Vladimir Bukovsky: EU May Become New USSR

The Soviet dissident told Brussels Journal that the EU project is dangerous and should now be stopped:

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Patrick Ross: Empower Artists to Aid Culture

Patrick Ross of the Progress and Freedom Foundation takes Lawrence Lessig, author of Free Culture. to task for his campaign against author's rights, such as copyright:

Now it may be in the self-interest of the Type C downloader to obtain "niche" content at no cost. But the vast majority of artists on Anderson's curve are on the "long tail" not at the head of the demand curve. Free Culture defenders like to cite how the Internet has changed things. Here is an example of true change resulting from the Internet; the ability of niche artists to profit from their work, even when it isn't mainstream. For respected scholars to argue that depriving a creator of potential revenue for her work is "harmless to the artist" shows a true disrespect to all artists, and a dangerous compulsion to put the desires of the masses ahead of the rights of individuals.

.

USSR Plotted Pope's Murder

Drudge headlines this Reuters story on Italy's finding that the USSR was behind the attempt on Pope John Paul II.

They might have added that Pope John Paul II--more successfully--plotted and executed the end of the USSR.

In the end, the Pope won (with a little help from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), and the USSR lost.

Something we can celebrate today.

Ann Coulter's Oscar Predictions

Ann says Brokeback Mountain's a favorite for almost everything, then adds:

As a final prediction, for the second year, there will be no mention of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was brutally murdered by an angry Muslim a little over a year ago on the streets of Amsterdam. (Now that's blacklisted!)

Cat Curfews in Europe

To fight the bird flu epidemic, European countries have passed restrictions on the freedom of cats, reports the London Times.

New Sisyphus: Bush's PC War

The retired US State Department official who blogs as New Sisyphus explains the failure of the Bush Doctrine:

Bush lied. Not enough people died.
When President Bush made the case for the War on Terror, it was made in the context of the two main speeches quoted at length above, which constituted the beginning of what has become to be known as the Bush Doctrine. Conservatives signed on to that war effort because conservatives were persuaded that Bush's diagnosis of the problem and intended solution was correct.

From the beginning, I've had reservations about Bush's commitment to the so-called Bush Doctrine. While the initial job--dismantling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan--was approached properly, it also seemed to me that the Administration wanted to win that war on the cheap, expending other people's blood. Conservatives may shake with anger when Senator Kerry charges that Bin Laden got away because we sub-contracted out the fighting at Tora Bora, and I understand that. Kerry is not the man to carry such a charge. However, I think the real reason it resonates so badly is because it is true.

Afghanistan should have been invaded and occupied by a very large all-American army. Unlawful combatants, including Taliban spokesmen, should have been summarily shot, as is proper under both international law and the law of warfare as it has evolved. The war should have gone through Pakistan, laying to waste a government and a country that was the Taliban's main enablers. The entire area should have been laid to waste, destroyed completely and utterly; and then, having delivered the short, sharp punic lesson, we should have withdrawn en masse.

I thought so then, I think so now. Instead, what we got was PC cant about how we were "liberating" the Afghans. What was sold as an unrelenting war instead became a long-term occupation, with us playing at teaching a traditional, hide-bound Muslim society about multi-culturalism, tolerance, love, peace and harmony. We installed a government and backed it with power so weak its writ barely carried into outer Kabul, let alone the badlands. We issued press releases patting ourselves on the back about how many women attended the constitutional convention, as if such a thing would be happening were we not there with guns. Worse still, we then sub-sub-contracted the security work out to NATO, thereby exposing ourselves to every left-wing political party in Europe, who now hold our policy hostage by withholding their consent to new military deployments.

Still, I held my tongue. Look on the bright side: the Taliban are gone, Al-Qaeda is scattered and if the Afghans can salvage something out of the peace that follows, well, that's a good thing isn't it? It's not a perfect world, and the U.S. is acting under great constraint, so maybe this is the best we can hope for. Basically, at its root, the Bush Doctrine still appeared solid to me, though I disputed the tactics employed.

Iraq followed. Unlike the paleo-conservatives, I thought this was generally in line with the Bush Doctrine. For all the reasons Bush set forth (ignore the leftists and their "where is the WMD?" talk-they've lied so much that they themselves now believe their own lies), Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror.

While the planning was on-going, we made the politically fatal and totally self-made error of taking the issue to the United Nations, at the behest of the Hamiltonians/Wilsonians of our own foreign policy institutions and, largely, the British, whose support and whose military we did not and do not need. This decision was fatal because it focused the War on Terror on unimportant, minor concerns. (Did the inspectors receive full and complete access on March 19 or limited access or should they be there at all...blahblahblahblahblah). It also handed the keys of victory to our enemies. Not surprisingly, they promptly hid those keys, where they remain today in between award ceremonies to Michael Moore and shouts of "Abu Ghraib" on the hour.

What political correctness and a squeamishness about all matters religious did to Islamism, the approach to the United Nations did for European and international leftism. Now, thanks to the Bush Administration, all of our actions were to be judged by a Islamist and a Leftist. Every day we ask them if we are winning and every day they say "no;" the news headlines gleefully report our continued failure.

By turning what was an American war against an American enemy into a popularity contest, the Administration surrendered control over the victory conditions, ensuring our failure, which would then further erode popularity, etc. etc. until you just want to throw up.

The American Thinker: Islamism Not Democratic

Andrew J. Bostom says it is delusional to imagine that states governed by Shari'a law can be anything other than totalitarian:

The great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, G. H. Bousquet, wrote in 1950,

“Islam first came before the world as a doubly totalitarian system. It claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law, by the principles of the fiqh, to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer….the study of Muhammadan law (dry and forbidding though it may appear to those who confine themselves to the indispensable study of the fiqh) is of great importance to the world today.”

Bousquet’s admonition to study Islamic Law (Shari’a), or at least recognize the profound importance of its influence on basic Muslim conceptions, has perhaps even greater urgency more than a half-century later, in 2006. While electoral processes in the Islamic Middle East may have further enfranchised the Shari’a-based understanding of hurriyya, it is delusional to equate this conception with the freedom espoused by John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty.”

Andrew McCarthy: Investigate Dubai's Links to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

I have so many links to Michelle Malkin that I am going to link straight to the Andrew McCarthy piece in National Review she quotes in her rebuttal to Bush administration mouthpieces on the Dubai Port Deal:

It cannot be gainsaid that the UAE was an al Qaeda booster before 9/11. Nor should it be minimized that, ever since, the country has vastly improved, giving valuable assistance to our military overseas. Of course, on the latter score, it is worth noting that — the port deal aside — a good relationship with the U.S. is where the UAE's interests lie. Its hospitality to American forces and its billions in purchases of American arms are precious insurance for a tiny autocracy that has sometimes tense relations with menacing Iran. Still, proponents of the ports deal understandably emphasize that the UAE's strides are a welcome development. It is one we should cultivate to the extent we can do so without compromising core principles.

But that means not at the expense of making a mockery of our laws — particularly the laws essential to our security. The ports transaction will be under review for the next 45 days. That probe must include an assessment of the UAE's ties to Hamas and PIJ.

If there is to be anything left of the Bush Doctrine, the United States cannot allow a country in violation of our counterterrorism laws to play a critical role in admitting, storing and transferring shipments into our country. Nor can we abide a lucrative financial arrangement for a country that uses its wealth to underwrite organizations our law designates as terrorists.

If the Bush administration showed "wilfull blindness" to terror links in this case, it might be worse than negligence, at a time of war it just might constitute an impeachable offense...

It's Official: No US Plan For Iraq

So says this article from the Republican-friendly Washington Times(ht War and Piece):

The Bush administration never drew up a comprehensive plan for rebuilding Iraq after the March 2003 invasion, which contributed to a severe shortage of skilled federal workers in Baghdad and to the mismanagement of the country's oil money, according to a new government report.
"There was insufficient systematic planning for human capital management in Iraq before and during the U.S.-directed stabilization and reconstruction operations," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, in a new "lessons learned" report released yesterday. "The practical limitations ensuing from this shortfall adversely affected reconstruction in post-war Iraq."
The Pentagon's initial plans for reconstruction crumbled when it encountered an unexpected foreign and domestic insurgency that looted the country, sabotaged electric and water service, and killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis in 2003 after the ouster of dictator Saddam Hussein.
The administration reacted by quickly establishing the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), directed by L. Paul Bremer, and pumped billions of dollars of United Nations-held oil cash into Baghdad.
But, Mr. Bowen concluded in a report focusing on the CPA's staffing, "[t]he unanticipated post-war collapse of virtually all Iraqi governing structures, substantially hindered coalition efforts to develop and rapidly execute an effective reconstruction program."

NYC Stand Up For Denmark! Rally on Friday March 3rd

Michelle Malkin has posted this announcement from Snarksmith:

There is no way that a city like New York should neglect to stand up for free speech, democracy and secular cosmopolitan values. So I am pleased to inform you that the rally for Solidarity With Denmark is indeed on for this week.

It will be held outside the Danish consulate at One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second Avenue, on FRIDAY, MARCH 3RD, FROM 12:00 PM TO 1:00 PM. (A fitting an emulation of the hugely successful D.C. version.)

I've been in touch with the consul-general himself, and he has graciously welcomed us. I promised the event would be as civilized and dignified as this noble cause demands, and in order to obviate a city permit, please note that NO electronically amplified sound equipment or bullhorns may be used. But signs and placards -- the cleverer the better -- are of course highly encouraged. Relevant cheeses, plastic toy building blocks and Shakespeare allusions also kosher...

Spread the word.

Manifesto: Islamism's Totalitarian Global Threat

From Denmark's Jyllands-Posten(ht lgf):

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

How come I didn't see this manifesto in today's Washington Post? Censorship or self-censorship?

More on this topic at MichelleMalkin.com

What Comes Next in Iraq?

Iraq the Model's Mohammed says there may be attempts to form a united front of Sunnis and Shia against the United States (ht Roger L. Simon):

Clerics will not stop and they will carry on with their plans and I suspect they will launch the next phase of their plan soon after they received instructions from Syria (the Muslim scholars) and from Iran (the Sadrists).
The objective of the second phase will to move the conflict from one on the streets to a conflict with America. That’s not my personal opinion, but it's what clerics themselves are saying including Muqtada who returned from Qum in Iran to organize a joint Sunni-Shia demonstration against the occupation!!

Now the government has rise to the level of the challenge and proceed to take the most important and critical step and disband religious militias of all sorts and limit the influence of clerics-of any sect-in the decision-making process.
I think this is the best time for the new government to tackle this issue as the government now has all the factors that make such a move legitimate and necessary.

John Fund on the Yale Taliban

John Fund (ht lgf) is not happy with the Yale Taliban featured in the New York Times Sunday Magazine:

I don't believe Mr. Rahmatullah had direct knowledge of the 9/11 plot, and I don't think he has ever killed anyone. I can appreciate that he is trying to rebuild his life. But he willingly and cheerfully served an evil regime in a manner that would have made Goebbels proud. That he was 22 at the time is little of an excuse. There are many poor, bright students--American and foreign alike--who would jump at the opportunity to attend Yale. Why should Mr. Rahmatullah go to the line ahead of all of them? That's a question Yale alumni should ask when their alma mater comes looking for contributions.

President Bush, who already has a well-known disdain for Yale elitism from his student days there, may also have some questions. In the wake of his being blindsided by his own administration over the Dubai port deal, he should be interested in finding out exactly who at the State Department approved Mr. Rahmatullah's application for a student visa.

When I was teaching in Uzbekistan, it was almost impossible for my students to get a visa to study in the USA. Even if they had money. Even if they were medical students. So, not only did Mr. Rahmatullah go to the head of Yale's line, my guess is that he jumped to the head of the US visa line, too.

Remember Ukraine?

Neeka's Backlog has new photos of Yulia Timoshenko's campaign. Will she depose Yushchenko to become the next President of the Republic? At this point, from Neeka's pictures, it certainly looks like she's well-organized and well-funded. Hell hath no fury...

UPDATE: The Times of London has this headline Ukraine Turns Back to Russia...

A Russian Anecdote

(Photo by And-rey)

Yesterday, I took a Russian friend to the airport. She was returning to Moscow. Before boarding her flight, while she was putting away her ticket and passport, she told me this story, which somehow seemed very Russian:

There once was a officer in the Soviet army. He was beginning his career, which seemed very bright. He had done well in school, and was a member of the Communist Party. The future stretched in front of him. Everything was possible. Perhaps he would become a general. Then, one day, he didn't know how it happened, he misplaced his Party card. He had to show it, and when he went through his pockets, it was gone.

Losing your Party card was a very serious offense in the USSR. It was interpreted to mean that you didn't care enough about the Party to know where your card was kept. The officer was reported, he was reprimanded, and a note was made in his permanent file. He knew that his career was over. His comrades rose to higher ranks, but he was not promoted.

So, he began to drink.

Years passed. 10, 20 years. Perestroika came and went. The USSR collapsed. The Soviet army became the Russian army. He retired, and lived on a very small pension.

He decided to quit drinking. He straightened himself up a bit. And then one day, he needed to show his documents for something official, and looked through papers in his desk. He would start a new life.

Suddenly, he found himself holding his Communist Party card. "Aha! So it was in my drawer all along."

He began to drink, again.

Some Differences Between the UK and UAE

Since the perceptually challenged President Bush and administration apologists like Frances Fragos Townsend can't see the obvious, Michelle Malkin quotes Walid Phares' list of some differences between the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates:

a) Great Britain is listed as a target by al Qaida, not the UAE; b) Tony Blair was sitting in the US Congress when President Bush declared War on the Taliban in October 2001, not the monarchs of the UAE; c) The UK has a clear strategy against the Jihadist-Terrorists, not the Emirates; and last but not least, the Prime Minister of the Isles declared the ideology of al Qaida as terrorist and criminal, not Dubai’s rulers. These, plus many other considerations grants Britain a clear status of strategic ally in the War with the Jihadists over the UAE’s somewhat cooperation against al Qaida...

Saudi Arabia Behind Danish Cartoon Crisis

So say Dr. Ali H. Alyami and Colonel B. Wayne Quist, who explain the international political calculation underlying the Danish Cartoon Crisis :

Given Saudi influence with the Muslim faithful worldwide, the royal family
failed to exercise restraint in the cartoon controversy and placed its own
narrow self-interests before peace, stability, respect for law, and sanctity
of life. The Saudi regime demonstrated that it would risk plunging the world
into religious war if its domination or survival were perceivably
threatened.

The Saudi decision to initiate a protest against Denmark was based on
well-calculated principles of royal family self-preservation and helped
divert world attention from the Hamas Palestinian election victory,
uncomfortable Kuwaiti succession issues, and the extraordinary Asian
agreements.

The primary goal of the Saudi royal family is to ensure its religious
leadership by crowning itself as the only Muslim government willing and able
to challenge the West and defend Islam at any cost. When asked about his
country’s reaction to the cartoons while attending an Arab Interior Minister
meeting in Tunis, Saudi Prince Naif said, “Nobody can pressure the Kingdom
to change its stand on a basic issue like this. I don't think it is
reasonable for international press or any organization or state to oppose
the decision taken by an Arab and Islamic country on this issue.”

The Saudi government has continually re-emphasized to the international
community the power and control it possesses as presumed leader of the
Muslim community. In contrast to other Arab and Muslim countries, there were
no demonstrations or burnings of flags or embassies in Saudi Arabia because
all forms of public expression are prohibited, despite Interior Minister
Naif's argument to the contrary during his press conference in Tunis when he
said, “Saudi Arabia respects opinion. Everybody has the right to express his
opinion.”

A Question for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Adam Garfinkle, once a speechwriter for former Secretary of Stte Colin Powell, now editor of The American Interest, blogs here that Seth Cropsey--former director of the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty--was present at Chris Hitchen's Stand Up for Denmark! demonstration on Friday.

So, how come, when I googled Hitchens, I didn't find any stories from VOA or RFE/RL? Is the reason censorship, or self-censorship?

I'd say "Prominent Former Bush Administration official attends Christopher Hitchens' Pro-Denmark Rally" seems to be a newsworthy story, especially when the official in question had been the director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, responsible for America's official broadcasting--including to the Arab and Muslim world.

I applaud Seth Cropsey for attending the rally, and now hope that his international broadcastering colleagues will follow his example--and stand up for freedom of speech instead of Islamist extremism, on the air and off...

FYI, here's a link to a search for "Hitchens" at the RFE/RL website that shows nothing about Hitchens' Citizens for Denmark rally.

Dynamic Russia

In Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century: Regional Futures and US Strategy, a 1998 publication from the RAND Corporation's "Project Air Force" co-edited by Zalmay Khalilzad--currently American viceroy in Iraq--one paragraph jumps out as something Dick Cheney might want to pay attention to before he plans anything rash at the upcoming G-8 summit meeting in St. Petersburg:

Dynamic Russia. The essential feature of this outcome would be a Russian "economic miracle," perhaps analogous to that which occurred in West German, Italy, and Japan in the 1950s and 60s, or such has occured in the emerging markets of East Asia in recent years. With a stable political system, free markets, and abundant natural and human resources, Russia might begin an economic "takeoff" in the course of the next several years, and sustain 8-10 percent per annum GDP growth for a decade or more. A dynamic Russia might not have overtly hegemonic aspirations toward the countries on its periphery. Indeed, a focus on improved living standards, consumption and investment by individuals and firms could direct attention away from international aspirations and could facilitate the normalization of Russia as a nation-state, much the way Japan, France, Turkey and other countries redefined themselves in the period after empire. Nonetheless, a dynamic Russia inevitably would exercise a high degree of influence on its neighbors through trde and investment, particularly if some of these countries lagged Russia in economic performance. (p.289)

In other words, a "dynamic Russia" is in America's interest. This is something that I am sure President Putin would agree with, and provides a better blueprint for American policy at the G-8 summit than anything I've seen coming out of the Bush administration nowadays (at least anything that has been published the Washington Post).

Reese Schonfeld on CNN's Danish Cartoon-phobia

Ted Turner's co-founder of CNN, Reese Schonfeld, doesn't think much of CNN's non-coverage of the Danish Cartoon Crisis:

Does CNN journalism now duck provocation because someone involved may think the provocation was unnecessary? What kind of a standard is that? Does CNN conform its journalism to the “expectations to the audience as a whole?” Does CNN let its audience determine that a subject is of “no intrinsic news values.”

Rose defends his editorial decision but Verjee cuts him short and quotes The Guardian reporting that three years ago Rose’s paper “actually refused to run cartoons that essentially poked fun at Jesus Christ and the Resurrection” because “they would be offensive to readers. Is that true?” she snaps at him. Then she cuts him short and suggests his paper is guilty of “double standards.” . . .

. . . Throughout the interview Rose has attempted to show the cartoons that are the subjects of the interview. But every time he holds one up the camera tilts away. I assume that CNN is so concerned about the reaction in the Arab world that it censors itself. May it rue the day.

Maybe now that he's left AOL-Time Warner, Ted Turner and Reese can get back together again to develop a really balanced and objective news channel--if they did, I'd want to work there...