomb in New Orleans. If they can't handle a hurricane, what would happen with a dirty bomb, a suitcase bomb, a chemical attack, a germ attack? Don't even want to think about it...
The answer is that nothing belongs in Homeland Security, the agency shouldn't exist, it has a bad name, an impossible mission, and obviously is a mess. The US appears to be worse off--and more unprepared--today than on 9/11.
Time to go back to the drawing board. The situation is actually too serious for partisan politics, since America is facing insane suicide killers who will stop at nothing. Bush might have to be impeached.
While it sounds farfetched even to me, the best scenario I can come up with to get some proper leadership quickly is:
Step One: Cheney steps aside.
Step Two: Rudy Giuliani becomes VP.
Step Three: Bush is impreached or resigns.
Step Four: Giuliani takes over, fires everyone, bangs heads together, and cleans up the mess the Bushies made--hopefully, with a bipartisan government of national unity with someone like Zell Miller or even Hillary Clinton--before Osama Bin Laden strikes again...
After all, FEMA would have to take care of the aftermath had it been an atom bomb in New Orleans. If they can't handle a hurricane, what would happen with a dirty bomb, a suitcase bomb, a chemical attack, a germ attack? Don't even want to think about it...
The answer is that nothing belongs in Homeland Security, the agency shouldn't exist, it has a bad name, an impossible mission, and obviously is a mess. The US appears to be worse off--and more unprepared--today than on 9/11.
Time to go back to the drawing board. The situation is actually too serious for partisan politics, since America is facing insane suicide killers who will stop at nothing. Bush might have to be impeached.
While it sounds farfetched even to me, the best scenario I can come up with to get some proper leadership quickly is:
Step One: Cheney steps aside.
Step Two: Rudy Giuliani becomes VP.
Step Three: Bush is impreached or resigns.
Step Four: Giuliani takes over, fires everyone, bangs heads together, and cleans up the mess the Bushies made--hopefully, with a bipartisan government of national unity with someone like Zell Miller or even Hillary Clinton--before Osama Bin Laden strikes again...
Belgravia Dispatch
My wife told me to read what this website had to say about Hurricane Katrina. I did, and shall add it to my blogroll, forthwith...
PS Also recommended reading Michelle Malkin and Andrew Sullivan.
PS Also recommended reading Michelle Malkin and Andrew Sullivan.
Inside Russia's Valdai Discussion Club
The Club unites former Sovietologists, that is, leading American and European experts on post-Soviet territory, as well as Russian politicians and analysts.
Before meeting the President [Putin] last Monday a group of fifty foreign experts had been through a real marathon: in the first half of the day they listened to the speeches of Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Vladislav Surkov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Communications Yevgeny Reiman, Minister of Oil and Natural Resources Yury Trutnev, and finally three deputy ministers from the government's 'economic' bloc. The experts who had been used to patiently screen bits of information from the former U.S.S.R. and later on from Russia, were literally showered with exclusive and often classified information.
The participants in the second session were very prominent figures, too. It was attended by Marshall Goldman (US), a seasoned expert on Soviet studies, Germany's best known expert on Russia Alexander Rahr, leading foreign policy expert from France Thierry de Montbrial, and Lord Howell, a shadow minister in the British Parliament, to name but a few. In other words, these were the best of the best.
Nic, Bupkis & Nichevo
Just found that there was a link to here from Nic, Bupkis & Nichevo, so thought I'd return the favor...
Bloggers Do the American Political Science Association Convention
Last Friday, I attended the American Political Science Association convention at Washington, DC's Mariott Wardman Park and Omni Shoreham Hotels. It was huge. For fans of what Washingtonians call "show business for ugly people," it seemed something like a buttoned-down version of the Cannes Film Festival. The APSA convention motto: "Mobilizing Democracy." (I had my mobile phone with me, does that count?)
At registration, I spotted Washington Post columnist David Broder and Princeton University professor Cornel West. The 0800 am session on Bush's presidential leadership style, in which Princeton political science professor Fred Greenstein predicted that Bush would come back from outrage over Hurricane Katrina in the same way he came back after 9/11 was packed--Broder was in the audience, as was Brookings Institution political guru Thomas Mann, among other American politological luminaries. Washington Post reporter John Harris shared a scoop, as he contrasted the governing styles of Bush and Clinton, then revealed that Hillary likes Bush Junior's style and hopes to emulate it. Yikes!
I missed seeing Republican bigwigs Elliott Abrams, and Bill Kristol, or former Clinton advisor William Galston, who appeared at some other panels, (I guess they aren't too busy doing their jobs to bloviate with academics) but did have a chance to drop in on a panel about the Bush doctrine in Iraq.
It featured John Hopkins professor Francis Fukuyama, who appeared with Princeton's John Ikenberry, and the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer. The banner hanging above their heads read: "APSA: Networking a World of Scholars."
It was strange to hear Fukuyama, one of the signatories of the famous (or notorious) 1998 letter to President Clinton calling for the American overthrow of Saddam Hussein, now mocking the Bush doctrine as an equivalent to the Wizard of Oz scene where the munchkins come out singing "Ding, dong, the Witch is dead..." Fukuyama may be right now, or he may have been right then, or he may be wrong twice in a row. Could he have been right twice in a row? Who knows? Maybe the Bushies thought it was the end of history, or something? I admit that I don't know...
I do know that I certainly would want to think twice before I would trust anything Fukuyama has to say about politics or world affairs.
The worst was yet to come. Professor Ikenberry was icky in the extreme, he actually used the term "final solution" in connection with Bush's policies in Iraq, a creepy academic type, who thought he was so cute and clever. Ikenberry appeared so amoral and calculated that he made Fukuyama look good by comparison. Mearsheimer seemed to be the most "realistic" of the bunch, arguing that the Bush doctrine is dead, though no one will admit it. This, at least, is a testable hypothesis. We have three years to see if he is right or wrong...
Most interesting--after the book exhibit, which really was great, all publishers were there, and some gave away free books, which I'll discuss as I read them--was the Claremont Institute's panel on bloggers and politics, concentrating on Powerline's coverage of the Dan Rather 60 Minutes II scandal. Both John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff were there, and there was a lively debate about blogs versus newspapers with Jeff Gertz of The Washington Times and the Boston Globe's Peter Canellos. Canellos gave the liberal line pretty well, and Hinderaker agressively challenged him. It was almost like watching Crossfire. (You can see Hinderaker v. Canellos in the picture above.)
At that same session, I learned that author and US News correspondent Michael Barone is now a blogger, since he was introduced from the audience as a member of the tribe.
Overall, I'd say reporters at APSA were more interesting than professors, and bloggers at least as interesting as journalists. And before attending APSA, I didn't realize that Bush political appointees cared what political science professors thought (a mistake, IMHO).
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Karen Hughes and the Islamists
Thanks to a tip from Powerline (I went to their panel session about Dan Rather at the American Political Science Association over the weekend), I read this disturbing article by Joel Mowbray detailing Karen Hughes' embrace of the Islamic Society of North America, a reportedly pro-Islamist organization according to Mowbray.
Hughes' PR strategy seems to be dangerous, and indicates that the Bush administration may not have learned from its mistakes in the soon-to-be "Islamic Republic of Iraq." The State Department's position on her appearance seems to be a direct provocation to Russia over Chechnya. If I were the Russian ambassador, I'd file a diplomatic protest immediately, based on the information in Mowbray's account, as Hughes' appears to be consorting with supporters of terrorism:
Hughes' PR strategy seems to be dangerous, and indicates that the Bush administration may not have learned from its mistakes in the soon-to-be "Islamic Republic of Iraq." The State Department's position on her appearance seems to be a direct provocation to Russia over Chechnya. If I were the Russian ambassador, I'd file a diplomatic protest immediately, based on the information in Mowbray's account, as Hughes' appears to be consorting with supporters of terrorism:
When asked about much of the above, State spokesman Clay seemed uninterested. He first argued that Hughes' appearance was no big deal, since the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security were also sending representatives. But DHS and DOJ sent low-level department lawyers who are neither principals nor political appointees. Not the same thing as sending someone who's logged countless hours by the President's side.
Clay also defended the appearance before ISNA by noting, 'They do not support terrorism.'
Except when they do.
In a January 2000 press release, ISNA declared, 'In order to honor the Shaheeds and the Mujahideen of Chechnia, ISNA has decided to dedicate Shawwal 1, 1420, the day of Eid al Fitr as 'Solidarity with Chechnia Day' throughout North America.'
'Shaheeds' is the term used by jihadists for glorification of suicide bombers. U.S. law officials think that the 'shaheeds' and 'Mujahideen' in Chechnya are terrorists; many of the most high-profile terror cases since 9/11 have involved support for those forces.
Even giving Clay the benefit of the doubt that he did not know of the Chechnya statement, is lack of support for terrorism the only bar which an organization must clear?
Administration officials--particularly someone of Hughes' prominence--should embrace the organizations fighting the Saudi takeover of Islam in America, not the group perhaps most responsible for perpetrating that very takeover.
Spun off of the Saudi-created and funded Muslim Students Association (MSA) over 20 years ago, ISNA is likely the largest single provider of Islamic materials to mosques in America.
For a sampling of what might be contained in Saudi-sponsored pamphlets and literature, one need look no further than the Freedom House report issued earlier this year. Using Muslim volunteers to gather Saudi-published or sponsored materials in more than a dozen prominent mosques across the country, Freedom House found shocking intolerance, anti-Semitism, and even explicit endorsement of violence.
Bush Can Learn From Putin
That's the advice from Konstantin's Russian Blog, in relation to the tragedy in New Orleans.
The Islamic Republic of Iraq?
Writing in The National Review, Andrew McCarthy responds to Charles Krauthammer's cheerleading on behalf of the Bush administration's new Iraqi constitution, one that make Islam the state religion:
Read the whole thing, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say...
An obsession that all people must submit to the authority of Islam is the beating heart of militancy. Concededly, the proposed constitution is not a militant document — there is much in it that would be anathema to jihadists. Still, the drive to impose Islam formally as the state religion, over the objections of a substantial minority of Iraqis, is hardly an augur of moderation.
Read the whole thing, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say...
Gas Prices Get Personal
Just paid $3.57 a gallon for gas here, near Dulles airport. When I got back to DC, saw the same gallon of gas cost between $3.71 and $3.79.
I'm old enough to remember the Carter Years of stagflation, OPEC, and hostages, so I'd say things are looking a little too much like the 70s already...
I'm old enough to remember the Carter Years of stagflation, OPEC, and hostages, so I'd say things are looking a little too much like the 70s already...
Bush Cronyism in FEMA Disaster
The polite word is "networking," the blunter term is "cronyism" --the result of Washington politics as usual in picking the head of FEMA has been calamity in New Orleans, according to
the Boston Herald (War and Piece had this tip earlier):
Bush's strategy of spreading enough graft around to keep both Republicans and Democrats happy may come back to haunt him and his party. Newt Gingrich, who organized the Republican revolution that began with exposure of a Congressional check-kiting scandal, once said that people will tolerate corruption so long as they receive government goods and services, but that if they don't get them, they won't tolerate corruption--and it can become an explosive political issue.
Also, there are probably some other scandals lurking, such as questions about construction contracts on the New Orleans levees. Why did they give way, could shoddy construction or engineering, or improper inspections, due to corruption, be to blame?
If the Democrats stick to a "good government" political strategy, rather than race-baiting, they stand a good chance to take the House back in 2006 using this issue. Then, they will be in a position to impeach Bush over the New Orleans flood (even if the Senate stays Republican), which may help their chances in 2006. As the Washington Post editorial argued yesterday, literally billions of dollars have been spent on disaster preparedness since 9/11--yet America was totally unprepared for New Orleans. That means money has been lost, wasted, or stolen by President Bush and his administration. So it should be an interesting election year...
the Boston Herald (War and Piece had this tip earlier):
Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado.
``We do disciplinary actions, certification of (show trial) judges. We hold classes to train people to become judges and stewards. And we keep records,'' explained a spokeswoman for the IAHA commissioner's office. ``This was his full-time job . . . for 11 years,'' she added.
Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures.
``He was asked to resign,'' Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night.
Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign.
The White House last night defended Brown's appointment. A spokesman noted Brown served as FEMA deputy director and general counsel before taking the top job, and that he has now overseen the response to ``more than 164 declared disasters and emergencies,'' including last year's record-setting hurricane season."
Bush's strategy of spreading enough graft around to keep both Republicans and Democrats happy may come back to haunt him and his party. Newt Gingrich, who organized the Republican revolution that began with exposure of a Congressional check-kiting scandal, once said that people will tolerate corruption so long as they receive government goods and services, but that if they don't get them, they won't tolerate corruption--and it can become an explosive political issue.
Also, there are probably some other scandals lurking, such as questions about construction contracts on the New Orleans levees. Why did they give way, could shoddy construction or engineering, or improper inspections, due to corruption, be to blame?
If the Democrats stick to a "good government" political strategy, rather than race-baiting, they stand a good chance to take the House back in 2006 using this issue. Then, they will be in a position to impeach Bush over the New Orleans flood (even if the Senate stays Republican), which may help their chances in 2006. As the Washington Post editorial argued yesterday, literally billions of dollars have been spent on disaster preparedness since 9/11--yet America was totally unprepared for New Orleans. That means money has been lost, wasted, or stolen by President Bush and his administration. So it should be an interesting election year...
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Galveston Hurricane of 1900
Wikipedia has interesting entry on the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, a forerunner to Katrina...
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Bush Opens Begging Bowl
The most depressing news yet, from China's Xinhua News Agency:
Can't we take care of our own? Even India refused international aid, after the Asian tsunami...
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States, suffering from heavy death toll and economic losses wrought by Hurricane Katrina, will accept any offers of aid from abroad, the White House said Thursday.
"We are open to all offers of assistance from other nations, and I would expect we would take people up on offers of assistance when it's necessary," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
Also on Thursday, US President George W. Bush has asked his father, former president George Bush and his predecessor, former president Bill Clinton to lead fundraising efforts for the victimsof Hurricane Katrina.
Can't we take care of our own? Even India refused international aid, after the Asian tsunami...
Don't Blame the Neocons
Brendan O'Neill says the Clinton administration built up Al Qaeda, by turning a blind eye to Islamist militants funded and supplied by Iran during the Bosnian conflict in what is now former Yugoslavia. He notes that many reputed Al Qaeda terrorists have well-documented ties to groups active in Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as Chechnya. Unfortunately, the article in The Spectator.co.uk is available by paid subscription only. I hope they open it up...
War and Piece Says FEMA Head Not Qualified
Will Bush's cronyism do him in? War and Piece thinks it might:
My lord, the guy heading FEMA has no qualifications. What was he doing before getting pulled into FEMA by the Bush administration in 2003? He was an estate planning lawyer in Colorado and of counsel for the International Arabian Horse Association Legal Department. And yes, it is the same Michael D. Brown.
He Might Have Stopped...
This White House photo by Paul Morse says it all: Bush is unable or unwilling to get personally involved, in order to help people in New Orleans. He won't stop his plane to get out and take a look, comfort the suffering people of the Gulf Coast, or crack heads to be sure that the job is being done right.
Any other President--or mayor, or governor, or normal elected official in a democracy--would have been down on the ground, in hip boots, wading through the muck, encouraging rescue and recovery efforts. If he didn't want to get wet, Bush might have more closely inspected the damage from a helicopter, as he did in NYC after 9/11. Instead, Bush chose to stay above it all, peering down from the comfort of his Air Force One seat.
The White House has long had the reputation of refusing to put the President in "uncontrolled" situations. He took three days to get to NYC after 9/11, something this New York native has never forgotten. Better late than never...but if Bush can't deal with "uncontrolled" situations in his fifth year in office, IMHO he's not qualified to be President of the United States.
Any other President--or mayor, or governor, or normal elected official in a democracy--would have been down on the ground, in hip boots, wading through the muck, encouraging rescue and recovery efforts. If he didn't want to get wet, Bush might have more closely inspected the damage from a helicopter, as he did in NYC after 9/11. Instead, Bush chose to stay above it all, peering down from the comfort of his Air Force One seat.
The White House has long had the reputation of refusing to put the President in "uncontrolled" situations. He took three days to get to NYC after 9/11, something this New York native has never forgotten. Better late than never...but if Bush can't deal with "uncontrolled" situations in his fifth year in office, IMHO he's not qualified to be President of the United States.
Human Rights Activist Arrested in Moscow Terror Plot
Little Green Footballs tipped us off to this Mosnews story about the activities of former Guantanamo prisoners.
All in all, of the seven Russian Guantanamo prisoners extradited from Cuba in 2004, only two are not in custody.
Airat Vakhitov, arrested Saturday, was engaged in human rights activities in Moscow, Vremya Novostei reports. He wrote articles and was working on a book about rights violations in Guantanamo, was going to travel to London for the former Guantanamo prisoners Round Table, as was Rustam Akhmyarov.
If the police manage to link the two Guantanamo prisoners arrested in Moscow and those arrested in Tatarstan, it may prove that they are related to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the newspaper summed up.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Creative Wins MP3 Patent Fight
Never heard of Pocket Lint before, but this sure is an interesting story about iPods and other MP3 players.
New Orleans Paper Predicted Flooding
You can read the 2002 Times-Picayune series mentioned in today's Wall Street Journal here.
And here's todays' flood coverage.
And here's todays' flood coverage.
How to Help Hurricane Katrina's Victims
Instapundit has posted a list of websites for charities that are trying to help. (ht Little Green Footballs)
Free Judy Miller
I don't often agree with the New York Times editorials, but on this one, we're on the same page. Judy Miller interviewed me during the NEA debate, and she was 100 percent accurate, a good and honest reporter. If she's not going to crack, and she seems like a tough cookie, what's the point, exactly?
The French Were Right...
This article from 2003 by Paul Starobin seems worth a second look.
The Times of India: Looting, Rioting in New Orleans
The Times of India headline about Hurricane Katrina reads: "Looting, rioting in storm-ravaged New Orleans."
Yushchenko Condemns Kiev Attack on Yeshiva Students
The Guardian quotes Yushchenko's condemnation of the recent skinhead attack near the Central Synagogue School in Kiev:
According to the story, Ukrainian authorites now admit the attackers appear to be members of "a skinhead nationalist group."
"Such incidents are unacceptable in Kiev and Ukraine...I will persistently ask all authorities to work hard to prevent any shameful reoccurrence.''
According to the story, Ukrainian authorites now admit the attackers appear to be members of "a skinhead nationalist group."
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Starbucks Fights for Russian Trademark Rights
The Moscow Times has this story, that explains why there were no Starbucks in Moscow when we lived there this past winter. We wondered how it could be, since there were reportedly thousands of Starbucks in China. Turns out that a trademark dispute has held up the company's Moscow plans for several years. As a result, the only Starbucks coffee is found in Mariott hotels; and the only place a Starbucks could legally open would be in the US Embassy--because it is officially American territory. The case is winding its way through the Russian courts, Starbucks v. 000 Starbucks (the Russian company that claims the rights). It seems to be a matter of $600,000, not principle, so perhaps they'll find grounds for a settlement...
Another Iraq Blog
Seraphic Secret tipped us off to Michael Yon's reporting from Iraq...
John LeBoutillier on Iraq
He's worried:
Did US troops fight and die so that a Muslim Theocracy could be imposed in Iraq?
Our whole adventure in Iraq is an example of American intervention run amok. It is why true conservatives never liked the notion of a pre-emptive invasion and we don't believe in 'nation-building.'
We have ended up having the President of the United States calling Abdul Aziz Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and asking him to undo a previous Bush de-Baathification Plan that Bush himself ordered 3 years ago!!! And Hakim is so pro-Tehran that he actually fought on the side of Iran against Iraq in the 1980's!
Iraq is a mess - and no fancy-pants words from Washington are going to change that reality. We have - through the ignorance of a naive and arrogant President with no foreign policy background or understanding - unleashed a monster in Iraq: fundamentalist Islam.
Ironically, it is this strain of Islam that attacked us on 9/11. And we have now helped it advance through the Middle East by handing it another nation - Iraq - in which to establish itself.
The Weekly Standard at 10
Peter Carlson celebrates ten years of The Weekly Standard in today's Washington Post:
A decade ago, I actually discussed the prospect of a new conservative magazine with Bill Kristol. At the time, the National Review published bi-weekly, so by the time it arrived the articles were often out of date. Commentary was a monthly, so really couldn't deal with breaking news. Bill's father had a couple of publications that were also slow to appear, namedly the Public Interest and the National Interest. Even David Horowitz's Heterodoxy was a monthly. On the other hand, The Nation and New Republic came out weekly. Therefore, they seemed to have a timeliness that conservative magazines lacked. So I suggested that any new magazine should not be a monthly or a bi-weekly, but come out weekly, to give liberal journals of opinion a run for their money. He said nothing, but when it came out, it was "The Weekly Standard." Of course, others might have had similar ideas.
The second point I made, and this may have been to someone else involved in the early days, regarded the so-called "back of the book". At the time there was reportedly a debate among the founders, over whether there should be any cultural coverage at all--or just policy oriented serious news and analysis. I believed the back of the book was the most important part of any magazine, that many readers of the New Republic or the Nation read the book reviews, movie reviews, and art reviews, even when they weren't interested in a political question. Since there was a shortage of respectable places that would, for example, review conservative books, or art exhibits, or films, I thought the new publication might provide such a venue. Again, the magazine ended up with a substantial back-of-the-book section, that Peter Carlson called "consistently literate, readable and intelligent. Its cultural essays are excellent." Again, I'm sure I wasn't the only one with this idea, just that I weighed in, as a kibitzer, at an early stage.
Carlson praises writers Andrew Ferguson and Matt Labash, and I have a story there, too. I had my first contact with Ferguson when he was researching an article about Bill Moyers, before I came to Washington. He interviewed me on the phone. Later, he would call from time to time when he was doing a story, as would other Weekly Standard writers. Ferguson is a former speechwriter for President Bush (41) and a funny guy. So, when my PBS book came out, and no review appeared in the Weekly Standard, I called him. Oh, he said and paused, and then added something like, so many books come out, we can't review them all...
I cancelled my subscription.
Without a doubt, the most important idea yet advanced by the Standard came in the essay 'Saddam Must Go,' written by Kristol and Robert Kagan and published in November 1997. The idea was: Hey, let's invade Iraq, conquer Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein for expelling American weapons inspectors.I mixed feelings on this anniversary, since my own Weekly Standard memories are bubbling up, and I am certainly no longer a neoconservative, if I ever had been tending that way. In fairness, Bill Kristol has always been nice to me. When I last saw him, at the Kennedy Center revival of Gian Carlo Menotti's opera, The Consul, he was perfectly friendly. And from time to time I link to some interesting articles they have online. So my perspective on this anniversary illustrates the cliche that success has a thousand fathers.
At the time, nobody paid much attention to the suggestion. But five years later, President Bush dusted off the idea and ordered the Pentagon to execute it. And, as we all know now, it worked perfectly.
Or maybe not. You make the call.
A decade ago, I actually discussed the prospect of a new conservative magazine with Bill Kristol. At the time, the National Review published bi-weekly, so by the time it arrived the articles were often out of date. Commentary was a monthly, so really couldn't deal with breaking news. Bill's father had a couple of publications that were also slow to appear, namedly the Public Interest and the National Interest. Even David Horowitz's Heterodoxy was a monthly. On the other hand, The Nation and New Republic came out weekly. Therefore, they seemed to have a timeliness that conservative magazines lacked. So I suggested that any new magazine should not be a monthly or a bi-weekly, but come out weekly, to give liberal journals of opinion a run for their money. He said nothing, but when it came out, it was "The Weekly Standard." Of course, others might have had similar ideas.
The second point I made, and this may have been to someone else involved in the early days, regarded the so-called "back of the book". At the time there was reportedly a debate among the founders, over whether there should be any cultural coverage at all--or just policy oriented serious news and analysis. I believed the back of the book was the most important part of any magazine, that many readers of the New Republic or the Nation read the book reviews, movie reviews, and art reviews, even when they weren't interested in a political question. Since there was a shortage of respectable places that would, for example, review conservative books, or art exhibits, or films, I thought the new publication might provide such a venue. Again, the magazine ended up with a substantial back-of-the-book section, that Peter Carlson called "consistently literate, readable and intelligent. Its cultural essays are excellent." Again, I'm sure I wasn't the only one with this idea, just that I weighed in, as a kibitzer, at an early stage.
Carlson praises writers Andrew Ferguson and Matt Labash, and I have a story there, too. I had my first contact with Ferguson when he was researching an article about Bill Moyers, before I came to Washington. He interviewed me on the phone. Later, he would call from time to time when he was doing a story, as would other Weekly Standard writers. Ferguson is a former speechwriter for President Bush (41) and a funny guy. So, when my PBS book came out, and no review appeared in the Weekly Standard, I called him. Oh, he said and paused, and then added something like, so many books come out, we can't review them all...
I cancelled my subscription.
Bend It Like Beckham
Speaking of beautiful girls...just saw Bend It Like Beckham (2002), made by the husband-wife team responsible for Bride and Prejudice, Gurinder Chadha and Paul Mayeda Berges. The film is sort of a peep-and-giggle view of women's soccer, showcasing both Indian and English beauties. It has many of the same themes of East meets West, as Bride and Prejudice. There is, as well, similar family dynamic: domineering mother vs. kindly father dealing with problem children. It seemed more calculated, and the montage sequences were pedestrian than the Bollywood-style musical numbers in Bride and Prejudice. Yet, it also had a nice feeling, wasn't ugly or mean, and brought a tear to the eye. The all-star cast was fun to watch, though Juliet Stevenson may have had too much plastic surgery. Can't wait to see what Chadha and Berges do next...
Russia's Beautiful Girls
Stop the presses! The Wall Street Journal has discovered that Russian women look marvelous. But what Edvard Radzinsky isn't telling is that young Russian beauties somehow evolve into tough old Russian babushkas, the kind of women who can force even President Putin to back down--as he did, after protesting pensioners blocked streets in Moscow and St. Petersburg earlier this year...
Ukrainian Attack on Yeshiva Students
During Kiev's "Orange Revolution," Russian media commentators raised charges that neo-Nazi elements were involved, saying that it might lead to a revival of World War II-style Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism. We were living in Moscow then, and watched the old newsreel footage shown on TV of Ukrainian SS men committing atrocities.
At the time, Westerners dismissed such dire scenarios as Russian propaganda.
Now comes news that there may have been something to worry about in Ukraine. Haaretz reports an attack on yeshiva students in Kiev. The official police line is that the incident was not ant-semitic, that the yeshiva boys provoked drunks, who then attacked them. On the other hand, Jewish leaders say it was unprovoked skinhead violence.
At the time, Westerners dismissed such dire scenarios as Russian propaganda.
Now comes news that there may have been something to worry about in Ukraine. Haaretz reports an attack on yeshiva students in Kiev. The official police line is that the incident was not ant-semitic, that the yeshiva boys provoked drunks, who then attacked them. On the other hand, Jewish leaders say it was unprovoked skinhead violence.
Zilberman said that Jewish residents of Kiev continuously encounter acts of anti-Semitism. He said they have appealed to the municipality with a request to protect the city's Jewish community.This news appears to be a troubling indicator that certain very nasty historical forces may have been unleashed, after all.
"It's a flagrant crime ... unfortunately, that is today's reality in Ukraine," said Vadim Rabinovych, head of the All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress. "It's a murder attempt on racist grounds."
Jewish Agency Chairman Zeev Bielski offered the organization's assistance, saying the incident was regarded as very grave.
A Russian-Indian Alliance
According to this news report, Russia is reaching out to India, planning anti-terrorist war games with the Indian military.
It seems as if India may become the new "Jewel in the Crown" of the post-Soviet world.
"The exercise might focus on maintaining stability in central Asia and ensuring the security of oil supplies via sea routes," Kokoshin said.
According to an unnamed Russian general quoted by the daily, the exercise could be conducted as early as in 2006.
"The structure of the Russia-China-India triangle is becoming more rigid. China has made the transition from its former policy of confrontation and, sometimes, bloody border clashes with its neighbours in the north and in the south to a policy of partnership," the daily observed, adding that the rapidly growing Chinese economy needs stability.
"Another sphere of mutual interest is the fight against international terrorism. Russia in the Caucasus, India in Kashmir, and China in Xinjiang have to deal with Islamic terrorists and extremists, whose main bases are in Pakistan and Afghanistan," the daily said.
The idea of Russia-India-China triangle was first floated by Russia's then premier, Yevgeny Primakov in 1998 during a visit to New Delhi.
It seems as if India may become the new "Jewel in the Crown" of the post-Soviet world.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Winslow Homer Reconsidered
On Saturday, we went to the National Gallery of Art to see the new Winslow Homer exhibition. I can't recommend it highly enough, especially since it shows his development from a Civil War combat artist to a pastoral painter of nature. I had no idea so many of his famous paintings had symbolic meaning, such as Breezing Up (A Fair Wind), which is about America recovering from the Civil War, on some level. There are also pictures of the West Indies and Florida--who knew?
Our favorite Winslow Homer is titled: "The Sick Chicken." You can see many of the pictures here.
Ahmed Chalabi: Iraq's "Comeback Kid"
Robert L. Pollock writes about the return of America's onetime ally in Iraq in today's Wall street Journal:
Things now are a little different from the last time I saw Mr. Chalabi, in June 2004. Then, I had to break away from a military delegation headed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The "one-time Pentagon favorite"--what a risible journalistic cliché that's become--wasn't even on official speaking terms with the arch "neo-con" as a result of a National Security Council directive aimed at "marginalizing" him. This meant raiding Mr. Chalabi's home, holding him (unarmed) at gunpoint, and the filing of trumped-up charges against him by a Bremer-appointed judge who has since been dismissed from his job by Iraq's judicial authorities for unethical conduct. Improbable allegations that he somehow obtained and then passed sensitive U.S. information to Iran (another anonymously sourced story Newsweek really ought to revisit) had also appeared. The would-be coup de grace occurred once interim Prime Minister Allawi took power and U.S. forces began stripping Mr. Chalabi's guards of their weapons and permits to carry them. If this was "marginalization," Mr. Chalabi could have been forgiven for wondering if his elimination was the real intention.
But then something unexpected--at least to Mr. Chalabi's detractors--happened. He stayed put. The CIA line was that he was a mere dilettante, who'd give up when the going got rough and retreat to his "five-star hotels" and "Savile Row suits." Indeed, how could it be otherwise, given that he had "no support" in Iraq? But that assessment, like so much else, was part of the CIA's larger Iraq intelligence failure.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Venezuela News And Views on Pat Robertson and Chavez
At Venezuela News And Views, Daniel comments on the Pat Robertson controversy. He doesn't want Chavez dead, he wants him put on trial, and Robertson to shut up.
How Not to Make Friends and Influence People
The Russians detained Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and members of his committee in Siberia, for several hours against their will, according to Jeff Zeleny's article in the Chicago Tribune.
This story is news because, usually people in Washington suck up to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, they don't take him prisoner. I guess this story might be seen as a case of a more traditionally Russian approach to lobbying Congress. On the other hand, TSA security guards once made Congressman John Dingell drop his pants during an airport search, so who knows what else has gone on stateside?
BTW, the Russians say that they don't think this incident will affect US-Russian relations...
PERM, Russia -- The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a U.S. delegation that included Sen Barack Obama (D-Ill.) were held at an airport here for three hours by local officials for unexplained reasons.
After several heated discussions and calls between officials in Perm and Washington the situation was resolved and Russian officials returned the delegation's U.S. passports.
Russian officials offered no explanation for the detention but one border guard did apologize through an interpreter.
Bill Burns, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, interceded to resolve the situation. The delegation was set to travel to Kiev, Ukraine.
The White House, the Secretary of State and the Pentagon's National Military Command Center in Washignton were involved, U.S. officials here said, and contacted counterparts in Moscow attempting to resolve the situation. Earlier Sunday., Sen Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) was detained for about four hours as he tried to fly from a different Russian airport.
This story is news because, usually people in Washington suck up to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, they don't take him prisoner. I guess this story might be seen as a case of a more traditionally Russian approach to lobbying Congress. On the other hand, TSA security guards once made Congressman John Dingell drop his pants during an airport search, so who knows what else has gone on stateside?
BTW, the Russians say that they don't think this incident will affect US-Russian relations...
Lenin's Mistress
I ran into the story of Lenin's mistress Inessa Armand by accident, while googling something else. After living in Moscow and Tashkent, it was so interesting, that I can't help linking to Michael Pearson's 2001 article in the Guardian, adapted from his biography, Lenin's Mistress.
The Observer: Dismay Over Iraq Constitution Mess
The Observer reports: "Despite attempts to put an optimistic gloss on the talks, the failure of Iraqi politicians from the three main groups to reach any kind of consensus has been greeted with dismay in Washington and London, where it had been hoped that President George W Bush's intervention last week to persuade the Shias to accommodate the Sunnis' concerns would break the deadlock."
Paul Lawrence Dunbar Reconsidered
Jabari Asim discusses Shelley Fisher Fishkin and David Bradley's new anthology of Paul Lawrence Dunbar's writings in today's Washington Post Book World:
The last section of the book is devoted to The Sport of the Gods , which seldom packs the punch of Dunbar's best short fiction. It is mostly of interest because it is the only Dunbar novel to feature a largely black cast, not at all surprising when one considers his determination to "be with the age." The plot revolves around the Hamiltons, a black family that flees the South after its patriarch is falsely accused of theft and sentenced to 10 years of hard labor. Without Berry, the head of their household, the Hamiltons fall prey to vice, lust and violence up north in New York.
With the exception of a pair of supporting players, the characters in The Sport of the Gods seldom rise above mere types employed in the service of the author's larger design. This is consistent with Dunbar's approach to storytelling. He wrote to his wife, Alice, "I believe that characters in fiction should be what men and women are in real life -- the embodiment of a principle or idea. . . . Every character who moves across the pages of a story is, to my mind, . . . only an idea." The prevailing idea here echoes themes that Dunbar addressed with some passion in essays such as "The Hapless Southern Negro" and "The Negroes of the Tenderloin." In the latter he cast his sensitive gaze on the development of dysfunctional black ghettoes and concluded, "The gist of the whole trouble lies in the flocking of ignorant and irresponsible Negroes to the great city," an influx that "continues and increases year after year." Joe, Berry's headstrong young son, who comes to no good, symbolizes the futile migration that Dunbar lamented. Chronicling Joe's sordid ordeal, Dunbar's omniscient narrator mentions "the pernicious influence of the city on untrained negroes" and predicts that "the stream of young negro life would continue to flow up from the South, dashing itself against the hard necessities of the city and breaking like waves against a rock."
It is tempting to regard Dunbar's implausibly tidy ending as a bit of wishful thinking. Fishkin and Bradley remind us that Dunbar was dying of tuberculosis as he wrote the novel. Better, perhaps, to read the story's conclusion as evidence that he had not lost faith in his brethren, despite the many opportunities for cynicism and despair with which his short life had presented him. At times he did feel obligated to offer such reassurances. "I do not write as a malicious croaker," he asserted in one essay, "but as one deeply interested in the development of the best that is in the negro."
Saturday, August 27, 2005
More on India...
From our long-term linked blogger friend Prashant Kothari. He's just started a website devoted to the Indian Economy, called IndianEconomy.org...
The Gutter
My sister-in-law is visiting. She's a city planner, she knows I'm a blogger, and so she recommended readingThe Gutter for its discussion of New York's planned replacement for the World Trade Center. Apparently, it's widely read by architects and planners, among others...
What is going on at the National Arboretum? We went there yesterday, and while some of the exhibits were nice--such as the Bonsai house, herb gardens, and such--there were signs of neglect. Unmown lawns gone to seed, empty fountains, unkept trails, and loose stones. And in some areas, the sprinklers were on during the day, subjecting visitors who wanted to walk among the trees and flowers to a soaking. It is still beautiful...but really does need proper attention.
Friday, August 26, 2005
India on My Mind...
India is on my mind, these days. The Indian head of state was in DC getting all sorts of attention from President Bush, not long ago. Last week, I saw Bride and Prejudice, I have a couple of students from India in my course, as well as a number of IT professionals who have gone back to school after their jobs moved to Hyerderabad and Bangalore. The other day, I had coffee with a couple we met in New Dehli, who were stopping by DC on their way back home to Australia. They recommended I read Being Indian: They Truth about Why the Twenty-First Century Will be India's. The author is an Indian diplomat who once headed the Nehru cultural center in Moscow, and now runs the same operation in London. While it is not a done deal, it certainly sounds like India is on the move...
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Exit Roman Abramovitch
RIA Novosti's Peter Lavelle says the oligarch owner of Britain's Chelsea football club is on his way out of his Russian oil business--because he's selling out to the Kremlin:
The sooner Gazprom acquires Sibneft, the better for the Kremlin. With Russia's 2007-2008 election season approaching, buying out Abramovich now will give the Kremlin more time to deal with the political fallout. Additionally, the authorities will be able to spin paying billions to a billionaire as evidence of the state's respect for private property rights - 'the days of stealing assets are in the past.' This may not be completely convincing to an average Russian who dislikes the oligarchs, but it may do wonders to strengthen Russia's investment case.
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection (continued)
In the Weekly Standard, Ed Morrissey connects some more dots that link Mohammed Atta to Saddam Hussein:
...after 9/11, Czech intelligence privately told the United States that it had evidence that al-Ani met with Mohammed Atta on April 9, 2001. Later, the Czechs went public with the information--and to this day, the Czechs insistently stand behind this intelligence. Part of the reason for this insistence is not just a belief in their source, but also a corroborating entry in al-Ani's datebook, which the Czechs apparently discovered during a surreptitious search of the Iraqi embassy after Saddam's fall in April 2003. The datebook contained an entry for an April 2001 meeting with a "Hamburg student," the same description used by Atta himself when applying for his visa. (It is perhaps worth noting that Epstein is the only person to have reported on the existence of this daybook.)BTW, On his 9/11 website, Epstein also makes a persuasive argument that the anthrax attacks may have been linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
However, the 9/11 Commission disregarded the Czech intelligence and declared that Atta had never gone to Prague in April 2001. How did the Commission reach this conclusion?
Senator Kennedy to Block Roberts Nomination
That's Robert Novak's prediction in today's Washington Post. Novak points to the return to Kennedy's staff of James Flug, a 66-year old retired lawyer who, as a young Kennedy aide, helped stop the Carswell and Haynsworth nominations during the Nixon administration. Prepare for a "Borking" of Bush's Supreme Court nominee . . .
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Britain's List of Banned Behaviors
Little Green Footballs led us to this interesting list from the Home Office, published in The London Times, that describes the kind of actions that, after the July 7th bombings, will result in deportation from the United Kingdom:
Terrorist violence
Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
Terrorist acts
Cannot seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
Criminal acts
Cannot foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts
Inter-community violence
Cannot foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Method
Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:
- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
- public speaking including preaching
- running a website
- using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader
War, Revolution and British Imperialism in Central Asia
No, it's not about International Crisis Group's work after the breakup of the USSR, rather Frederick Stanwood's 1983 book, based on documents from the Foreign Office and other primary sources, explains Britain's policy in the Caucases and Turkestan roughly from 1914-1922. The war in the title is World War I, the revolution is the Bolshevik revolution, and British imperialism involved a very real British Empire (colored red on the maps).
That said, the fascination of this historical study is that it is demonstrates the cliche that even paranoids have enemies. For in the wake of World War I, not only did Britain peel off bits of the Ottoman Empire, drawing the lines in the map for today's Middle East and Balkans; Britain also had plans to break up the Russian Empire and take bits of it as well. The places mentioned in British policy memos from 1918 read like today's headlines: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Trans-Causasia (Chechnya), Dagestan, Armenia, Turkestan (today's Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, et al.), Persia (today's Iran), Siberia. As today Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Afghanistan play pivotal roles in the proposed forward strategy, designed to take advantage of Russia's weakness due to revolution and civil war. Russia itself was to be divided in two--an Eastern Siberian republic, with its capital in Omsk, intended as an ally of Britain against a Western Russia that stopped at the Urals. A series of British allies in Turkestan and the Balkans would form a "cordon sanitaire" around the Bolshevik revolution, containing it from spreading to other countries (George Kennan didn't come up with the strategy of containment, it turns out). Britain would obtain a League of Nations mandate to administer a protectorate in Georgia and other such small countries--eerily reminiscent of Lord Patten's position as UN administrator of Kosovo today (Patten is chairman of the International Crisis Group,). These small, weak buffer nations ringing Russia would have been dependent on British financial support. Muslim leaders and white Russians were seen as the natural allies of the British against the Bolsheviks.
Sound familiar?
Anyhow, the policy failed, in part because the British were outfoxed by Lenin, who offered national autonomy to the rulers of Turkestan; and later by Stalin who redrew the maps of both Turkestan and Eastern Europe. And in part because of America. And in part, the author argues, because they didn't know what they were doing. On the British side, only the Government of India (based in Delhi), which opposed the plans and advocated an alternate strategy that sounded a lot like "benign neglect," comes off looking good. One element that really struck this reader was that the British appeared to be equally opposed to both Leninist Bolshevism and "Wilsonian Idealism." They worried that American rhetoric of national self-determination might harm the British Empire, although they preferred an alliance with the US against their perceived enemies at that time: the French and Germans.
Indeed, one might conclude from Stanwood's account that in the aftermath of World War II, it was the the victory of America's Wilsonian Idealism and Lenin's Bolshevism that did cause the collapse of the British Empire. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, it is almost as if we have returned to 1918, with everything in flux once more. No wonder the Russians are worried that the US and EU want to break up Russia. Because, as Stanwood documents, in the aftermath of WWI, that was indeed official British policy. Perhaps we in the West have forgotten what the Russians remember...
That said, the fascination of this historical study is that it is demonstrates the cliche that even paranoids have enemies. For in the wake of World War I, not only did Britain peel off bits of the Ottoman Empire, drawing the lines in the map for today's Middle East and Balkans; Britain also had plans to break up the Russian Empire and take bits of it as well. The places mentioned in British policy memos from 1918 read like today's headlines: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Trans-Causasia (Chechnya), Dagestan, Armenia, Turkestan (today's Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, et al.), Persia (today's Iran), Siberia. As today Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Afghanistan play pivotal roles in the proposed forward strategy, designed to take advantage of Russia's weakness due to revolution and civil war. Russia itself was to be divided in two--an Eastern Siberian republic, with its capital in Omsk, intended as an ally of Britain against a Western Russia that stopped at the Urals. A series of British allies in Turkestan and the Balkans would form a "cordon sanitaire" around the Bolshevik revolution, containing it from spreading to other countries (George Kennan didn't come up with the strategy of containment, it turns out). Britain would obtain a League of Nations mandate to administer a protectorate in Georgia and other such small countries--eerily reminiscent of Lord Patten's position as UN administrator of Kosovo today (Patten is chairman of the International Crisis Group,). These small, weak buffer nations ringing Russia would have been dependent on British financial support. Muslim leaders and white Russians were seen as the natural allies of the British against the Bolsheviks.
Sound familiar?
Anyhow, the policy failed, in part because the British were outfoxed by Lenin, who offered national autonomy to the rulers of Turkestan; and later by Stalin who redrew the maps of both Turkestan and Eastern Europe. And in part because of America. And in part, the author argues, because they didn't know what they were doing. On the British side, only the Government of India (based in Delhi), which opposed the plans and advocated an alternate strategy that sounded a lot like "benign neglect," comes off looking good. One element that really struck this reader was that the British appeared to be equally opposed to both Leninist Bolshevism and "Wilsonian Idealism." They worried that American rhetoric of national self-determination might harm the British Empire, although they preferred an alliance with the US against their perceived enemies at that time: the French and Germans.
Indeed, one might conclude from Stanwood's account that in the aftermath of World War II, it was the the victory of America's Wilsonian Idealism and Lenin's Bolshevism that did cause the collapse of the British Empire. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, it is almost as if we have returned to 1918, with everything in flux once more. No wonder the Russians are worried that the US and EU want to break up Russia. Because, as Stanwood documents, in the aftermath of WWI, that was indeed official British policy. Perhaps we in the West have forgotten what the Russians remember...
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Sharansky's Alternative Gaza Plan
He spoke with Newsmax.com about his opposition to Sharon's disengagement strategy:
Sharansky's own roadmap to peace: no concessions, no funds, no legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they adopt democracy. On the other hand, however, hold forth a lush "Marshall Plan" for the Palestinians if they choose the path to true freedom and democracy.
It's a hard line, but Sharansky recalls that it worked like a charm for Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union - and it would work for Israel against the Palestinians.
"I am convinced that all people desire to be free," Sharansky writes in his latest book. "I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe."
Bull Moose: Bush a Divider, Not Uniter
And he thinks that's why America is losing in Iraq, as support drops at home.
Actually, a credible third-party "Reagan Democrat" candidate (such as Zell Miller) might help the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008, as Perot did in 1992.
The President is now suffering a loss of support from a deeply divided public. Instead of uniting this country, the Bushies have divided it during a time of war and are now paying the price.,,
...We must prevail in the Iraq - but that is impossible without the support of a unified nation. In pursuit of partisan advantage, the Bushies have squandered the unity necessary to win a war.
Our country desperately needs a new politics of national unity and service. For too long, the national interest has taken a back seat to the obsessions of the left and the right to score polarizing, partisan, political points. Can either of the two parties produce an elevated politics?
Or is there a need for a new vehicle?
Actually, a credible third-party "Reagan Democrat" candidate (such as Zell Miller) might help the Democrats re-take the White House in 2008, as Perot did in 1992.
Where are Hollywood's War Heroes? (continued).
Thanks to Roger L. Simon for the link to this confession by Hollywood screenwriter Robert J. Avrech:
Hollywood, once upon a time, was one of the most patriotic colonies on the planet. During World War II, Frank Capra made a series of propaganda films titled “Why We Fight.” Marlene Dietrich put herself through a most grueling schedule visiting and entertaining our troops and selling war bonds. Jimmy Stewart joined the Air Force. Numerous movie stars put their careers on hold to help the war effort. These men and women loved America and understood who the enemy was and why the enemy had to be not only defeated but obliterated from the face of the earth.
Look at Hollywood now. Sean Penn goes to Iraq and apologizes for American war crimes. Hollywood’s patron saint is Michael Moore, its liturgy his package of lies, the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” When this film had its Hollywood premiere, the red carpet was choked with stars just dying to make an anti-Bush statement. We’re talking about movie stars who know basically nothing about politics. To call them fools would be generous. I have spent time with too many of these people, and believe me, if you’re not talking about how beautiful or how talented they are, the conversation sort of just dies.
It is, I kid you not, a badge of honor in Hollywood to hate America....
Inside 9/11
Little Green Footballs recommends watching this new television documentary from the National Geographic Society, on the National Geographic channel. For those who don't have cable, like myself, you can click on video clips at their website.
One question: Will this be shown on PBS, for those who don't have cable?
One question: Will this be shown on PBS, for those who don't have cable?
What's Wrong with Scotland Yard?
Now they are accused of a cover-up in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the unarmed Brazilian, by anti-terrorist police. IMHO Something must have been wrong with Ian Blair's police force, even before July 7th, for the bombing plot to have been able to succeed in the way it did...
What Do Russians Think?
Konstantin's Russian Blog has the results of a Russian public opinon poll that give some idea of how Russians see themselves, as well as how they see Westerners. These results are not surprising to someone who has lived there, but might come as something of a shock to those who didn't know what they thought of us...
Andrew C. McCarthy on Michael Graham
From National Review Online
Why has brutality in the name of Islam endured? Well, it is because, as Graham posits, this violence--driven by an interpretation of scriptures that self-evidently lend themselves to just such an interpretation--has long been coupled with 'an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name.''
The eminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis described the phenomenon in his 1993 book, Islam and the West. Divergences among Muslims in the interpretation of Islam, Lewis explained, are not easily labeled 'heterodox' or 'heretical,' for such notions are Western ones that have 'little or no relevance to the history of Islam, which has no synods, churches, or councils to define orthodoxy, and therefore none to define and condemn departures from orthodoxy.'
Taken together, the lack of formal hierarchy, the plain language of Koranic passages, and what is, indisputably, the military tradition out of which Islam emerged, have made it difficult for Muslims convincingly to condemn terrorism as antithetical to their creed. Meanwhile, acts of terrorism have continued unabated. Thus, the system is open to the reasonable conclusions that: (a) it promotes violence, (b) it has spawned violence, and (c) it has been unable to restrain violence despite the vastly superior number of non-violent adherents.
Michael Graham connected these dots and reasonably found that the system, Islam, was to blame. Now, do I wish he hadn't phrased it quite so bluntly by calling Islam itself a 'terror organization'? Yes. Even if his conclusion was within the bounds of acceptable argument, in the same sense that branding the entire company a 'fraud' is not unreasonable in my multi-national corporation example, the comment was not helpful. It was certain to irritate our allies in the war--authentic moderate Muslims--to call their religion 'a terrorist organization.' And even if Graham was convinced he was right, being right is not always a complete defense to incivility when one has been gratuitously provocative. He certainly could have found a way to apologize for his tone without apologizing for his point.
But all this is substantially mitigated by Graham's closing sentiments. He pointedly left his listeners with the 'good news' that the vast majority of Muslims do not support terror committed in the name of their religion. And he offered what sounded like a very sincere hope that they can and will take steps to marginalize and discredit the militants’ use of Islam.
On balance, Graham did what successful radio hosts do. He made a defensible argument in a manner designed to startle. The controversial phrase was ill-advised, but it was very far from the hanging offense it has become. And while it seems unduly stubborn for him to have resisted at least some expression of regret about his phrasing, that should not, in any event, have been a precondition for keeping his job.
The role of Islam in terrorism is a crucial issue. There is currently a good deal of contention, much of it from Muslim interest groups, that terrorism is a reaction to political conditions rather than a result of doctrine. That many of us would disagree--vehemently--with that assessment hardly means the argument should not be heard. But it is at least equally viable and appropriate to air the position that much of the problem of Islamic terrorism lies with Islam itself--something that even courageous Muslim moderates have acknowledged.
Daniel Pipes on Michael Graham
I disagree with Congressman Tom Tancredo about keeping the option open to "take out" Mecca and with Michael Graham that "Islam is a terror organization." But I do think it vital that they and others be able to conduct a freewheeling discussion about the Koran, jihad, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and related topics, without fearing a reprimand from the U.S. government or a loss of their livelihood.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Michael Graham Speaks Out
He's apparently been blacklisted by ABC because he criticized Islamic fundamentalists--here's his statement. I hope he sues ABC and CAIR for a million dollars...
Democracy and Terrorism
I just received the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs in the mail, and this article on Democracy and Terrorism is worth the cover price. Basically, examination of the available data appears to suggest that democracy fosters terrorism, that authoriarian states have less terrorism, and that while democracy is good in its own right, it may not be a solution to the terrorism problem. China suffers less terrorism than India, for example.
IMHO Bush's use of democracy in an instrumental way actually cheapens the cause of democracy. It is not just a tool for another purpose--democracy is an end in itself. Which is why I'm of the mindset to crush terrorism first, build democracy second...which is the point of another excellent article in the same issue, titled, How to Win in Iraq.
IMHO Bush's use of democracy in an instrumental way actually cheapens the cause of democracy. It is not just a tool for another purpose--democracy is an end in itself. Which is why I'm of the mindset to crush terrorism first, build democracy second...which is the point of another excellent article in the same issue, titled, How to Win in Iraq.
My Cousin's Heart...
...has its own website. and you can read all about it--here.
Russian Intelligence: Terrorists Seek WMD
An article in today's Moscow Times reports Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) charges that terrorists are currently seeking chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
More Iraqi Blogs
For an Iraqi point-of-view on what is going on there right now (Healing Iraq seems to be a little out of date these days), take a look at Iraq The Model. It's put together by two brothers, and has a blogroll of yet more Iraqi blogs.
One of them is called Neurotic Iraqi Wife, and seems very interesting. Here's an excerpt from a recent post:
One of them is called Neurotic Iraqi Wife, and seems very interesting. Here's an excerpt from a recent post:
I ve lost hope in the future of Iraq. I know many of you will find this distrubing but this is generally my own views and what I came to realize by being here. Im sorry, but the free democratic Iraq we all are hoping for wont take place, not now, not in 5 years not even in 10 years unless we get a real government who cares sincerely about the Iraqi people. Iraq needs someone who is honest yet firm, someone who is caring, yet strong. Someone who really is serious in building a country and reviving the people.
People here have no faith in anyone anymore. All the dreams they had during the elections have evaporated, all the hopes have gone and now they live their day just to survive the moment. Some people might think Im painting a very dark picture, Im sorry, but the picture I see from where Im at is dark, extremely dark. Yes you see schools being rehabilitated, yes you see hospitals getting renovated , yes you see construction taking place, bridges, roads, airports, but what does all this mean if people cant enjoy what they see. What do newly painted schools mean, when children get kidnapped???
What does this whole reconstruction mean when you cant even go out and enjoy it. I look at peoples eyes and theres no lustre, its filled with sadness and hopelessness, even me, when I used to see that before, I would try to make them feel better by saying things will change, just give it time, now I dont even dare say these words, for I dont believe in them myself. And whoever says things will change is a dreamer. People are still living in dire circumstances. Electricity is barely there, do you know how that feels when you are in this scorching heat??? Water is not continious. Corruption is everywhere. What kind of a life is this??? Yet Im amazed at how Iraqis are so resilient, they really are survivors, they really have the spirit of Life.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Kurds Charge US Creating Islamic State in Iraq
Ellen Knickmeyer reports on Kurdish unhappiness with Bush administration attempts to establish Islamic law, in today's Washington Post.
IMHO The Kurds are right and the US is wrong in this case. Neither Great Britain nor Israel, both fullly functional parliamentary democracies, have a written constitution...
The working draft of the constitution stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic principles. In talks with Shiite religious parties, Kurdish negotiators said they have pressed unsuccessfully to limit the definition of Islamic law to principles agreed upon by all groups. The Kurds said current language in the draft would subject Iraqis to extreme interpretations of Islamic law.
Kurds also contend that provisions in the draft would allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which would interpret the constitution. That would potentially subject marriage, divorce, inheritance and other civil matters to religious law and could harm women's rights, according to the Kurdish negotiators and some women's groups.
Khalilzad supported those provisions and urged other groups to accept them, according to Kurds involved in the talks.
"Really, we are disappointed with that. It seems like the Americans want to have a constitution at any cost," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the constitutional committee. "These things are not good -- giving the constitution an Islamic face.
"It is not good to have a constitution that would limit the liberties of people, the human rights, the freedoms," Othman said.
IMHO The Kurds are right and the US is wrong in this case. Neither Great Britain nor Israel, both fullly functional parliamentary democracies, have a written constitution...
And Now. . . the Return of the Taliban?
Jonathan S. Landay says they're back in Afghanistan, with funding from Al Qaeda. (ht War and Piece). Which may explain today's news of a bomb blast killing 4 US soldiers. This is serious, as the US loses international prestige. It's like wearing a "kick me" sign...
You just can't have terrorists in government and expect to defeat them. The US didn't allow the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, or Japanese militarist parties in Tokyo. Or Communist parties to share power in Greece or Latin America during the Cold War. So it seems like it was a big mistake for the Bush administration to force Afghans to accept the Taliban in their government. They obviously used restored political clout to protect terrorist operations.
You just can't have terrorists in government and expect to defeat them. The US didn't allow the Nazi party in Germany after WWII, or Japanese militarist parties in Tokyo. Or Communist parties to share power in Greece or Latin America during the Cold War. So it seems like it was a big mistake for the Bush administration to force Afghans to accept the Taliban in their government. They obviously used restored political clout to protect terrorist operations.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
When is a Terrorist Not a Terrorist?
Apparently, whenever the US government says so...
In a number of recent cases, the Bush administration appears to be acting an accomplice to Islamist terrorists, rather than their adversary.
For example, Islamist Chechen terrorists were hailed by a Radio Liberty correspondent who interviewed their spiritual leader, as suspected Uzbek Islamist terrorists were whisked to safety in Romania, in an American-supported airlift. Now, Uighur Islamist terrorist suspects are being protected by the US government. China wants them back, but according to this article in the Taipei Times:
IMHO, if Uighur terrorists aren't terrorists, then nobody is. Their goals, tactics, and organization manifest their ties to Bin Laden's international network.
For example, in a 2003 article published by the Jamestown Foundation, Ahmad Lutfi analyzed a February 25th, 2003 Uighur terrorist attack in Beijing , exploring its strong resemblance to 9/11. He found that the bombers employed Osama bin Laden's modus operandi.
No wonder suspected terrorists in Iran are demanding asylum from Western embassies in Tehran.
With this kind of stuff going on -- especially after the July 7th bombings in London -- the omens bode ill for American leadership in the Global War on Terror.
In a number of recent cases, the Bush administration appears to be acting an accomplice to Islamist terrorists, rather than their adversary.
For example, Islamist Chechen terrorists were hailed by a Radio Liberty correspondent who interviewed their spiritual leader, as suspected Uzbek Islamist terrorists were whisked to safety in Romania, in an American-supported airlift. Now, Uighur Islamist terrorist suspects are being protected by the US government. China wants them back, but according to this article in the Taipei Times:
...as part of its policy to return most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay to their own countries, the US is making an exception in the case of Uighurs. It is reportedly seeking to find a European country that might accept them.
IMHO, if Uighur terrorists aren't terrorists, then nobody is. Their goals, tactics, and organization manifest their ties to Bin Laden's international network.
For example, in a 2003 article published by the Jamestown Foundation, Ahmad Lutfi analyzed a February 25th, 2003 Uighur terrorist attack in Beijing , exploring its strong resemblance to 9/11. He found that the bombers employed Osama bin Laden's modus operandi.
The Chinese government would eventually be forced to admit that it suspects the Xinjiang militant Islamist Uighurs are behind the Beijing bomb attacks. They employed a similarly clever use of symbols: Tsinghua University (China's own MIT), where the first bomb went off, is the alma mater of both Premier Zhu Rongji and Communist Party Chief Hu Jintao. And Beijing University (China's version of Harvard) is where future leaders of PRC are trained, and where some of the country's finest minds are based. This choice of targets by the Uighurs is no coincidence: it highlights, in true bin Ladenian fashion, that Beijing is the enemy against whom the militants are carrying the banner of Jihad. Although his televised statements have made no mention of the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang as a justification for war against the West, bin Laden did list Uighur Muslims among the many nationalities that fill al Qaeda's ranks. Recent reports also indicate that a number of Uighur Mujahadeen are being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.
No wonder suspected terrorists in Iran are demanding asylum from Western embassies in Tehran.
With this kind of stuff going on -- especially after the July 7th bombings in London -- the omens bode ill for American leadership in the Global War on Terror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)