We are extremely happy that Gillian Gibbons has been returned to the safety and sanity of Christendom.
(By the way, for those of you who ridicule or even disapprove of the notion that such a realm as “Christendom” exists, over what borderland do you think Ms. Gibbons has just returned to safety and sanity?)
Anyway, I wouldn’t ridicule Ms. Gibbons for the world. She is now answering interviewer questions about how she feels about her recent ordeal, and she is clearly unwilling to say anything negative about her captors, i.e., the Sudanese government, the Sharia court, and that country's religious mobs, nor its religion.
It may just be she's one of those mild-mannered types who simply are not capable of taking offense. She may also be concerned that if she says anything negative about Islam her Western colleagues back at the Unity School might be lynched, the way she very nearly was. She must be well aware that the religious leaders in Khartoum have explained the teddy-bear incident as a western plot to insult the Prophet.
So I don't want to make fun. I just find it interesting that Gibbons would use her moment of international fame--peaking as the entire civilized world is breathing a collective sigh that she has escaped her captors--to use her fame to say:
she didn't want her experience “to put anyone off going to Sudan - in fact I know of a lovely school that needs a new Year Two teacher.”
(I can just imagine the first Western interviewer for that job. “Yes, that salary sounds quite acceptable, and the school is lovely! Oh, and, by the way, does that secretary still work here, you know, the vindictive one who dropped a dime to the Sharia Gestapo about the last teacher in this position?”)
Yesterday I noted that Fox News reporter Steve Centanni claimed similar benevolent feelings towards Islam, even as he was describing being forced to convert to the religion at gunpoint. (“I have the highest respect for Islam…I learned a lot of good things about it”).
Then, like Ms. Gibbons, Centanni made this similarly weird recommendation of Gaza on the very heels of his own horrifying experience of being kidnapped:
I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted…The world needs to know more about them. Don't be discouraged.
(Actually, thanks to Centanni’s experiences there, the world’s knowledge of Gazans has been dramatically enlarged).
But in view of his invitation to journalists everywhere to come visit beautiful Gaza, I do point out that Centanni, the former Fox News international correspondent has been, ever since then, Fox News national correspondent.
Lately, the closest he’s been willing to get to known terrorist hangouts is to report from the UN--and even then he reads his notes safely on the far side of First Avenue.)
Nor do we blame him one bit for staying safely in the United States, and the hell out of Gaza or any other parts of the Dar al-Islam.
And if he doesn't want to attack Islam or Gazan terrorists for what happened to him, I guess he has his reasons. But why tell other journalists to come back and pretend that journalist kidnappings and murders don't happen? why must Ms. Gibbons advise other mild-mannered schoolteaching naïfs to come to Sudan as if it is a perfectly safe and lovely place?
Blame it on the Stockholm Syndrome, I suppose.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
Sudan Mulls 'No Muhammad Left Behind Act'
According to the news reports, the Gibbons fiasco boiled down to this in the end:
In September, Gibbons allowed her students at a private Khartoum school to pick their favorite name for a teddy bear as part of a project on animals. Most of them chose Muhammad, a popular name for males in Sudan as well as the name of Islam's founding prophet.
Sudan enforces strict Islamic sharia law that makes it a crime to insult the Islamic religion. (“British Teacher Released in Sudan”).
There are always lessons to be learned from these things, especialy for folks like me who like to examine international tragedies and ask, "How is this our fault?"
In this instance, I think this has to make us all more aware of the tragedy of the underfunded Sudanese madrasses, which clearly have failed in their educational mission to teach 7-year-olds every imaginable example of what could be insulting to the Prophet. Ignorance is such a terrible thing. And if anybody anywhere on Earth is underfunded, it's our fault.
And if only these little kids had known the don't-insult-the-Prophet rule, then the already-suffering nation of Sudan would not have had its heart broken in this way.
What I mean is that it was the little tykes, wasn't it, (and most of the males among them named “Muhammad” themselves), who came up with the gravely blasphemous idea for naming their class teddy bear.
All Ms. Gibbons did was allow them to do it. (Okay, she did also happen to be British, an infidel, and a woman, three more things Allah takes a dim view of.)
Oh, and did I say that was "all" she did? I make it sound as if it was nothing at all!
But getting back to the first-degree teddy naming incident, it's unclear how these young folks had ever reached the age of 7 without knowing just how offensive to the Prophet naming a stuffed animal for him was going to be. The enormity of the thing certainly seemed self-evident to their parents, to the Sharia judges, to the police, and to the mobs running around with swords in the streets of Khartoum calling for English blood. Why hadn't they passed this beautiful knowledge onto their own kids?
At 7, these pupils are certainly plenty old enough to understand basic moral absolutes, and even some things about self-preservation. By 7, for instance, you already know not to touch a hot stove, or not to run in front of cars, or that it's wrong to kill your neighbor unless in obedience to an official fatwah.
But if only these little Muhammads had known more about their Namesake, and especially about how touchy he was about his followers guarding his own name and dignity (even 14 centuries after his death), then maybe they would have abstained from giving the teddy that name.
Either that, or the kids would have known enough to rise up themselves and slay Ms. Gibbons for letting them do it.
Nor would that have made one particle less sense than what actually happened.
In September, Gibbons allowed her students at a private Khartoum school to pick their favorite name for a teddy bear as part of a project on animals. Most of them chose Muhammad, a popular name for males in Sudan as well as the name of Islam's founding prophet.
Sudan enforces strict Islamic sharia law that makes it a crime to insult the Islamic religion. (“British Teacher Released in Sudan”).
There are always lessons to be learned from these things, especialy for folks like me who like to examine international tragedies and ask, "How is this our fault?"
In this instance, I think this has to make us all more aware of the tragedy of the underfunded Sudanese madrasses, which clearly have failed in their educational mission to teach 7-year-olds every imaginable example of what could be insulting to the Prophet. Ignorance is such a terrible thing. And if anybody anywhere on Earth is underfunded, it's our fault.
And if only these little kids had known the don't-insult-the-Prophet rule, then the already-suffering nation of Sudan would not have had its heart broken in this way.
What I mean is that it was the little tykes, wasn't it, (and most of the males among them named “Muhammad” themselves), who came up with the gravely blasphemous idea for naming their class teddy bear.
All Ms. Gibbons did was allow them to do it. (Okay, she did also happen to be British, an infidel, and a woman, three more things Allah takes a dim view of.)
Oh, and did I say that was "all" she did? I make it sound as if it was nothing at all!
But getting back to the first-degree teddy naming incident, it's unclear how these young folks had ever reached the age of 7 without knowing just how offensive to the Prophet naming a stuffed animal for him was going to be. The enormity of the thing certainly seemed self-evident to their parents, to the Sharia judges, to the police, and to the mobs running around with swords in the streets of Khartoum calling for English blood. Why hadn't they passed this beautiful knowledge onto their own kids?
At 7, these pupils are certainly plenty old enough to understand basic moral absolutes, and even some things about self-preservation. By 7, for instance, you already know not to touch a hot stove, or not to run in front of cars, or that it's wrong to kill your neighbor unless in obedience to an official fatwah.
But if only these little Muhammads had known more about their Namesake, and especially about how touchy he was about his followers guarding his own name and dignity (even 14 centuries after his death), then maybe they would have abstained from giving the teddy that name.
Either that, or the kids would have known enough to rise up themselves and slay Ms. Gibbons for letting them do it.
Nor would that have made one particle less sense than what actually happened.
'They Made Me a Criminal'
Or, in this case, a liar, as well. Today, wrongfully persecuted British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, after at last being released back into the protection of Christendom,
"issued a statement saying she has great respect for Islam, and apologizing for any distress she had caused to the people of Sudan."
Of absolutely no surprise to anybody, Ms. Gibbons, “is expected to leave the country as soon as possible.”
But I don’t believe Ms. Gibbons can be held culpable for her little white lie about having great respect for Islam, considering she’s spent her last few days in a nightmare even Kafka wouldn’t have dreamt up, with a sword suspended over her neck, literally.
Fox News reporter Steve Centanni also assured the world after he was kidnapped, mistreated, forced to convert to Islam under threat of being shot to death, and had the threat of violent murder held over him for days by Islamic thugs, that none of that would detract from his high view of Islam:
“Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on.” (“Gaza: Fox News crew released”).
We’re still waiting for Centanni to share all the “good things” he learned about Islam even as he was being held captive by jihadist thugs.
I'm not really blaming Centanni for what he said, and I certainly don’t blame Ms. Gibbons for what she is saying, especially while she remains on Sudanese soil. It was Islam that twisted these falsehoods out of them, the way it twists and darkens everyone it touches.
"issued a statement saying she has great respect for Islam, and apologizing for any distress she had caused to the people of Sudan."
Of absolutely no surprise to anybody, Ms. Gibbons, “is expected to leave the country as soon as possible.”
But I don’t believe Ms. Gibbons can be held culpable for her little white lie about having great respect for Islam, considering she’s spent her last few days in a nightmare even Kafka wouldn’t have dreamt up, with a sword suspended over her neck, literally.
Fox News reporter Steve Centanni also assured the world after he was kidnapped, mistreated, forced to convert to Islam under threat of being shot to death, and had the threat of violent murder held over him for days by Islamic thugs, that none of that would detract from his high view of Islam:
“Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on.” (“Gaza: Fox News crew released”).
We’re still waiting for Centanni to share all the “good things” he learned about Islam even as he was being held captive by jihadist thugs.
I'm not really blaming Centanni for what he said, and I certainly don’t blame Ms. Gibbons for what she is saying, especially while she remains on Sudanese soil. It was Islam that twisted these falsehoods out of them, the way it twists and darkens everyone it touches.
Love for Sale
This is getting to be a bore.
Last week in Detroit the third of the El Aouar sisters, Elfat El Aouar, (Talal Chahine’s most recent wife), pleaded guilty in federal court to entering into a fake marriage in order to obtain US citizenship by fraud. (“LaShish owner's wife pleads guilty”).
Her two sisters, Nada Nadim Prouty, a former FBI and CIA agent, and Rula Al-Aouar, a physician, both obtained their citizenship the same way, by paying men who were already US citizens to marry them, (although Prouty’s rented groom claims he was never paid). Once the brides had citizenship they divorced their husbands, to whom they were married, apparently, in name only.
So now that’s one co-owner of a million-dollar restaurant chain, one became a medical specialist, (OB-GYN), and one who managed to get hired into two important jobs, first by the country’s top police agency, and then by its top spy agency.
These ladies obviously are smart enough that they could have become citizens through a legal route.
I wonder why they didn’t take it?
Last week in Detroit the third of the El Aouar sisters, Elfat El Aouar, (Talal Chahine’s most recent wife), pleaded guilty in federal court to entering into a fake marriage in order to obtain US citizenship by fraud. (“LaShish owner's wife pleads guilty”).
Her two sisters, Nada Nadim Prouty, a former FBI and CIA agent, and Rula Al-Aouar, a physician, both obtained their citizenship the same way, by paying men who were already US citizens to marry them, (although Prouty’s rented groom claims he was never paid). Once the brides had citizenship they divorced their husbands, to whom they were married, apparently, in name only.
So now that’s one co-owner of a million-dollar restaurant chain, one became a medical specialist, (OB-GYN), and one who managed to get hired into two important jobs, first by the country’s top police agency, and then by its top spy agency.
These ladies obviously are smart enough that they could have become citizens through a legal route.
I wonder why they didn’t take it?
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Berger/Clinton Foreign Policy: A Bridge to the Muslim World?
In the December 2007 issue of First Things, Father Richard John Neuhaus writes:
Remember the Kosovo War of 1996-1999? It turns out that, in the Albanian-dominated areas of the Balkans that had been conquered by the Ottoman Empire, there were, going back to the seventeenth century, thousands of Catholic Christians who nominally, “converted” to Islam but continued to practice their faith surreptitiously. Now these crypto-Catholics, as they are called, are out in the open and building, or rebuilding, the churches in their villages. For a long time, people visited priests secretly, and their baptisms were recorded in closely regard registries, since there were severe penalties for Muslims receiving Christian sacraments. This resurgence of Christianity is probably not what Sandy Berger, the national security adviser at the time, had in mind when, on May 7, 1996, he spoke to the American Muslim Council, assuring them that President Clinton’s policy in Kosovo was in support of building “a bridge between the United States and the Muslim world.” In the same speech, he said that international terrorism “is a problem many Americans mistakenly link to Islam.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Berger is still baffled by how many Americans continue to make that mistake. As recently reported, Mr. Berger, having put behind him the legal difficulties occasioned by his stealing classified documents, is foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Remember the Kosovo War of 1996-1999? It turns out that, in the Albanian-dominated areas of the Balkans that had been conquered by the Ottoman Empire, there were, going back to the seventeenth century, thousands of Catholic Christians who nominally, “converted” to Islam but continued to practice their faith surreptitiously. Now these crypto-Catholics, as they are called, are out in the open and building, or rebuilding, the churches in their villages. For a long time, people visited priests secretly, and their baptisms were recorded in closely regard registries, since there were severe penalties for Muslims receiving Christian sacraments. This resurgence of Christianity is probably not what Sandy Berger, the national security adviser at the time, had in mind when, on May 7, 1996, he spoke to the American Muslim Council, assuring them that President Clinton’s policy in Kosovo was in support of building “a bridge between the United States and the Muslim world.” In the same speech, he said that international terrorism “is a problem many Americans mistakenly link to Islam.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Berger is still baffled by how many Americans continue to make that mistake. As recently reported, Mr. Berger, having put behind him the legal difficulties occasioned by his stealing classified documents, is foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Obama Country
“Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there.”
Obama identifies himself as a Christian, and I always take people at face value on that. And it was just a joke. And one of the Left’s worst vices is their utter incapacity to let a joke just be a joke, so I don’t want to make too much of it.
But it is amusing to me that this remark tracks one of the peculiar conceits of Islam, which is that once a land comes under the conquest of Islam, it is to be considered Islamic land even after the Muslims are ejected, as they were from Andalusia in Spain in the 15th Century.
But, as I said, it was just a joke, and that's how I'm taking it.
Obama identifies himself as a Christian, and I always take people at face value on that. And it was just a joke. And one of the Left’s worst vices is their utter incapacity to let a joke just be a joke, so I don’t want to make too much of it.
But it is amusing to me that this remark tracks one of the peculiar conceits of Islam, which is that once a land comes under the conquest of Islam, it is to be considered Islamic land even after the Muslims are ejected, as they were from Andalusia in Spain in the 15th Century.
But, as I said, it was just a joke, and that's how I'm taking it.
D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Five long years I thought you were my man
But I found out
I'm just a link in your chain
--Aretha Franklin, Chain of Fools
I think that’s closer to 40 years by now. Forty long years.
And it’s the same message to Michigan Blacks from the Democratic Party:
You’re just a link in the chain.
Democratic Party excludes Michigan from national convention
The Democratic Party on Saturday barred Michigan from next summer's national convention, the expected -- and likely temporary -- punishment for holding a Jan. 15 presidential primary.
The national party's rules committee voted to ban all but a handful of Michigan officials from the Denver convention, at which the party's presidential nominee will formally be chosen. The move was widely expected -- it's the same penalty the committee handed down in August to Florida, which like Michigan is holding a January contest. Just four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- are allowed to do so under the party's calendar rules.
Michigan Black voters:
Do not--
Do not--
Do not kid yourselves.
The Democratic Party is punishing you, fearing not at all that you will make them pay in November 2008. They take you for granted, because they believe so strongly that you're going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how the Party, or the presidential candidates, treat Michigan’s Democratic voters.
They do this because--
History proves Michigan Blacks always vote for the Democratic candidates regardless of how the party, or the candidates, treat them.
Someone whom I respect profoundly, (okay, it was me) remarked on this last May, after the chicken-shit Democratic candidates refused to participate in a planned televised debate in Detroit organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, only because it was going to be broadcast by Fox News--which terrified them all that they’d be asked a tough question by a Mara Liasson
or Juan Williams, as opposed to carefully vetted YouTube plants.
You remember. The DNC dissed heck out of Black Detroit and the Black Caucus, and the Michigan civil rights and political hotshots stayed home in droves, and never made a peep.
At the time, I wrote a rather pointed post aimed at Detroit’s voters of color: (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”) , making the following, trenchant observation:
Sadly, this story shows up a lot more than just the cowardice of the leading Democratic candidates to face critical questioners on Fox. The real revelation is how cocksure all five candidates must be of Detroit's votes if they can scorn an opportunity to honor the city's primarily black voters in a debate featuring their city.
You can count on it that not one of these dropouts thinks he or she is risking any but the tiniest of political costs by staying away.
And that’s because not one of these 5 candidates seriously doubts that, if nominated, he or she will carry Detroit in November 2008: no matter what he does, or fails to do, to either earn those votes--or earn that respect--from Detroit’s voters.
Isn't it just common sense that Democratic candidates aren’t going to break a sweat to earn what's always been given away for free?
Alas, and isn't this just the treatment Detroit’s black voters have earned from the party to whom they’e always been so faithful--so faithful in spite of everything?
Aretha Franklin once musically explained this predicament:
You got me where you want me
I ain't nothing but your fool
You treated me mean oh you treated me cruel
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools
For about the 11,507th time since 2000 the Democratic Party has once more shown itself to be actually guilty of the awful things they're always unfairly maligning Republicans for doing, in this case being unconcerned about the "poor," or "minorities," except as they can use them to gain votes.
Even John Dingell, in an extremely unusual moment of near-lucidity, responded in shock to this latest act of disrespect to Michigan by the DNC this way:
“Democrats are the party of the people, not the party of privilege,” Dingell said after the ruling. “The other party is the party of privilege, and yet they have treated all the states equally.”
This isn't supposed to happen, is it, Congressman?
Then there was this to think about:
Before punishing Michigan on Saturday, the committee approved waivers for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, allowing those states to move their contests earlier than their assigned dates -- and prompting accusations of inequitable enforcement of the rules from Michigan officials. All three of those states were assigned January dates that they have moved from; New Hampshire, for example, was assigned Jan. 22, but will vote on Jan. 8.
“The DNC’s selective enforcement of the party rules demonstrates once again the unconscionable power of New Hampshire and Iowa to dominate and distort the presidential nominating process,” Levin said.
That would be Michigan’s Senator-for-Life, Carl Levin, deflecting blame for the DNC’s “selective enforcement” onto New Hampshire and Iowa’s “unconscionable power,” rather than where it clearly belongs--on the DNC leadership and the candidates themselves. They're the ones who take Michigan’s Democratic voters so for granted, and the ones who feel they can treat the state's loyal Dem voters as second-class citizens, and still remain smugly confident that Michigan is a safe Democrat state.
And why are the national Democrats so sure of themselves?
Because it’s still unthinkable to a majority of African American voters to consider voting for the Republican Party, that's why.
And it's not just the differences in the issues and the policies between the two parties. You see, there’s so much more at stake then just naked political self-interest. There’s all that symbolism, all that history, all that baggage of racism and denial of civil rights.
And if you think about it, how could it not require an enormous effort of historical amnesia for the average Black voter to be able to actually throw the lever for a Party that went to war to preserve slavery, that fought against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, that used the Ku Klux Klan as its armed terror wing, created and enforced Jim Crow, practiced and defended lynching, and filibustered the civil rights act as recently as 1964.
But hey, hold on there!
Hasn't the average Black voter in Michigan already overcome all this historical baggage, because he already votes for the Democratic Party.
Every time.
Faithfully.
And has done for nearly forty years. Forty long years.
Politics is supposed to be driven by self-interest. But in Michigan that theory is not always demonstrated, which is one reason we’re in the shape we’re in.
It also explains why the Democratic Party can go right ahead and disrespect the state’s Congressional Black Caucus by boycotting a televised debate just for not being moderated by their toadies, and then a few months later come back and slap state Democrats around for daring to want an earlier primary date.
"Those spots are reserved for New Hampshire and Iowa turn, folks. Just you keep on moving quietly right on to the seats in the back there."
I'm afraid it doesn’t look as if self-interest is going to be what drives Michigan’s Democratic voters in 2008, either.
Maybe next time? Or not?
One of these mornings the chain is gonna break
But up until then, yeah, I'm gonna take all I can take
Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain,
Chain of fools
But I found out
I'm just a link in your chain
--Aretha Franklin, Chain of Fools
I think that’s closer to 40 years by now. Forty long years.
And it’s the same message to Michigan Blacks from the Democratic Party:
You’re just a link in the chain.
Democratic Party excludes Michigan from national convention
The Democratic Party on Saturday barred Michigan from next summer's national convention, the expected -- and likely temporary -- punishment for holding a Jan. 15 presidential primary.
The national party's rules committee voted to ban all but a handful of Michigan officials from the Denver convention, at which the party's presidential nominee will formally be chosen. The move was widely expected -- it's the same penalty the committee handed down in August to Florida, which like Michigan is holding a January contest. Just four states -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina -- are allowed to do so under the party's calendar rules.
Michigan Black voters:
Do not--
Do not--
Do not kid yourselves.
The Democratic Party is punishing you, fearing not at all that you will make them pay in November 2008. They take you for granted, because they believe so strongly that you're going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how the Party, or the presidential candidates, treat Michigan’s Democratic voters.
They do this because--
History proves Michigan Blacks always vote for the Democratic candidates regardless of how the party, or the candidates, treat them.
Someone whom I respect profoundly, (okay, it was me) remarked on this last May, after the chicken-shit Democratic candidates refused to participate in a planned televised debate in Detroit organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, only because it was going to be broadcast by Fox News--which terrified them all that they’d be asked a tough question by a Mara Liasson
or Juan Williams, as opposed to carefully vetted YouTube plants.
You remember. The DNC dissed heck out of Black Detroit and the Black Caucus, and the Michigan civil rights and political hotshots stayed home in droves, and never made a peep.
At the time, I wrote a rather pointed post aimed at Detroit’s voters of color: (“Why Buy the Cow When You Can Milk It for Free?”) , making the following, trenchant observation:
Sadly, this story shows up a lot more than just the cowardice of the leading Democratic candidates to face critical questioners on Fox. The real revelation is how cocksure all five candidates must be of Detroit's votes if they can scorn an opportunity to honor the city's primarily black voters in a debate featuring their city.
You can count on it that not one of these dropouts thinks he or she is risking any but the tiniest of political costs by staying away.
And that’s because not one of these 5 candidates seriously doubts that, if nominated, he or she will carry Detroit in November 2008: no matter what he does, or fails to do, to either earn those votes--or earn that respect--from Detroit’s voters.
Isn't it just common sense that Democratic candidates aren’t going to break a sweat to earn what's always been given away for free?
Alas, and isn't this just the treatment Detroit’s black voters have earned from the party to whom they’e always been so faithful--so faithful in spite of everything?
Aretha Franklin once musically explained this predicament:
You got me where you want me
I ain't nothing but your fool
You treated me mean oh you treated me cruel
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools
For about the 11,507th time since 2000 the Democratic Party has once more shown itself to be actually guilty of the awful things they're always unfairly maligning Republicans for doing, in this case being unconcerned about the "poor," or "minorities," except as they can use them to gain votes.
Even John Dingell, in an extremely unusual moment of near-lucidity, responded in shock to this latest act of disrespect to Michigan by the DNC this way:
“Democrats are the party of the people, not the party of privilege,” Dingell said after the ruling. “The other party is the party of privilege, and yet they have treated all the states equally.”
This isn't supposed to happen, is it, Congressman?
Then there was this to think about:
Before punishing Michigan on Saturday, the committee approved waivers for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, allowing those states to move their contests earlier than their assigned dates -- and prompting accusations of inequitable enforcement of the rules from Michigan officials. All three of those states were assigned January dates that they have moved from; New Hampshire, for example, was assigned Jan. 22, but will vote on Jan. 8.
“The DNC’s selective enforcement of the party rules demonstrates once again the unconscionable power of New Hampshire and Iowa to dominate and distort the presidential nominating process,” Levin said.
That would be Michigan’s Senator-for-Life, Carl Levin, deflecting blame for the DNC’s “selective enforcement” onto New Hampshire and Iowa’s “unconscionable power,” rather than where it clearly belongs--on the DNC leadership and the candidates themselves. They're the ones who take Michigan’s Democratic voters so for granted, and the ones who feel they can treat the state's loyal Dem voters as second-class citizens, and still remain smugly confident that Michigan is a safe Democrat state.
And why are the national Democrats so sure of themselves?
Because it’s still unthinkable to a majority of African American voters to consider voting for the Republican Party, that's why.
And it's not just the differences in the issues and the policies between the two parties. You see, there’s so much more at stake then just naked political self-interest. There’s all that symbolism, all that history, all that baggage of racism and denial of civil rights.
And if you think about it, how could it not require an enormous effort of historical amnesia for the average Black voter to be able to actually throw the lever for a Party that went to war to preserve slavery, that fought against the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, that used the Ku Klux Klan as its armed terror wing, created and enforced Jim Crow, practiced and defended lynching, and filibustered the civil rights act as recently as 1964.
But hey, hold on there!
Hasn't the average Black voter in Michigan already overcome all this historical baggage, because he already votes for the Democratic Party.
Every time.
Faithfully.
And has done for nearly forty years. Forty long years.
Politics is supposed to be driven by self-interest. But in Michigan that theory is not always demonstrated, which is one reason we’re in the shape we’re in.
It also explains why the Democratic Party can go right ahead and disrespect the state’s Congressional Black Caucus by boycotting a televised debate just for not being moderated by their toadies, and then a few months later come back and slap state Democrats around for daring to want an earlier primary date.
"Those spots are reserved for New Hampshire and Iowa turn, folks. Just you keep on moving quietly right on to the seats in the back there."
I'm afraid it doesn’t look as if self-interest is going to be what drives Michigan’s Democratic voters in 2008, either.
Maybe next time? Or not?
One of these mornings the chain is gonna break
But up until then, yeah, I'm gonna take all I can take
Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain,
Chain of fools
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Are These People Religious Hijackers?
Every American who cares about such things is already familiar with this story. “Sudanese call for teddy bear teacher's death”.According to the news agencies that took these pictures,
“Thousands of protesters, many brandishing clubs and swords, took to the streets of Sudan’s capital Friday, demanding the execution of a British teacher who let her students name a teddy bear Muhammad….Protesters waved sticks, knives, axes and swords.
“’Kill her, kill her by firing squad!’ they chanted. ‘No tolerance, execution!’”
“Others shouted, ‘Shame, shame on the U.K.’”
And now today’s Washington Post reports that
Gibbons was moved from the Omdurman women's prison to a secret location on Friday after thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and swords and beating drums, burned pictures of her and demanded her execution.
The Post also reports that
There was no overt sign that the government organized the protest, but such a rally could not have taken place without at least official assent.
The reason Ms. Gibbons had to be moved to a secret location is, obviously to protect her from being lynched by the people in the pictures and thousands more of their brethren. (More on lynching in another post. I wasn't going to blog this weekend, but I can't stand this.)
There isn't going to be any shortage of commentary on this highly unpleasant action by Khartoum, the Sharia Court, and the Sudanese people represented in these photos. There's no need for me to add to it here.
But my question here is going somewhere else, and I'm asking on behalf of myself and those others of us who are regularly branded as phobic, and bigoted haters because we identify Islam with violenct intolerance.
Are the Sudanese Muslim men we see in these pictures--burning newspapers, brandishing swords, and demanding Ms. Gibbons's execution because their Prophet was insulted by having his name given to a Teddy Bear, (given to the bear by someone else, no less, a seven-year-old Muslim boy named Muhammed)--
--are these people only a marginal extremist Islamic minority, or hijackers of a peaceful Islam, or are they truly performing their religious duty as Muslims?
I would really like to hear from anyone who believes that these demonstrators/rioters should not be considered representative of authentic Islam.
Please explain this.
--are these people only a marginal extremist Islamic minority, or hijackers of a peaceful Islam, or are they truly performing their religious duty as Muslims?
I would really like to hear from anyone who believes that these demonstrators/rioters should not be considered representative of authentic Islam.
Please explain this.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
A Strange Cure for Contempt
From today’s Daily News:
Teacher charged with inciting hatred over teddy
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Wednesday, November 28th 2007, 11:32 AM
A British teacher under arrest in Sudan was formally charged Wednesday with inciting hatred for allowing her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
If convicted, Gillian Gibbons, 54, could be sentenced to 40 lashes, a fine or six months behind bars. The case goes to court on Thursday.
State media reported Gibbons, from Liverpool, England, also faced charges of insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs.
Only yesterday, according to a Guardian Unlimited story, ("Sudan plays down teddy blasphemy case")the Sudanese foreign ministry in Great Britain was trying to downplay the whole thing. On Monday night, “a spokesman for the Sudanese embassy in London said he believed the teacher would be cleared and the "minute" issue resolved amicably very quickly”:
Dr Khalid al-Mubarak told BBC Radio 4's PM programme the police had no choice but to follow procedure after a complaint from a parent.
"The police are bound to investigate just as is the case in any country in which there is rule of law. Our relationship with Britain is so good that we wouldn't like such a minute event to be overblown."
He added: "I am pretty certain that this minute incident will be clarified very quickly and this teacher who has been helping us with the teaching of children will be safe and will be cleared."
Asked about the potential punishments of six months in jail or 40 lashes, he said: "I hope people will not give their imagination free rein to think about such things."
Dr al-Mubarak has good reason not to want Britons, or other Westerners, to imagine a 54-year-old schoolteacher getting 40 lashes over nothing--nothing.
I hope people will give free rein and think about this unfortunate woman getting flogged by a Sudanese thug --I hope we all think about it very hard.
Sudanese authorities admit that no parent complained about this, and it wasn't even the teacher, but one of Ms. Gibbons’s students, a seven-year-old boy, who quite innocently gave the teddy bear the name, which happened to be the boy's own. Even some Muslim authorities asked about it were puzzled about why she was being charged, given there obviously was no malicious intent.
No one was harmed. No one, that is, except Allah, who happens to be the touchiest deity of all the world’s religions. And I thought I was hypersensitive.
Sudanese officials are behaving as if their hands are tied, shrugging and explaining how Sudanese law is based on Sharia, which is only another way of saying that punishment must not fit the crime so much as it must placate a splenetic and irrational god. When this is what is meant by "the rule of law," don't expect much in the way of prosecutorial discretion.
Dr al-Mubarak did say yesterday that police have to follow the rule of law and investigate, but that he thought the teacher was going to be cleared because the incident was “minute.” But I'll bet he already knew better, which is why he wanted to warn us in advance not to think about the awful image of a middle-aged schoolteacher being flogged by an Islamic thug. There's nothing we can do! When Allah’s feelings get hurt, somebody’s blood has to flow.
And so there's no surprise as today we learn that not only is Ms. Gibbons not being cleared of the "minute incident," but prosecutors managed to come up with at least three charges leading to harsh penalties: inciting hatred, insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs.
Let's hope the British government can put together a stern enough package of behind-the-scene diplomatic threats to convince the Sudanese to let this poor woman go.
But if not, I have to wonder, if and when this punishment is actually carried out, how likely it will be to have the effect of causing large numbers of nonMuslims looking on in horror to hate Islam, insult Islam, and feel contempt for Islam?
Teacher charged with inciting hatred over teddy
DAILY NEWS STAFF
Wednesday, November 28th 2007, 11:32 AM
A British teacher under arrest in Sudan was formally charged Wednesday with inciting hatred for allowing her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear Muhammad.
If convicted, Gillian Gibbons, 54, could be sentenced to 40 lashes, a fine or six months behind bars. The case goes to court on Thursday.
State media reported Gibbons, from Liverpool, England, also faced charges of insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs.
Only yesterday, according to a Guardian Unlimited story, ("Sudan plays down teddy blasphemy case")the Sudanese foreign ministry in Great Britain was trying to downplay the whole thing. On Monday night, “a spokesman for the Sudanese embassy in London said he believed the teacher would be cleared and the "minute" issue resolved amicably very quickly”:
Dr Khalid al-Mubarak told BBC Radio 4's PM programme the police had no choice but to follow procedure after a complaint from a parent.
"The police are bound to investigate just as is the case in any country in which there is rule of law. Our relationship with Britain is so good that we wouldn't like such a minute event to be overblown."
He added: "I am pretty certain that this minute incident will be clarified very quickly and this teacher who has been helping us with the teaching of children will be safe and will be cleared."
Asked about the potential punishments of six months in jail or 40 lashes, he said: "I hope people will not give their imagination free rein to think about such things."
Dr al-Mubarak has good reason not to want Britons, or other Westerners, to imagine a 54-year-old schoolteacher getting 40 lashes over nothing--nothing.
I hope people will give free rein and think about this unfortunate woman getting flogged by a Sudanese thug --I hope we all think about it very hard.
Sudanese authorities admit that no parent complained about this, and it wasn't even the teacher, but one of Ms. Gibbons’s students, a seven-year-old boy, who quite innocently gave the teddy bear the name, which happened to be the boy's own. Even some Muslim authorities asked about it were puzzled about why she was being charged, given there obviously was no malicious intent.
No one was harmed. No one, that is, except Allah, who happens to be the touchiest deity of all the world’s religions. And I thought I was hypersensitive.
Sudanese officials are behaving as if their hands are tied, shrugging and explaining how Sudanese law is based on Sharia, which is only another way of saying that punishment must not fit the crime so much as it must placate a splenetic and irrational god. When this is what is meant by "the rule of law," don't expect much in the way of prosecutorial discretion.
Dr al-Mubarak did say yesterday that police have to follow the rule of law and investigate, but that he thought the teacher was going to be cleared because the incident was “minute.” But I'll bet he already knew better, which is why he wanted to warn us in advance not to think about the awful image of a middle-aged schoolteacher being flogged by an Islamic thug. There's nothing we can do! When Allah’s feelings get hurt, somebody’s blood has to flow.
And so there's no surprise as today we learn that not only is Ms. Gibbons not being cleared of the "minute incident," but prosecutors managed to come up with at least three charges leading to harsh penalties: inciting hatred, insulting religion and showing contempt of religious beliefs.
Let's hope the British government can put together a stern enough package of behind-the-scene diplomatic threats to convince the Sudanese to let this poor woman go.
But if not, I have to wonder, if and when this punishment is actually carried out, how likely it will be to have the effect of causing large numbers of nonMuslims looking on in horror to hate Islam, insult Islam, and feel contempt for Islam?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
An Awful Story
Speaking of the Blessed Mother, it turns out there is a lesser-known Catholic feast day on November 21 in honor of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple by her parents when she was three years old. The story is apocryphal, but we do know that Mary grew up devoutly, and was to be specially blessed by God to be the Mother of the Messiah. Many of us are also familiar with the Biblical story of the Presentation of the Christ Child in the Temple when he was eight days old. It was fitting that, in both cases, the Jewish custom of children being offered back to the Lord would lead God in turn to use those children to return a life-giving blessing to the whole race.
So it was a minor coincidence that, on November 21st, I ran across this story about the slaughter in Pakistan aimed at killing former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It struck me as possibly instructive to those who believe that all religions are essentially the same.
Bomb That Killed 170 in Pakistan Was Strapped to a 1-Year-Old Child
November 21, 2007
For those who still believe there are some lines even a militant jihadist won’t cross.
The homicide terror bomb used in an assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month may have been strapped to a 1-year-old child who was being carried by his jihadist father, The Australian newspaper reported Thursday.
The bomb, which killed 170 people and injured hundreds more, detonated during a crowded procession for Bhutto as she returned from exile.
Investigators from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said the homicide bomber tried repeatedly to carry the baby to Bhutto’s vehicle as it proceeded through the streets of Karachi.
“At the point where the bombs exploded, Benazir Bhutto herself saw the man with the child and asked him to come closer so that she could hug or kiss the infant,” investigators were reported as saying.
“But someone came in between and a guard felt that the man with the child was not behaving normally. So the child was not allowed to come aboard Benazir’s vehicle.”
According to The Australian, Bhutto said she recalls the face of the man who was carrying the infant and has asked to see recordings of the incident in hopes of identifying the man.
So it was a minor coincidence that, on November 21st, I ran across this story about the slaughter in Pakistan aimed at killing former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It struck me as possibly instructive to those who believe that all religions are essentially the same.
Bomb That Killed 170 in Pakistan Was Strapped to a 1-Year-Old Child
November 21, 2007
For those who still believe there are some lines even a militant jihadist won’t cross.
The homicide terror bomb used in an assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last month may have been strapped to a 1-year-old child who was being carried by his jihadist father, The Australian newspaper reported Thursday.
The bomb, which killed 170 people and injured hundreds more, detonated during a crowded procession for Bhutto as she returned from exile.
Investigators from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said the homicide bomber tried repeatedly to carry the baby to Bhutto’s vehicle as it proceeded through the streets of Karachi.
“At the point where the bombs exploded, Benazir Bhutto herself saw the man with the child and asked him to come closer so that she could hug or kiss the infant,” investigators were reported as saying.
“But someone came in between and a guard felt that the man with the child was not behaving normally. So the child was not allowed to come aboard Benazir’s vehicle.”
According to The Australian, Bhutto said she recalls the face of the man who was carrying the infant and has asked to see recordings of the incident in hopes of identifying the man.
Measures of Progress in Baghdad
This Thanksgiving Day feel-good story has everything.
“Americans are our protectors and saviors,” said the killer of Al Qaeda’s “White Lion” in Baghdad.
It gets better.
“You can move freely in Amariyah at any time of the day or night,” Abul Abed said. “You can even see women without head scarves, wearing tight jeans!”
From last Thursday's Chicago Tribune:
New boss turns the tables on Al Qaeda
Ex-Sunni insurgent becomes U.S. ally
By Liz Sly, Tribune foreign correspondent; Nadeem Majeed contributed to this report
November 22, 2007
BAGHDAD
The once-dreaded Al Qaeda in Iraq stronghold of Amariyah has a new boss, and he's not shy about telling the story of the shootout that turned him into a local legend and helped change the tenor of the Iraq war.
Earlier this year, Abul Abed, a disgruntled Sunni insurgent leader, began secret talks with the Americans about ending Al Qaeda's reign of terror in this run-down, formerly middle-class Baghdad neighborhood, renowned as one of the city's most dangerous. He had been gathering intelligence on the group for months.
One day in late May, he said, he decided it was time to act.
He hailed the car carrying the feared leader of Al Qaeda in the neighborhood, a man known as the White Lion, on one of Amariyah's main streets. “We want you to stop destroying our neighborhood,” he told the man.
“Do you know who you are talking to?” said the White Lion, getting out of his car. “I am Al Qaeda. I will destroy even your own houses!”
He pulled out his pistol and shot at Abul Abed. The gun jammed. He reloaded and fired again. Again, the gun jammed.
By this time, Abul Abed said, he had pulled his own gun. He fired once, killing the White Lion.
“I walked over to him, stepped on his hand and took his gun,” Abul Abed, which is a nom de guerre, said at his new, pink-painted headquarters in a renovated school in Amariyah, as an American Army captain seated in the corner nodded his head in affirmation of the account. “And then the fight started.”
It was the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Amariyah. The next day, a firefight erupted. Al Qaeda fighters closed in on Abul Abed. Most of the 150 men who had joined him fled. Holed up in a mosque with fewer than a dozen supporters, Abul Abed thought the end was near.
“The blue carpet was soaked red with blood,” he recalled. Then the imam of the mosque called in American help.
A friendship was born.
Now Abul Abed, a swaggering former major in the Iraqi army and reputedly a top leader in the influential Islamic Army insurgent group, reigns supreme in Amariyah -- with considerable help from the U.S. military.
Still wearing the White Lion's pistol tucked into his belt, he commands his own 600-member paramilitary force, called the Knights of Mesopotamia. He receives $460,000 a month from the U.S. military to pay, arm and equip them. They wear crisp olive green uniforms with smart red and yellow badges bearing the Knights' horse-head logo. They are well-armed, and some have flak jackets.
But they don't really need them. Since the Knights drove Al Qaeda out of Amariyah after a two-month battle, the neighborhood has become largely safe.
“You can move freely in Amariyah at any time of the day or night,” Abul Abed said. "You can even see women without head scarves, wearing tight jeans!"
An 'Awakening' in Iraq
Men like Abul Abed have helped change the face of the war. Following in the footsteps of the late Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the tribal leader who led the Sunni revolt that drove Al Qaeda from the base of its operations in Iraq’s Anbar province, more than 70,000 people, most of them Sunnis, in 148 groups have joined in the so-called Awakening, or Sahwa, movement, according to the U.S. military, turning against Al Qaeda and turning to the Americans for help.
Since Abul Abed's fight in Amariyah, some of the most feared Baghdad neighborhoods, including Abu Ghraib, Fadhil, Ghazaliyah, Dora and Adhamiyah, have followed suit, forming their own brigades of Knights, welcoming the U.S. military and receiving U.S. money.
Abul Abed is coy about his insurgent connections. He gave his real name as Saad Erebi Ghaffouri al-Obaidi, though he is known across Baghdad as Abul Abed. U.S. officials, Amariyah residents and Sunni leaders say he was a prominent commander in the Islamic Army. He described himself as a former Iraqi army major who "went into business" after the regime fell. He won't say what business.
But he acknowledged that many of his men once fought Americans and now work closely with them.
“They recognize that they made a big mistake,” he said. “They realize that they were on the wrong path and that they wasted many chances with what they did.”
The implications of creating this network of trained, armed paramilitaries loyal not to the government but to an assortment of local strongmen have yet to be played out. U.S. officials said they are relieved that the revolution within the Sunni community has helped to sharply reduce the number of attacks. According to the military, attacks in Iraq fell 55 percent between March and October.
The U.S. wants to absorb the Sunnis who have joined the Awakening movement into the Iraqi security forces, but so far the Shiite-led government has hesitated, concerned that they will one day turn against the government. If the government continues to frustrate the Sunnis, U.S. officials are concerned their new allies could go back to the insurgency.
“That's the big intangible that makes me nervous,” said Col. Martin Stanton, who oversees the reconciliation and engagement effort. If there is no progress on getting the paramilitaries regular jobs with the security forces and delivering services to Sunni areas, Sunni frustrations will continue to mount, he said.
“The question is, what's the break point? ... How long before people start getting sick of it and start checking out?” he said.
‘Americans are our protectors’
Abul Abed said the Sunni revolution has gone too far for that.
“Americans are our protectors and saviors,” he said.
The real enemy of Iraq, he says, now is Iran. He pulled out his mobile phone to show pictures he has saved of the bodies of his four brothers, who were kidnapped and murdered in 2005 by what he suspects was a Shiite death squad with ties to Iran. One of them had a nail driven into his head. Another was missing a hand.
“Even animals wouldn't do that,” he said, his face darkening. “Iran is so deeply infiltrated in Iraq, the problem here still cannot be solved. Iran wants to demolish us. If the Americans leave, then you can count Iraq as a second Tehran.”
“Americans are our protectors and saviors,” said the killer of Al Qaeda’s “White Lion” in Baghdad.
It gets better.
“You can move freely in Amariyah at any time of the day or night,” Abul Abed said. “You can even see women without head scarves, wearing tight jeans!”
From last Thursday's Chicago Tribune:
New boss turns the tables on Al Qaeda
Ex-Sunni insurgent becomes U.S. ally
By Liz Sly, Tribune foreign correspondent; Nadeem Majeed contributed to this report
November 22, 2007
BAGHDAD
The once-dreaded Al Qaeda in Iraq stronghold of Amariyah has a new boss, and he's not shy about telling the story of the shootout that turned him into a local legend and helped change the tenor of the Iraq war.
Earlier this year, Abul Abed, a disgruntled Sunni insurgent leader, began secret talks with the Americans about ending Al Qaeda's reign of terror in this run-down, formerly middle-class Baghdad neighborhood, renowned as one of the city's most dangerous. He had been gathering intelligence on the group for months.
One day in late May, he said, he decided it was time to act.
He hailed the car carrying the feared leader of Al Qaeda in the neighborhood, a man known as the White Lion, on one of Amariyah's main streets. “We want you to stop destroying our neighborhood,” he told the man.
“Do you know who you are talking to?” said the White Lion, getting out of his car. “I am Al Qaeda. I will destroy even your own houses!”
He pulled out his pistol and shot at Abul Abed. The gun jammed. He reloaded and fired again. Again, the gun jammed.
By this time, Abul Abed said, he had pulled his own gun. He fired once, killing the White Lion.
“I walked over to him, stepped on his hand and took his gun,” Abul Abed, which is a nom de guerre, said at his new, pink-painted headquarters in a renovated school in Amariyah, as an American Army captain seated in the corner nodded his head in affirmation of the account. “And then the fight started.”
It was the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda in Amariyah. The next day, a firefight erupted. Al Qaeda fighters closed in on Abul Abed. Most of the 150 men who had joined him fled. Holed up in a mosque with fewer than a dozen supporters, Abul Abed thought the end was near.
“The blue carpet was soaked red with blood,” he recalled. Then the imam of the mosque called in American help.
A friendship was born.
Now Abul Abed, a swaggering former major in the Iraqi army and reputedly a top leader in the influential Islamic Army insurgent group, reigns supreme in Amariyah -- with considerable help from the U.S. military.
Still wearing the White Lion's pistol tucked into his belt, he commands his own 600-member paramilitary force, called the Knights of Mesopotamia. He receives $460,000 a month from the U.S. military to pay, arm and equip them. They wear crisp olive green uniforms with smart red and yellow badges bearing the Knights' horse-head logo. They are well-armed, and some have flak jackets.
But they don't really need them. Since the Knights drove Al Qaeda out of Amariyah after a two-month battle, the neighborhood has become largely safe.
“You can move freely in Amariyah at any time of the day or night,” Abul Abed said. "You can even see women without head scarves, wearing tight jeans!"
An 'Awakening' in Iraq
Men like Abul Abed have helped change the face of the war. Following in the footsteps of the late Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the tribal leader who led the Sunni revolt that drove Al Qaeda from the base of its operations in Iraq’s Anbar province, more than 70,000 people, most of them Sunnis, in 148 groups have joined in the so-called Awakening, or Sahwa, movement, according to the U.S. military, turning against Al Qaeda and turning to the Americans for help.
Since Abul Abed's fight in Amariyah, some of the most feared Baghdad neighborhoods, including Abu Ghraib, Fadhil, Ghazaliyah, Dora and Adhamiyah, have followed suit, forming their own brigades of Knights, welcoming the U.S. military and receiving U.S. money.
Abul Abed is coy about his insurgent connections. He gave his real name as Saad Erebi Ghaffouri al-Obaidi, though he is known across Baghdad as Abul Abed. U.S. officials, Amariyah residents and Sunni leaders say he was a prominent commander in the Islamic Army. He described himself as a former Iraqi army major who "went into business" after the regime fell. He won't say what business.
But he acknowledged that many of his men once fought Americans and now work closely with them.
“They recognize that they made a big mistake,” he said. “They realize that they were on the wrong path and that they wasted many chances with what they did.”
The implications of creating this network of trained, armed paramilitaries loyal not to the government but to an assortment of local strongmen have yet to be played out. U.S. officials said they are relieved that the revolution within the Sunni community has helped to sharply reduce the number of attacks. According to the military, attacks in Iraq fell 55 percent between March and October.
The U.S. wants to absorb the Sunnis who have joined the Awakening movement into the Iraqi security forces, but so far the Shiite-led government has hesitated, concerned that they will one day turn against the government. If the government continues to frustrate the Sunnis, U.S. officials are concerned their new allies could go back to the insurgency.
“That's the big intangible that makes me nervous,” said Col. Martin Stanton, who oversees the reconciliation and engagement effort. If there is no progress on getting the paramilitaries regular jobs with the security forces and delivering services to Sunni areas, Sunni frustrations will continue to mount, he said.
“The question is, what's the break point? ... How long before people start getting sick of it and start checking out?” he said.
‘Americans are our protectors’
Abul Abed said the Sunni revolution has gone too far for that.
“Americans are our protectors and saviors,” he said.
The real enemy of Iraq, he says, now is Iran. He pulled out his mobile phone to show pictures he has saved of the bodies of his four brothers, who were kidnapped and murdered in 2005 by what he suspects was a Shiite death squad with ties to Iran. One of them had a nail driven into his head. Another was missing a hand.
“Even animals wouldn't do that,” he said, his face darkening. “Iran is so deeply infiltrated in Iraq, the problem here still cannot be solved. Iran wants to demolish us. If the Americans leave, then you can count Iraq as a second Tehran.”
'Hezbollah is Iran's army in Lebanon, not a resistance'
The following article appeared Monday on the Lebanese website, Ya Libnan:Hezbollah is Iran's army in Lebanon, not a resistance
Monday, 26 November, 2007 @ 5:31 AM
By: Elias Youssef BejjaniBeirut - Hezbollah's General Secretary Sayed Hassan Nasrallah delivered a fiery and tantamount speech on Sunday November 11/07 in which he vows to maintain his party's Military Might, challenged the whole free world, the UN resolutions, the majority of the Lebanese people, and evilly refused to disarm.
His speech was seen by many observers as an open and bold declaration of war, and a mean Iranian-Syrian instigation for a coup in Lebanon.
He said verbatim: "No one in the world can disarm Hezbollah, The resistance in Lebanon has determination, will, manpower and sufficient weapons to face Israel in a new conflict, No to the implementation of the UN Resolution 1559.(Security Council Resolution 1559) Hezbollah's recent maneuvers convey a message that the resistance is ready to make a historic victory that would change the face of the region. Any Lebanese president elected by a simple majority will not be recognized by the opposition, which would consider him to be an impostor,"
Clear, public, strong and deterrent stances in regards to Nasrallah's recent threats are urgently required from all Lebanese parties, communities and institutions, the United Nations and its Security Council, Europe, Free world countries, and the Arab League, because Hezbollah, this Iranian “Wilayat Al Fakih, Republican Guards” party, is apparently determined to topple the Lebanese democratic regime and erect in its place a replicate of the oppressive and religious Iranian Republic.
It is no longer acceptable, by any measure of law and self-respect, for any Lebanese from any social, religious, or ethnic background to surrender or remain passive towards these national and moral debaucheries. We, the Lebanese both in Lebanon and the Diaspora, must rebel against this hostage conditioning imposed upon us by terrorist and fundamentalist groups.
It is no longer acceptable that the Lebanese tolerate any further coexistence with conditions of fear, obedience, self-delusion, falsification of facts, and false witnessing.
It is no longer acceptable that the Lebanese play the role of the falling prey hiding behind outdated and obsequious political stances.
We should not remain silent watching the madness of pervert politicians whose only goal is to serve their own self-interest, bank accounts, and lust for power that inhabits their sick minds, all at the expense of the nation, its survival, and the Lebanese people's livelihood and dignity.
The highest of these sacrileges is the Hezbollah condition, its confused terminology, its fabricated accomplishments, its destructive role, its Irano-Syrian expansionist conspiracies, and its aggressions of all forms. This party, invented by Iran and nurtured by Syria since 1982 has been tasked with murder, assassinations, terror, the subjugation of the Lebanese Shiites, and the sabotage of the Lebanese regime and its dismantlement. This is neither a party, nor a resistance; rather, it is a formal de facto Iranian Army stationed in Lebanon, directly backed in weapons and funds by the Iranian regime. Hezbollah's ties to the Iranian regime transcend Lebanon's boundaries, and the group returns the favor to Tehran by training Shiite insurgents in Iraq to attack US interests there and worldwide.
No one among the Lebanese ignores that the financier, the ideologue, and the decision maker behind Hezbollah's marching orders is simply the Iranian regime. All Hezbollah’s local leaders are appointed and demoted by Iran. Their absolute loyalty is to Iran and to the religious edicts originating from its Mullahs. These Iranian agents have not one grain of loyalty whatsoever to Lebanon, its institutions, its constitution, and its society.Hezbollah’s ethics and the doctrine of its masters in Damascus and Teheran consider Lebanon their war playground, no more no less. And the declared duty of this“ Jihadist” -“ Godly” party is to transform Lebanon by all means into a satellite state to Iran’s “Wilayat Al Fakih” state, a replicate of its fundamentalist mullah regime imposed through terror on the Iranian people.
The Syrian occupier (1976-2005) nurtured the Iranian Hezbollah during its 30 years of occupation of Lebanon. It provided it with all necessary logistical support to dominate its zones of influence within Lebanon in all aspects: militarily, culturally, and religiously. The Assad regime allowed Hezbollah to erect its own closed security quarters in Beirut, the South, and the Bekaa. As to the Iranian mullah regime, it committed to the financing, armament, and training of Hezbollah as well as the control of its administration, direction, and decision making.There has never been a consensus on Hezbollah’s “resistance” role, because it was never a resistance against Israel as it has marketed itself. Neither was Israel’s withdrawal back in 2000 due to Hezbollah’s “resistance”.
It was rather based on a public decision adopted by the Israeli state since 1985 due to local Israeli domestic considerations and to constant pressures from the Clinton Administration. Indeed, Hezbollah's actions played in favor of the Israeli occupation of the south lasting as long as it did, by delaying for 15 years an otherwise inevitable withdrawal. The reason: The presence of the Israeli army in Lebanon was convenient to the Syrian and Iranian regimes. This is why, following that withdrawal in 2000, Hezbollah - again instructed by Damascus and Tehran - concocted the Shebaa Farms charade to justify its continued "resistance" and its raison d'etre to continue raping Lebanese sovereignty and inflicting harm to Lebanon as a nation and as a people.The so-called “consensus” on Hezbollah’s “resistance” during the Syrian occupation was a coerced position obtained through force and terror, and had nothing to do with the deliberate will and thinking of the Lebanese people. The “Shebaa Farms” themselves were occupied and annexed by Syria from Lebanon in the 1950s - after the murder of 3 Lebanese gendarmes posted there - until they were captured by Israel in 1967 during the six-day war. Shebaa falls under UN resolutions 242 (Security Council Resolution 242) and 338, (Security Council Resolution 338) and are considered by the international community as Syrian land. Hezbollah, Syria and Iran have marketed this lie to justify their continued occupation of Lebanon and to continue fomenting tensions along the Lebanese-Israeli borders.
It must be noted that the 1989 Taef Accord (Taef Accord) never mentioned any role of a “resistance”. It banned all armed organizations and weapons outside the legitimacy of the Lebanese State, and explicitly called for all militia weapons to be surrendered to the State as well as for the disbanding of all militias within 6 months of the implementation date of the Accord . It also upheld The 1949 Lebanese-Israeli Armistice AgreementIt is to be noted as well that the 2004 UN Resolution 1559 is an international embodiment of the "Taef Accord".
It repeats clearly and without any ambiguity all of the provisions of Taef as to the disbanding of militias, the collection of illegal Palestinian and Lebanese weapons, and the support for the establishment of the Lebanese State's authority over all its territory using its own armed forces.So to all the Lebanese sovereignist politicians and all honest Lebanese we say: Enough self-delusion, end the humiliation and the submission, announce loud and clear, candidly and without fear, to all the media, that Hezbollah was never a “resistance”, and that under all international and legal norms, Hezbollah is a formal Iranian Army stationed in Lebanon.
Therefore, all allegations as to its so-called "resistance" role and its “sacred” weapons, are simply a crime against the truth and a brazen aggression against the people of Lebanon, against our existence, history, and dignity. As to those who suggest the merger of Hezbollah with the Lebanese army, they need to understand that such move would allow Hezbollah to dominate the army of the Cedars Nation and to consequently transform the Lebanese state into a total Hezbollah state. So be vigilant against this mortal ploy.
Any Lebanese presidential candidate who avoids dealing with these truths with courage and candor will be a toy in the hands of Hezbollah, a hostage in the hands of its masters in Damascus and Teheran, and an obedient tool in the hands of Hassan Nasrallah who would complete his domination of the Lebanese State.
In summary, the entire Lebanese problem today can be defined in two visions. The first is one of a free, sovereign, and independent Lebanese State with its thriving civil society, coexistence model, freedoms, democracy, and peace under international law and UN resolutions. The second is one of an Iranian-Syrian Hezbollah mini-state which, through threats and force, is expanding like an octopus to swallow the whole of Lebanon, impose its ideology and stone-age fundamentalism and totalitarianism, will annihilate everything Lebanese in identity and history. It will kill all that Lebanon has stood for centuries by making it a hostage to antiquated Islamic and Arab Nationalist ideologies.The choice between these two visions is one to be made by the Lebanese who in their vast majority opted for the Lebanese State when 1.5 million of them demonstrated on March 14, 2005 during the peaceful and civilized “Cedars Revolution”.
However, the Lebanese cannot on their own deter Hezbollah’s evil state-within-the-state which is an advanced base for the Axis of Evil (Syria-Iran). Lebanon therefore needs urgent military assistance from the international community in case of a final assault by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran in their attempt to sabotage the Lebanese presidential elections on November 21.All free nations, Arab, European, and American, must realize that Lebanon must not fall under the domination of the two Axis of Evil states through their Hezbollah army in Lebanon. This is a very dangerous matter that will threaten stability and the future of sustainable peace, not only in the Middle East, but around the world. It happened before in Lebanon: In 1975, then in 1983. Both times, Lebanon was abandoned and the Free World fled before the march of barbarity, only to see its instruments - bombs, planes, and suicide bombers - follow it into every one of its cities. It should not happen again. Let those who have ears listen.
Sources: analyst-network.com
What's the Matter with 'Youths' These Days?
What is it about French “youths” that gives them the impulse to riot and attack policemen?
Maybe it’s all the rich sauces.
Today the New York Times reports 80 French police officers were injured in clashes last night with “youths,” (“77 Police Officers Injured in Paris Riots”), some “youths” using “hunting shotguns as well as more conventional guns, fire bombs and rocks.”
The only clue the Times provides as to who these youths are is to say the clashes are happening “in a working- and lower-class suburb north of Paris.”
A couple days ago Jihad Watch noticed the situation brewing.
"Youths" rioting again in Paris suburbs
"A brother of one of the dead teenagers, Omar Sehhouli, said the rioting 'was not violence but an expression of rage.'" Right.
Omar Sehhouli. Typical French Catholic youth, I suppose. Note the non-specifics about the perpetrators, and the frequent recourse to passive voice.
"Riots break out in Paris suburbs," from the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):
Youths have damaged police stations, shops and cars in two Paris suburbs, following the deaths of two teenagers whose motorbike hit a police car.
Police said 21 officers were injured in the rioting in the northern suburbs of Villiers-le-Bel and Arnouville.
The Villiers-le-Bel police station was set ablaze and another in Arnouville was pillaged, police say. At least seven people were arrested.
The violence - reminiscent of riots in 2005 - lasted for more than six hours.
In 2005, the deaths of two youths in nearby Clichy-sous-Bois led to France's worst civil unrest in more than 40 years.
Clashes broke out on Sunday night after two teenagers - aged 15 and 16 - were killed when the motorcycle they were driving collided with a police car.
Police sources said the two were riding a stolen mini-motorcycle, and that neither was wearing a helmet.
The police car was on a routine patrol and the teenagers were not being chased by police at the time of the accident, police said. The collision wrecked the front of the car and smashed the windscreen.
Burning cars
Witnesses have accused the police of leaving the scene and of preventing local people from trying to help the youngsters as they lay in the road. The brother of one of the victims has called for the officers involved to be convicted.
After the accident, dozens of youths went on a rampage, setting the police station in Villiers-le-Bel on fire, ransacking the Arnouville police station and torching two petrol stations.
Riot police were sent to the area, but youths blocked their way with burning cars.
French media report that the rioters also damaged the Arnouville-Villiers-le-Bel railway station and nearby shops.
The mayor of Villers-le-Bel, Didier Vaillant, appealed for calm and said he would ensure there was "an impartial investigation, for full light to be shed" on the accident.
A brother of one of the dead teenagers, Omar Sehhouli, said the rioting "was not violence but an expression of rage".
Our Paris geography isn’t quite good enough to recognize if the clashes are taking place in one of the “The 751 No-Go Zones of France.”
Maybe it’s all the rich sauces.
Today the New York Times reports 80 French police officers were injured in clashes last night with “youths,” (“77 Police Officers Injured in Paris Riots”), some “youths” using “hunting shotguns as well as more conventional guns, fire bombs and rocks.”
The only clue the Times provides as to who these youths are is to say the clashes are happening “in a working- and lower-class suburb north of Paris.”
A couple days ago Jihad Watch noticed the situation brewing.
"Youths" rioting again in Paris suburbs
"A brother of one of the dead teenagers, Omar Sehhouli, said the rioting 'was not violence but an expression of rage.'" Right.
Omar Sehhouli. Typical French Catholic youth, I suppose. Note the non-specifics about the perpetrators, and the frequent recourse to passive voice.
"Riots break out in Paris suburbs," from the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):
Youths have damaged police stations, shops and cars in two Paris suburbs, following the deaths of two teenagers whose motorbike hit a police car.
Police said 21 officers were injured in the rioting in the northern suburbs of Villiers-le-Bel and Arnouville.
The Villiers-le-Bel police station was set ablaze and another in Arnouville was pillaged, police say. At least seven people were arrested.
The violence - reminiscent of riots in 2005 - lasted for more than six hours.
In 2005, the deaths of two youths in nearby Clichy-sous-Bois led to France's worst civil unrest in more than 40 years.
Clashes broke out on Sunday night after two teenagers - aged 15 and 16 - were killed when the motorcycle they were driving collided with a police car.
Police sources said the two were riding a stolen mini-motorcycle, and that neither was wearing a helmet.
The police car was on a routine patrol and the teenagers were not being chased by police at the time of the accident, police said. The collision wrecked the front of the car and smashed the windscreen.
Burning cars
Witnesses have accused the police of leaving the scene and of preventing local people from trying to help the youngsters as they lay in the road. The brother of one of the victims has called for the officers involved to be convicted.
After the accident, dozens of youths went on a rampage, setting the police station in Villiers-le-Bel on fire, ransacking the Arnouville police station and torching two petrol stations.
Riot police were sent to the area, but youths blocked their way with burning cars.
French media report that the rioters also damaged the Arnouville-Villiers-le-Bel railway station and nearby shops.
The mayor of Villers-le-Bel, Didier Vaillant, appealed for calm and said he would ensure there was "an impartial investigation, for full light to be shed" on the accident.
A brother of one of the dead teenagers, Omar Sehhouli, said the rioting "was not violence but an expression of rage".
Our Paris geography isn’t quite good enough to recognize if the clashes are taking place in one of the “The 751 No-Go Zones of France.”
Monday, November 26, 2007
Fighting Terror Is Not the Same as Fighting Crime
Here's an excerpt from an interesting piece in last Friday’s Detroit News:
Dearborn man accused of providing support to Hezbollah
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- A Dearborn man who has spent three years behind bars awaiting trial is expected to plead guilty in federal court Dec. 6 to providing support to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Fawzi Mustapha Assi, 47, was stopped in 1998 while attempting to depart from Detroit Metropolitan Airport with global positioning equipment, night vision goggles and a thermal-imaging camera.
The former Ford Motor Co. engineer was released on an electronic tether soon after his arrest and fled to Lebanon. He returned to the United States and surrendered in 2004.
Assi was the first person indicted under a 1996 anti-terrorism law that made it illegal to knowingly provide money or materials to terrorists. The U.S. State Department designated Hezbollah a terrorist group in 1997.
Those who follow the Detroit-Dearborn are already aware that in most instances of criminal charges or investigations of people suspected of assisting terrorism, the favored beneficiary is almost always Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is very popular amongst the Lebanese Shia population of Dearborn. We have seen Hezbollah's supporters demonstrating openly, and vocally, in support of the Army of Allah. During one demonstration last summer thousands of Dearborn residents loudly declared Hezbollah Big Cheese Sheikh HassanNasrallah to be “Our leader!”
We've also seen a heap of examples of criminal activity intended to benefit Hezbollah, from fraudulent FBI and CIA agents, to marriage fraud, bribes paid to ICE officials, a local resident running around Hemlock Park with an AK-47, tax evasion, flight from prosecution, money laundering, mortgage fraud, and cigarette smuggling.
There are people who believe that the “so-called” war on terror is either completely non-existent, or, at best, exaggerated.
It can’t be a war, they say, because the people attacking us are not nation-states, the way Japan and Germany were in 1941.
Therefore, every act of terrorism can only be investigated and prosecuted as an individual criminal act, without regard to all the connected dots that lead to highly organized, and extremely dangerous terrorist organizations and paramilitary groups, nor to the states behind them, e.g., Afghanistan, Syria, Iran.
This rule about only going to war against nation-states seems awfully arbitrary to me.
In human history, the rise of the nation-state is fairly recent, while warfare goes all the way back. If you’ve got an army, weapons, and a will to make war on someone, then it seems right to me that that someone has a right to make war in self-defense. Whether your defending your tribe, your extended family, your kingdom, your city-state, your right to self-defense should be the same.
By the same token, those who support armies that are sworn to make war on us aren’t merely criminals. They are themselves national enemies, because they have made common cause with our country's enemies. They aren't committing their crimes to get rich, but to assist a foreign army to destroy its foes--whether the foe is our ally, Israel, or us.
Which is why money laundering for Hezbollah, or cheating on your taxes to give the proceeds to Hezbollah, or smuggling cigarettes to earn money for Hezbollah, while they are still only criminal acts, are very similar to treason, or acts of war.
Dearborn man accused of providing support to Hezbollah
Paul Egan / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- A Dearborn man who has spent three years behind bars awaiting trial is expected to plead guilty in federal court Dec. 6 to providing support to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Fawzi Mustapha Assi, 47, was stopped in 1998 while attempting to depart from Detroit Metropolitan Airport with global positioning equipment, night vision goggles and a thermal-imaging camera.
The former Ford Motor Co. engineer was released on an electronic tether soon after his arrest and fled to Lebanon. He returned to the United States and surrendered in 2004.
Assi was the first person indicted under a 1996 anti-terrorism law that made it illegal to knowingly provide money or materials to terrorists. The U.S. State Department designated Hezbollah a terrorist group in 1997.
Those who follow the Detroit-Dearborn are already aware that in most instances of criminal charges or investigations of people suspected of assisting terrorism, the favored beneficiary is almost always Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is very popular amongst the Lebanese Shia population of Dearborn. We have seen Hezbollah's supporters demonstrating openly, and vocally, in support of the Army of Allah. During one demonstration last summer thousands of Dearborn residents loudly declared Hezbollah Big Cheese Sheikh HassanNasrallah to be “Our leader!”
We've also seen a heap of examples of criminal activity intended to benefit Hezbollah, from fraudulent FBI and CIA agents, to marriage fraud, bribes paid to ICE officials, a local resident running around Hemlock Park with an AK-47, tax evasion, flight from prosecution, money laundering, mortgage fraud, and cigarette smuggling.
There are people who believe that the “so-called” war on terror is either completely non-existent, or, at best, exaggerated.
It can’t be a war, they say, because the people attacking us are not nation-states, the way Japan and Germany were in 1941.
Therefore, every act of terrorism can only be investigated and prosecuted as an individual criminal act, without regard to all the connected dots that lead to highly organized, and extremely dangerous terrorist organizations and paramilitary groups, nor to the states behind them, e.g., Afghanistan, Syria, Iran.
This rule about only going to war against nation-states seems awfully arbitrary to me.
In human history, the rise of the nation-state is fairly recent, while warfare goes all the way back. If you’ve got an army, weapons, and a will to make war on someone, then it seems right to me that that someone has a right to make war in self-defense. Whether your defending your tribe, your extended family, your kingdom, your city-state, your right to self-defense should be the same.
By the same token, those who support armies that are sworn to make war on us aren’t merely criminals. They are themselves national enemies, because they have made common cause with our country's enemies. They aren't committing their crimes to get rich, but to assist a foreign army to destroy its foes--whether the foe is our ally, Israel, or us.
Which is why money laundering for Hezbollah, or cheating on your taxes to give the proceeds to Hezbollah, or smuggling cigarettes to earn money for Hezbollah, while they are still only criminal acts, are very similar to treason, or acts of war.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
'Don't Go Out There, Will!'
From a “random comments” roundup in today’s Detroit Free Press:Democrat Bill Richardson, saying the nation’s image abroad needs a makeover: “We have to find ways again where American diplomacy is not considered cowboy diplomacy, but is considered diplomacy where we’re not the policemen of the world, but the conscience of the world.”
So what should we call this made over, non-cowboy, conscience-of-the-world diplomacy?
Let's just call it what it is: Quaker-wife diplomacy.
And we know how that always turns out.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Springsteen on Rolling Stone's 40th: 'A Low Point in American History'
Unlike the Rolling Stone interview with Bono, which we discussed below, where Bono showed some capacity both for reason and individualism, the interview with Bruce Springsteen followed the Rolling Stone line--shall I say slavishly--with the result that my plummeting opinion of the man can plummet--geologically speaking--no farther.
The interviewer's very first lob to Bruce, “On the whole, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?” got this response:
I’m optimistic as far as people go and pessimistic as far as the government goes, for pretty clear reasons. In 2006, the American people said, “Throw these bums out!” They would have voted Bush out at that moment if they could have. There was a clear message about the war in Iraq, and yet we sit here today with no front-running presidential candidate on either side who’s going to take us out of there.
Of course, we may just get out of Iraq the best way, victoriously, leaving behind a stable, secure, non-terror supporting, friendly Iraq, But who the hell wants to write a song about that?
Aside from this, Springsteen has nothing concrete to say about the challenge this nation--the heartland of which he is credited with speaking for-- has faced since 9/11. For him, the key issues are “race and poverty,” which he thinks were lost to the national discourse, “not unintentionally through the use of other issues.” (The war against Islamic jihadism, presumably.)
Springsteen really seems stuck on the poverty issue this time. He seems to think LBJ's plan was a good one. Or John Edwards's. Well, at least Edwards's anti-poverty plan worked for him. Maybe Springsteen's concerns for the impoversihed are why he's always photographed with the same old Telecaster with the worn-off finish, and of course, the Levis and T-shirt--that means he's poor, too, I guess.
You see, Bruce explains, the big movement of the powers that be in this country "is towards a plutocracy” [??], a movement which in turn is pushing the critical conversation about race and poverty out of the national discussion. But, he says, that conversation can’t be stopped all together:
I’ll tell you when it wasn’t stopped--when a guy that doesn’t care that much about it had to say something about it. [He’s talking about Bush, of course]. When people turned on the television during Hurricane Katrina and said “Where did all those poor people come from?”
You wanna give us a break, here, Bruce? I may not have known just how poor New Orleans was, but I always knew there were lots of poor people in every big city, because I grew up in one, and I still live right next to one. Does that mean I’m not a plutocrat?
Or maybe Springsteen was only expressing his own surprise at all these poor folks in New Orleans, because none of those impoverished black folks on TV getting pulled off their roofs looked familiar from the last time he’d played the Superdome for $100 a cheap seat.
Springsteen credits Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” with having an “enormous impact” on him, empowering him “to feel that in my small way, I had something to say, I could do something.” That something that he and the E Street Band can do, as we have note elsewhere, is to “sing.” To sing, and in 2004, to help raise money for that other working-class hero, and terror to plutocrats everywhere, John Heinz Kerry.
But for sheer historical myopia, nothing beats the response Sprinsgteen gave when he was aked how he thinks this time will be judged in 40 more years:
Many parts of it will be remembered with the same degree of shame as the Japanese internment camps are remembered --illegal wiretapping, rendition, the abuse of prisoners, cutting back our civil rights, no habeas corpus. I don’t think most people thought they’d ever see the country move far enough to the right to see those things happen here. And I don’t believe those are things that strengthen us. The moral authority to stand up and say, “We are the Americans,” is invaluable. It’s been deeply damaged, and it’s going to take quite a while to repair that damage, if we can.
This will be remembered as a low point in American history--as simple as that. People are going to go, “Was everybody sleeping?” But people get frightened, they get crazy. You wonder where political hysteria can take you--I think we’ve tasted some of that.
All I want to do is be one of the guys that says, “When that stuff was going down, I threw my hat in the ring and tried to stand on what I felt was the right side of history.” What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock & roll band?
Well,. Bruce, I'm not sleeping, but this kind of shit does make me crazy.
At least all this national darkness has given Bruce an excuse to update some of his old songs. I've even heard there's a new version of “Born to Run” the band's been playing around with in the studio:
Antiwar’s Way Too Much Fun
In the day I’m tryin’ to rhyme “habeas corpus” while I do my Nautilus routine
At night I preach ‘bout the last man to die and defective voting machines
Straight from the mean streets in John Kerry’s mind
"Rendition!" "Katrina!"
They’re clichés but I can’t change a line
Baby this stuff rips the soul from your rap
Sounds real dumb out loud, like rehashed Maureen Dowd
But those cheers make me feel I’m still young
So for chumps like us,
baby, antiwar’s way too much fun
Trendy set I’m in says they can’t be my friend
If I ain’t hawking the old sixties vision
It’s that iron hand in that velvet glove
That’s strangling all my good intentions
I tell myself, you gotta bust this trap
Gotta drop all this pap, can’t ya go back to just playin’ rock?
Singin’ platitudes makes my soul tired
But frankly I’m just a scared and lonely shaman
Who’s got a jones for the way that it feels
I gotta hear crowds go wild
So what if I don’t mean it for real?
At my shows each night mobs of middle-aged drones swoon when I say “times are dark”
I guess they live their lives in rearview mirrors
Because reality’s just too hard
The amusing thing's how we're getting paid to sing
Then get to brag we’re doing dissident work
I’d rather kid myself, baby, ‘neath these lights each night
Than admit I’m a political jerk!
Now the gossip shows glow with celebrity heroes all strugglin’ to stay alive
Every one of us knows that the Left’s in its throes
But there’s worse things than shuckin’ jive
The truth is we all hocked our brains away gladly
For a promise of more of that badly needed fame
Someday buddy I can’t say when
I’m gonna find my lost soul
The one that made all my old songs roll
even admit there’ve been victories won
But till then chumps like us
Think antiwar’s way too much fun
The interviewer's very first lob to Bruce, “On the whole, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?” got this response:
I’m optimistic as far as people go and pessimistic as far as the government goes, for pretty clear reasons. In 2006, the American people said, “Throw these bums out!” They would have voted Bush out at that moment if they could have. There was a clear message about the war in Iraq, and yet we sit here today with no front-running presidential candidate on either side who’s going to take us out of there.
Of course, we may just get out of Iraq the best way, victoriously, leaving behind a stable, secure, non-terror supporting, friendly Iraq, But who the hell wants to write a song about that?
Aside from this, Springsteen has nothing concrete to say about the challenge this nation--the heartland of which he is credited with speaking for-- has faced since 9/11. For him, the key issues are “race and poverty,” which he thinks were lost to the national discourse, “not unintentionally through the use of other issues.” (The war against Islamic jihadism, presumably.)
Springsteen really seems stuck on the poverty issue this time. He seems to think LBJ's plan was a good one. Or John Edwards's. Well, at least Edwards's anti-poverty plan worked for him. Maybe Springsteen's concerns for the impoversihed are why he's always photographed with the same old Telecaster with the worn-off finish, and of course, the Levis and T-shirt--that means he's poor, too, I guess.
You see, Bruce explains, the big movement of the powers that be in this country "is towards a plutocracy” [??], a movement which in turn is pushing the critical conversation about race and poverty out of the national discussion. But, he says, that conversation can’t be stopped all together:
I’ll tell you when it wasn’t stopped--when a guy that doesn’t care that much about it had to say something about it. [He’s talking about Bush, of course]. When people turned on the television during Hurricane Katrina and said “Where did all those poor people come from?”
You wanna give us a break, here, Bruce? I may not have known just how poor New Orleans was, but I always knew there were lots of poor people in every big city, because I grew up in one, and I still live right next to one. Does that mean I’m not a plutocrat?
Or maybe Springsteen was only expressing his own surprise at all these poor folks in New Orleans, because none of those impoverished black folks on TV getting pulled off their roofs looked familiar from the last time he’d played the Superdome for $100 a cheap seat.
Springsteen credits Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” with having an “enormous impact” on him, empowering him “to feel that in my small way, I had something to say, I could do something.” That something that he and the E Street Band can do, as we have note elsewhere, is to “sing.” To sing, and in 2004, to help raise money for that other working-class hero, and terror to plutocrats everywhere, John Heinz Kerry.
But for sheer historical myopia, nothing beats the response Sprinsgteen gave when he was aked how he thinks this time will be judged in 40 more years:
Many parts of it will be remembered with the same degree of shame as the Japanese internment camps are remembered --illegal wiretapping, rendition, the abuse of prisoners, cutting back our civil rights, no habeas corpus. I don’t think most people thought they’d ever see the country move far enough to the right to see those things happen here. And I don’t believe those are things that strengthen us. The moral authority to stand up and say, “We are the Americans,” is invaluable. It’s been deeply damaged, and it’s going to take quite a while to repair that damage, if we can.
This will be remembered as a low point in American history--as simple as that. People are going to go, “Was everybody sleeping?” But people get frightened, they get crazy. You wonder where political hysteria can take you--I think we’ve tasted some of that.
All I want to do is be one of the guys that says, “When that stuff was going down, I threw my hat in the ring and tried to stand on what I felt was the right side of history.” What can a poor boy do, except play in a rock & roll band?
Well,. Bruce, I'm not sleeping, but this kind of shit does make me crazy.
At least all this national darkness has given Bruce an excuse to update some of his old songs. I've even heard there's a new version of “Born to Run” the band's been playing around with in the studio:
Antiwar’s Way Too Much Fun
In the day I’m tryin’ to rhyme “habeas corpus” while I do my Nautilus routine
At night I preach ‘bout the last man to die and defective voting machines
Straight from the mean streets in John Kerry’s mind
"Rendition!" "Katrina!"
They’re clichés but I can’t change a line
Baby this stuff rips the soul from your rap
Sounds real dumb out loud, like rehashed Maureen Dowd
But those cheers make me feel I’m still young
So for chumps like us,
baby, antiwar’s way too much fun
Trendy set I’m in says they can’t be my friend
If I ain’t hawking the old sixties vision
It’s that iron hand in that velvet glove
That’s strangling all my good intentions
I tell myself, you gotta bust this trap
Gotta drop all this pap, can’t ya go back to just playin’ rock?
Singin’ platitudes makes my soul tired
But frankly I’m just a scared and lonely shaman
Who’s got a jones for the way that it feels
I gotta hear crowds go wild
So what if I don’t mean it for real?
At my shows each night mobs of middle-aged drones swoon when I say “times are dark”
I guess they live their lives in rearview mirrors
Because reality’s just too hard
The amusing thing's how we're getting paid to sing
Then get to brag we’re doing dissident work
I’d rather kid myself, baby, ‘neath these lights each night
Than admit I’m a political jerk!
Now the gossip shows glow with celebrity heroes all strugglin’ to stay alive
Every one of us knows that the Left’s in its throes
But there’s worse things than shuckin’ jive
The truth is we all hocked our brains away gladly
For a promise of more of that badly needed fame
Someday buddy I can’t say when
I’m gonna find my lost soul
The one that made all my old songs roll
even admit there’ve been victories won
But till then chumps like us
Think antiwar’s way too much fun
Cui Bono?
Dennis Prager recently called attention to the recent 40th-Anniversary edition of Rolling Stone for the way it “reveals almost all one needs to know about the current state of the cultural left.” “To Understand the Left, Read this Issue of Rolling Stone.”
The issue includes interviews with, among other leading lights, Al Gore, Dave Matthews, Jon Stewart, Paul Krugman, Bono, and Bruce Springsteen.
I limited my reading to two, Bono and Sprinsgteen, and about ten words of Al Gore.
Bono’s interview was recently quoted somewhere for his advice that the US follow Clinton’s example in sitting down with the IRA in Northern Ireland, and sit down with Al Qaeda. Bono says the Clinton administration ran the IRA idea past him at the time, but he disapproved of the it, not wanting to “dignify” the IRA, because they'd “put bombs in supermarkets, and many people have lost their lives.”
But now, says Bono:
I was wrong. Clinton did exactly the right thing in talking to the Provisional IRA and other extremist elements. Now they have to do the same, in my opinion, with Hamas, and they have to do the same with Al Qaeda. You have to involve them in dialogue.
He doesn’t exactly explain how dialoguing with religiously intransigent enemies is done. I’ve never approved of the IRA, but neither Sinn Fein’s original declaration if independence, nor its present electoral manifesto, ever called for the destruction of even their bitterest enemy--Great Britain.
In sharp contrast, both Hamas an Al Qaeda have been utterly consistent in their refusal to moderate their most immoderate fundamental demands--all of which require somebody else dying in large numbers. According to the Hamas Charter of 1988, Israel and the Jews must die:
The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”
According to the 2002 Al Qaeda manifesto entitled “Why We Fight America,” many Americans are supposed to die:
What happened to America [on 9/11] is something natural, an expected event for a country that uses terror, arrogant policy, and suppression against the nations and the peoples . . . America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah. . . . [Therefore], we have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons . . .
Bono is too sanguine about the efficacy of “compromise” in wartime.
But I give him credit at least for not speaking to Rolling Stone's readers from the lollipop fantasyland wherein most of his fellow celebrity sages dwell.
For instance, while he said he didn’t agree with Paul Wolfowitz that the Bush administration effort to plant democracy in Iraq would work, (I took it from pragmatic reasons), he also told Rolling Stone:
I want to be very, very clear, however; I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It’s real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let’s not pretend it isn’t.
Bono at least sounds like he’s capable of reason. In other words, his estimate of the threat we face tracks nicely with Dick Cheney's, whose opinion I'd trust in a battle any day of the week.
But alas, the rest of Bono's colleagues in enetertainment-land are extremely committed to pretending that Islamic terrorism is not “real and grave,” and certainly not “as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were.”
(And where’s this stupid mick come up with this notion Stalinism was a threat?)
Bono also refused interviewer Anthony DeCurtis’s invitation to blame Bush's initiative in Iraq for all current global problems: “There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.”
The issue includes interviews with, among other leading lights, Al Gore, Dave Matthews, Jon Stewart, Paul Krugman, Bono, and Bruce Springsteen.
I limited my reading to two, Bono and Sprinsgteen, and about ten words of Al Gore.
Bono’s interview was recently quoted somewhere for his advice that the US follow Clinton’s example in sitting down with the IRA in Northern Ireland, and sit down with Al Qaeda. Bono says the Clinton administration ran the IRA idea past him at the time, but he disapproved of the it, not wanting to “dignify” the IRA, because they'd “put bombs in supermarkets, and many people have lost their lives.”
But now, says Bono:
I was wrong. Clinton did exactly the right thing in talking to the Provisional IRA and other extremist elements. Now they have to do the same, in my opinion, with Hamas, and they have to do the same with Al Qaeda. You have to involve them in dialogue.
He doesn’t exactly explain how dialoguing with religiously intransigent enemies is done. I’ve never approved of the IRA, but neither Sinn Fein’s original declaration if independence, nor its present electoral manifesto, ever called for the destruction of even their bitterest enemy--Great Britain.
In sharp contrast, both Hamas an Al Qaeda have been utterly consistent in their refusal to moderate their most immoderate fundamental demands--all of which require somebody else dying in large numbers. According to the Hamas Charter of 1988, Israel and the Jews must die:
The Arab states surrounding Israel are required to open their borders to the Jihad fighters, the sons of the Arab and Islamic peoples, to enable them to play their role and to join their efforts to those of their brothers among the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The other Arab and Islamic states are required, at the very least, to facilitate the movement of the Jihad fighters from and to them. We cannot fail to remind every Muslim that when the Jews occupied Holy Jerusalem in 1967 and stood at the doorstep of the Blessed Aqsa Mosque, they shouted with joy: “Muhammad is dead, he left daughters behind.” Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. “Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.”
According to the 2002 Al Qaeda manifesto entitled “Why We Fight America,” many Americans are supposed to die:
What happened to America [on 9/11] is something natural, an expected event for a country that uses terror, arrogant policy, and suppression against the nations and the peoples . . . America is the head of heresy in our modern world, and it leads an infidel democratic regime that is based upon separation of religion and state and on ruling the people by . . . laws that contradict the way of Allah. . . . [Therefore], we have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons . . .
Bono is too sanguine about the efficacy of “compromise” in wartime.
But I give him credit at least for not speaking to Rolling Stone's readers from the lollipop fantasyland wherein most of his fellow celebrity sages dwell.
For instance, while he said he didn’t agree with Paul Wolfowitz that the Bush administration effort to plant democracy in Iraq would work, (I took it from pragmatic reasons), he also told Rolling Stone:
I want to be very, very clear, however; I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It’s real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let’s not pretend it isn’t.
Bono at least sounds like he’s capable of reason. In other words, his estimate of the threat we face tracks nicely with Dick Cheney's, whose opinion I'd trust in a battle any day of the week.
But alas, the rest of Bono's colleagues in enetertainment-land are extremely committed to pretending that Islamic terrorism is not “real and grave,” and certainly not “as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were.”
(And where’s this stupid mick come up with this notion Stalinism was a threat?)
Bono also refused interviewer Anthony DeCurtis’s invitation to blame Bush's initiative in Iraq for all current global problems: “There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.”
A comment that drew forth the following:
[MEMO from Jan Wenner to Bono:
Next time we interview you, READ THE GODDAMN TALKING POINTS FIRST!]
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
HAIL MARY MOTHER OF HIJAB?
Christianity’s most beloved saint was symbolically crucified in the name of Islamic Awareness at the UM-D campus. Ms. Najah Bazzi, an Islamic activist, gave a lecture to students about the world of Mary from the time she was born to what people know about her today. Ms. Bazzy’s contrived lecture excluded the terms Virgin birth and Mother of God, but dubiously credited Mary as being the Mother of Hijab. According to Ms. Bazzy, Muslim women cover their hair and body wearing the hijab to represent the importance of Mary and to remember to try to live like she did.
Islam is not a religion that is concerned with a female’s innate desire for anything. Women in Islam hold less value than than donkeys and dogs. They are the fruit of their owner’s vine and Muslim men like to pick fruit early in the season in order to squeeze from it as much life as possible. You see, although it is an embarrassing fact that Ms. Bazzy would have had a difficult time explaining, Muhammad was 52 years old when he married and had intercourse with a nine year old Aisha.Ms. Bazzy is an RN who is certainly aware of the physical, emotional, and psychological damage a nine year forced into having sexual relations would suffer. It is shameful and a lie for her to claim the virtues of the the Blessed Mother as being Islamic. Islam forces Motherhood on young girls as a result of the precedent Muhammad established when he married a nine year old 1400 years ago.
In Islam starting after the first menses, young girls are “valued greatly for their virginity, exploited by lustful old men, who purchase the girl with a dowry, and use them for sexual gratification and child-bearing. They are left to live as second class people, in a culture based upon Muhammad's life. This is the Islam that Muslims in the West don't want to tell you about, or do not know about themselves at all, living in countries with better standards than their religion teaches.”
I would suggest to Ms. Bazzy that the primal innate motivation behind what compels Muslim women to cover, is not modesty. If this innate desire exists, it is likely motivated by a desire not to be forced into marriage and raped by grandpa.
The command for women to cover comes directly from the Quran as told by Mohammad and has nothing to do with the sainted Mary, whom many scholars believe to be responsible for western civilization’s value of women and it resultant progression.
"Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better." Qur'an 33:59
The Great Blackout of 2007
“The steady falloff in Iraq coverage isn’t happenstance. It’s a barometer of the scope of the tragedy. For reporters, the already apocalyptic security situation in Baghdad keeps getting worse, simply making the war more difficult to cover than ever.”
Thus the New York Times’s Frank Rich in July 2006, in an op-ed column with the handy recyclable title of “The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq.”
Though I avoid the overused term, “irony,” I do really find Rich’s complaint about a “steady falloff in Iraq coverage” ironic, because we’re in the middle of a much more substantial falloff in coverage right now. Who knows but that it may be studied years hence as the Great Blackout of 2007, ranking in enormity, perhaps even surpassing, the phantom “blacklisting” of Hollywood Reds during the McCarthy era.
Rich’s thesis in July 2006 was that the Iraq war was getting less and less news coverage because the American people were tired of watching it, suggesting, illogically, that news coverage decisions instantly track audience demand, nor even reflect it.
The truth is, and it's remained the case especially when it comes to trumpeting bad news from Iraq, that the news media shows their public exactly what they want them to see, for exactly the reasons they want them to see it, regardless of audience demand. No one ever asked for a year of coverage of Abu Ghraib. No one will ever learn about Medal of Honor winners nor stories of battlefield heroism from the nightly news.
And contrary to what Rich was griping about last summer, the falloff on coverage isn’t a “barometer of the scope of the tragedy” of the Iraq war, (nor was it last year--Rich’s Bush-hatred has made him a lunatic; compare his analysis of Iraq just this September). The present falloff is a barometer of the media’s embarrassment and chagrin at the strategic turnaround, and approaching triumph in Iraq, the good outcome the media had gambled everything on being utterly impossible.
As the Left never tires of saying about the Bush administration, the media has no Plan B if the quagmire/endless war/failed strategy version of events turned out to be, well--so WRONG.
The press’s response to this unexpected turn of events, (though it may slowly be giving way now), has been to emphasize the most negative stories they can find, and carefully avoid reporting the blaring good news of progress.
A case in point. Where we live in southeastern Michigan, the formerly great daily, The Detroit News, has done everything it could since early November to avoid reporting the dramatic improvement in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad.
On November 7, The Detroit News ran a prominent story headlined, “U.S. troop deaths set record in Iraq/Six fatalities push the total for 2007 to 853, making this the bloodiest year of the war.”
By the date it ran this story, The Detroit News already knew that there was a trend in Iraq of steadily decreasing fatalities, because it was reported in this very same article, far below the lead:
“The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said last week that there had been a sharp decline in the number of explosively formed projectiles found in Iraq over the past three months. At the time, he and Gates said it was too early to tell whether the trend would hold.
“The noticeable drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths in recent months follows a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup, along with a six-month cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, among other factors. There were 39 deaths in October, compared with 65 in September and 84 in August.”
Even this story outlined an unmistakeable downward tredn in violence and fatalities. But the News instead chose to lead with the “grim milestone” angle, even though, in this context, it was meaningless--in fact, misleading. They liked these numbers so much they ran them again the next Saturday, with no explanatory context whatever:
Quick Read
Numbers in the news
853: Number of U.S. troops killed so far this year in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for American forces since combat began in March 2003. A total of 3,858 troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began.
On November 8, the day after the prominent "grim milestone" article, The Detroit News did actually report the profoundly historic announcement that U.S. forces had all but driven the last vestiges of al Qaeda from Baghdad. By "reporting" it, I mean they buried it in a 65-word News Brief paragraph, which I quote in its entirety:
Baghdad free of al-Qaida, U.S. says
BAGHDAD -- American forces have routed al-Qaida of Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, allowing American troops involved in the "surge" to depart as planned, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said Wednesday. "Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak," and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.
That's it. And to immunize their readers against even this small germ of good news, they ran a prominent 585-word piece, with a photo, a smooshy soft-news thing proclaiming, as the “Toll of War”: “Advocates fear surge of homeless veterans”). You can decide for yourself if the article makes the case that the Iraq War is a shortcut to homelessness for returning veterans.
Since then, as the news from Iraq has only gotten better, (or the information, anyway, as the news media won’t cover it), The Detroit News’s own stubborn emphasis in its Iraq coverage is revealed in these headlines of related Iraq-articles:
More on this topic
Pakistan rebuffs U.S.
Blast kills Iraqi children, U.S. soldiers
Senate blocks measures to fund Iraq, Afghanistan wars
Roadside blasts decline
Peace group to award anti-war activist Sheehan at Cobo
Report: 14 of 17 Blackwater shootings unjustified
Dems: U.S. wars cost family of 4 $20,900
Guards kill Iraqi taxi driver
Iraq soldier's wife turns her worries into comedy
Peace returns to Baghdad district
Mich. native Woodruff, Springsteen honor military wounded
Easing unrest renews Iraq's taste for booze
U.S. troop deaths set record in Iraq
Bombs kill five U.S. soldiers in Iraq
Ranks of people displaced in Iraq swell, relief group says
Another clearly negative story not in this list included, on November 17, “Stressed GIs desert posts.”
So, out of 16 stories, 13 emphasize bad news from Iraq, and even the favorable ones have misleading headlines. For instance, “Roadside blasts decline: Military says explosive devices down by more than half from March high, but still considered significant.” Of course any roadside bombs are significant. But not as significant, at this point, as the dramatic decline. News people are supposed to be able to recognize the real story out of jumbles of facts.
In fairness, I note that last Tuesday, the News did run a prominent AP story, “U.S. begins troop reductions”, fairly huge news, I’d say, considering that troop reductions are the only thing the Left has left to scream about.
But then again today’s big Iraq story, “U.S. agrees to further talks with Iran about security in Iraq,” is another red herring, an insubstantial piece reporting talks about talks, none of which is relevant to coalition progress in Iraq right now. Rather, it only reflect the nostalgia of the editors for the days when the Left still thought they could browbeat the administration into seeking peace terms on Iranian terms.
And look over today’s Iraq-related headlines from the News:
More on this topic
Stressed GIs desert posts
Dems tie Iraq funds, withdrawals
U.S. begins troop reductions
Levin says wars will tax future generations
State Dept. may phase out use of Blackwater
Blackwater scrutinized
Firms in Iraq face court jurisdiction
Congress grills Blackwater CEO
Dems push tax to pay for Iraq war
Report: Blackwater out of control
Levin keeps pushing Iraq policy changes
Iraq shootings scrutinized
War funds fight looms
Al-Maliki: Shooting tests Iraq autonomy
Iraq: U.S. company 'guilty' in shootings
One favorable story out of 15.
If I were a casual reader of the News, I guess I'd conclude that today, November 21st, all that's going on in Iraq is that soldiers are deserting their posts by the thousands, Blackwater is still running daily shoot-em-up tours through Iraqi villages, a brave Congress is valiantly trying to curb overspending on the war, and Carl Levin is still relevant. Oh, and I might notice that maybe a few troops are coming home.
The Detroit News has plainly decided that, if they can’t find bad war news, they'll report on Blackwater, the war tax on “future generations,” and alleged war crimes.
No question these profesional journalists are working very hard at all this. But are they doing their jobs?
Thus the New York Times’s Frank Rich in July 2006, in an op-ed column with the handy recyclable title of “The Peculiar Disappearance of the War in Iraq.”
Though I avoid the overused term, “irony,” I do really find Rich’s complaint about a “steady falloff in Iraq coverage” ironic, because we’re in the middle of a much more substantial falloff in coverage right now. Who knows but that it may be studied years hence as the Great Blackout of 2007, ranking in enormity, perhaps even surpassing, the phantom “blacklisting” of Hollywood Reds during the McCarthy era.
Rich’s thesis in July 2006 was that the Iraq war was getting less and less news coverage because the American people were tired of watching it, suggesting, illogically, that news coverage decisions instantly track audience demand, nor even reflect it.
The truth is, and it's remained the case especially when it comes to trumpeting bad news from Iraq, that the news media shows their public exactly what they want them to see, for exactly the reasons they want them to see it, regardless of audience demand. No one ever asked for a year of coverage of Abu Ghraib. No one will ever learn about Medal of Honor winners nor stories of battlefield heroism from the nightly news.
And contrary to what Rich was griping about last summer, the falloff on coverage isn’t a “barometer of the scope of the tragedy” of the Iraq war, (nor was it last year--Rich’s Bush-hatred has made him a lunatic; compare his analysis of Iraq just this September). The present falloff is a barometer of the media’s embarrassment and chagrin at the strategic turnaround, and approaching triumph in Iraq, the good outcome the media had gambled everything on being utterly impossible.
As the Left never tires of saying about the Bush administration, the media has no Plan B if the quagmire/endless war/failed strategy version of events turned out to be, well--so WRONG.
The press’s response to this unexpected turn of events, (though it may slowly be giving way now), has been to emphasize the most negative stories they can find, and carefully avoid reporting the blaring good news of progress.
A case in point. Where we live in southeastern Michigan, the formerly great daily, The Detroit News, has done everything it could since early November to avoid reporting the dramatic improvement in Iraq, and especially in Baghdad.
On November 7, The Detroit News ran a prominent story headlined, “U.S. troop deaths set record in Iraq/Six fatalities push the total for 2007 to 853, making this the bloodiest year of the war.”
By the date it ran this story, The Detroit News already knew that there was a trend in Iraq of steadily decreasing fatalities, because it was reported in this very same article, far below the lead:
“The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said last week that there had been a sharp decline in the number of explosively formed projectiles found in Iraq over the past three months. At the time, he and Gates said it was too early to tell whether the trend would hold.
“The noticeable drop in U.S. and Iraqi deaths in recent months follows a 30,000-strong U.S. force buildup, along with a six-month cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, among other factors. There were 39 deaths in October, compared with 65 in September and 84 in August.”
Even this story outlined an unmistakeable downward tredn in violence and fatalities. But the News instead chose to lead with the “grim milestone” angle, even though, in this context, it was meaningless--in fact, misleading. They liked these numbers so much they ran them again the next Saturday, with no explanatory context whatever:
Quick Read
Numbers in the news
853: Number of U.S. troops killed so far this year in Iraq, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for American forces since combat began in March 2003. A total of 3,858 troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began.
On November 8, the day after the prominent "grim milestone" article, The Detroit News did actually report the profoundly historic announcement that U.S. forces had all but driven the last vestiges of al Qaeda from Baghdad. By "reporting" it, I mean they buried it in a 65-word News Brief paragraph, which I quote in its entirety:
Baghdad free of al-Qaida, U.S. says
BAGHDAD -- American forces have routed al-Qaida of Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, allowing American troops involved in the "surge" to depart as planned, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said Wednesday. "Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak," and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.
That's it. And to immunize their readers against even this small germ of good news, they ran a prominent 585-word piece, with a photo, a smooshy soft-news thing proclaiming, as the “Toll of War”: “Advocates fear surge of homeless veterans”). You can decide for yourself if the article makes the case that the Iraq War is a shortcut to homelessness for returning veterans.
Since then, as the news from Iraq has only gotten better, (or the information, anyway, as the news media won’t cover it), The Detroit News’s own stubborn emphasis in its Iraq coverage is revealed in these headlines of related Iraq-articles:
Pakistan rebuffs U.S.
Blast kills Iraqi children, U.S. soldiers
Senate blocks measures to fund Iraq, Afghanistan wars
Roadside blasts decline
Peace group to award anti-war activist Sheehan at Cobo
Report: 14 of 17 Blackwater shootings unjustified
Dems: U.S. wars cost family of 4 $20,900
Guards kill Iraqi taxi driver
Iraq soldier's wife turns her worries into comedy
Peace returns to Baghdad district
Mich. native Woodruff, Springsteen honor military wounded
Easing unrest renews Iraq's taste for booze
U.S. troop deaths set record in Iraq
Bombs kill five U.S. soldiers in Iraq
Ranks of people displaced in Iraq swell, relief group says
Another clearly negative story not in this list included, on November 17, “Stressed GIs desert posts.”
So, out of 16 stories, 13 emphasize bad news from Iraq, and even the favorable ones have misleading headlines. For instance, “Roadside blasts decline: Military says explosive devices down by more than half from March high, but still considered significant.” Of course any roadside bombs are significant. But not as significant, at this point, as the dramatic decline. News people are supposed to be able to recognize the real story out of jumbles of facts.
In fairness, I note that last Tuesday, the News did run a prominent AP story, “U.S. begins troop reductions”, fairly huge news, I’d say, considering that troop reductions are the only thing the Left has left to scream about.
But then again today’s big Iraq story, “U.S. agrees to further talks with Iran about security in Iraq,” is another red herring, an insubstantial piece reporting talks about talks, none of which is relevant to coalition progress in Iraq right now. Rather, it only reflect the nostalgia of the editors for the days when the Left still thought they could browbeat the administration into seeking peace terms on Iranian terms.
And look over today’s Iraq-related headlines from the News:
Stressed GIs desert posts
Dems tie Iraq funds, withdrawals
U.S. begins troop reductions
Levin says wars will tax future generations
State Dept. may phase out use of Blackwater
Blackwater scrutinized
Firms in Iraq face court jurisdiction
Congress grills Blackwater CEO
Dems push tax to pay for Iraq war
Report: Blackwater out of control
Levin keeps pushing Iraq policy changes
Iraq shootings scrutinized
War funds fight looms
Al-Maliki: Shooting tests Iraq autonomy
Iraq: U.S. company 'guilty' in shootings
One favorable story out of 15.
If I were a casual reader of the News, I guess I'd conclude that today, November 21st, all that's going on in Iraq is that soldiers are deserting their posts by the thousands, Blackwater is still running daily shoot-em-up tours through Iraqi villages, a brave Congress is valiantly trying to curb overspending on the war, and Carl Levin is still relevant. Oh, and I might notice that maybe a few troops are coming home.
The Detroit News has plainly decided that, if they can’t find bad war news, they'll report on Blackwater, the war tax on “future generations,” and alleged war crimes.
No question these profesional journalists are working very hard at all this. But are they doing their jobs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
