"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
---Robert Park
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MentalBlocks
Throwing Mental Blocks at Glass Constructions
|
|
|
Friday, September 26, 2003
Andrew Sullivan has been getting e-mails about Wes Clark:
The most interesting came from liberals who have spoken with him and heard his private pitch. What he tells wealthy liberals is that he loathes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. He thinks terrorism has to be fought as a police operation. He believes the Iraq war was not just a misjudgment but a cynical political semi-coup.
Sullivan is currently inclined to like Clark--he's an optimist and he's hearing Clark say all the right things in public. He goes on to compare this with the experience he had with Clinton:
I was wowed by Clinton in 1991 for similar reasons. It took six weeks of him in office for me to realize my mistake. (Oh and by the way, the gay issue has nothing to do with my semi-open mind about Clark. I don't trust Clark to do anything substantive for gay equality, just enough to keep the money coming in and a supplicant interest group at his disposal. That was Clinton's mojo. And Clark has said nothing to separate himself from that kind of politics.)
This is nearly the same as my own experience. I voted for Clinton in 1991, and within a month I had begun hearing about the way he treated women and disrespected his office, and decided I'd made a horrible mistake regardless of what policies he might follow. As it turns out, I'm not sure he wasn't appropriate for the times, but that style of "leadership" is definitely not what is needed now.
10:21 AM
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Daniel Henninger has a nice column in the WSJ about "the little stories" of success in Iraq that never seem to get much notice in the press.
Let us turn to a recent, underpublicized report from the U.S. National Democratic Institute, which sent an assessment mission to Iraq this summer (www.ndi.org). NDI's chairman is Madeleine Albright and its advisory committee includes Richard ('miserable failure') Gephardt.
The report's first sentence: 'NDI's overwhelming finding--in the north, south, Baghdad and among secular, religious, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish groups in both urban and rural areas--is a grateful welcoming of the demise of Saddam's regime and a sense that this is a pivotal moment in Iraq's history.'
11:25 PM
Hmmm... sounds like Al-Qaeda is having some loyalty issues. Rantburg has a communique supposedly from Al-Qaeda about traitor management.
Al-Qaeda is accusing Kuwait of 'conspiring against the Mujahideen (holy fighters) in Iraq by recruiting persons to infiltrate the Mujahideen groups and hurt them from within.'
'....The United States has formed a joint intelligence committee with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to strike against Mujahideen in Iraq by spying on them or by implanting electronic chips at Mujahideen locations to facilitate accurate hits against them....'
If they're feeling the need to send this kind of thing to their minions, it's a really good sign. I'm kind of wondering about those "electronic chips"--is that really what's going on, or are they getting paranoid and ascribing attacks on their installations to some sort of magic "electronic chips". After all, it could just be good scouting by some special forces dirtbags with a laser designator. It's also interesting that the Saudis would be providing some useful service to us. I'm beginning to think that a Saudi civil war is shaping up...
UPDATE: I'm getting lazy about my attributions--this came by way of Instapundit
9:00 PM
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Oh geez, Rush Limbaugh has picked up the 2004 = 1864 meme, but manages to completely miss the point. He says this election is going to be like the 1864 election because Gen. Clark has some superficial similarities to Gen. McClellan, coming up with little gems like this:
McClellan's big ego won him the nickname "The Young Napoleon." After he was relieved of duty, he decided to run for president. In 1864, he was the Democrat nominee against Abraham Lincoln. Gen. Clark also does not suffer from low self-esteem. Newsweek reports that when his entreaties to Bush presidential adviser Karl Rove went unanswered, Gen. Clark decided to become both a Democrat and a presidential aspirant.
To which, of course, the proper answer is "so what?" No, this election is going to have some historical parallels to 1864, but that doesn't mean the Clark = McClellan, and it doesn't necessarily mean that Bush will win. But it does give us a reasonable framework in which to analyze the campaign and world events that precede the election, as long as we don't try to read too much into it.
9:50 PM
I'm thinking that the closest historical parallel to the 2004 election might be the 1864 election, during the Civil War. McClellan ran against Lincoln, and even though the failed general vowed to continue the war to save the Union, he stated that he would allow slavery to continue after the war, and go back to the status quo ante bellum regarding state's rights. In short, it was a conservative, even reactionary position--everything back the way it used to be, versus the Republican advocacy of a (small-r)evolutionary war to rid the country of the influences that started the war in the first place. Further, McClellans political base in the Democratic party was largely against continuing the war at all, so a vote for McClellan was widely (and probably correctly) viewed as a vote to end the war with a diplomatic settlement.
This story, coming by way of Andrew Sullivan, shines some light on Clark's position on the war.
Three days after the attacks, he counseled this response: 'It's fundamentally a police effort against individuals. It's not a military effort directed against factories and airfields. You may still need to use military force, but you have to use it in a very precise way.'
As Sullivan says,
It seems to me that this gets to a very important issue in the debate. Is our fight against terrorism a "police operation" or a war?
If Clark sticks to this position, then that's what the election will be about. Is our response to terrorism a fundamentally conservative one of policing action against individual terrorists and terror cells? Or is it a fundamentally revolutionary one that seeks to directly or indirectly reform the societies that encourage terrorism, thus "draining the swamp"? Further, if much of McClarken's political base is against continuing the war at all, will he be able to effectively prosecute even his limited goals? Stay tuned...
1:33 PM
Did I just hear the "Darth Vader" theme playing? This, to put it mildly, is not good.
Saudi Arabia Proposes Military Training For Jobless Youth
Sep 24
Saudi Arabia's government will implement a program to absorb the country's unemployed youth into the military, national guard, and security branches of the Interior Ministry. Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah ordered a committee chaired by Defense Minister Prince Sultan to prepare a proposal for establishing military training for unemployed youths, Arab News reports Sept. 24. Saudi Arabia's official unemployment rate is 10 percent but unofficial estimates place the figure as much as twice that. The timeframe for the training has not been released.
From Stratfor's Situation Reports for Sept. 24, 2003.
If they go through with this, the only question is precisely which sort of wretched hive of scum and villainy will the Saudi military turn into? Mark my words, if they take all their frustrated young'ns and put weapons in their hands, they'll turn them against us one way or another.
12:07 PM
A zinger from Gen. Hugh Shelton (Ret) regarding Wes Clark. Keep in mind that Shelton was a Clinton appointee.
"I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
UPDATE: I forgot to mention, this is by way of Andrew Sullivan.
11:56 AM
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Andrew Sullivan makes a good point:
I've been reading the excellent inside account of the Blair government's attempt to forge this middle way in the winter and early spring of this year. It's revealing - not only about the good intentions of Blair but about the treachery and intransigence of Paris. The question for Clark and Kerry is therefore: where do you disagree with Blair? If Blair came to the conclusion that there was no way that the French were prepared to sign on to serious enforcement of 1441, why does Clark think otherwise? Is he simply saying that he would have had superior diplomatic skills and talked Chirac around? Superior to Blair's and Powell's? I think history will judge that there was no way on earth that France would ever have acceded to serious enforcement of 1441 by Western arms, under any circumstances. If that's true, would Clark and Kerry have acceded to Paris and called the war off? If so, they should say so. But it would have been a huge blow to American credibility, deterrence and the war on terror. And since they favored the process whereby the French were given a veto, what exactly did the Bush administration do wrong? I wish I knew. I suspect these people are playing cheap rhetorical games in the midst of a dark and dangerous conflict. That alone casts doubt on their fitness to be president.
10:50 PM
A moving pronouncement from the bench of Judge William Young, the judge in the "shoe bomber" case.
See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the !United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.
Custody Mr. Officer. Stand him down.
4:48 PM
Gaah! Kos uncovers some rather glaring security flaws with the new Diebold electronic voting machines. Note that he's careful to say this is not a partisan issue--it's a Democracy issue.
So what was the flaw?
Specifically the flaw was that you can get at the central vote-counting database through Microsoft Access. They have the security disabled. And when you get in that way, you are able to overwrite the audit log, which is supposed to log the transactions, and this [audit log] is one of the key things they cite as a security measure when they sell the system.
2:34 PM
Josh Marshall weighs in on Wes Clark's phone habits. Marshall claims that it's all a failed set-up by two FOKRs (friends of Karl Rove). Dunno--that seems kinda paranoid to me, and if it was an attempted set-up, why did the White House shoot it down so hard? But then again, it's wouldn't be beyond the pale.
Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.
'I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls,' they say Clark told him.
Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.
My own opinion is that I have no opinion. I'm not going to make any real judgements about Clark until he articulates some policies, and if he wins the Dem primary I want to see exactly how he wins it. Who provides his base of support, and how much leverage will they have on his policies?
11:29 AM
And the smackdown!
How Loopy is Clark? The answer, I fear, is that he's Ross Perot without the emotional stability.
1:14 AM
Wow, amazing stuff from a former member of the Romanian secret police. The link comes from Andrew Sullivan, and I'm not quite sure how I was able to read a WSJ subscription article, but here it is anyway.
Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American 'imperial-Zionism' during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, 'imperial-Zionism' was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.
1:12 AM
Ouch. John Burns exposes some of the worst practices of the media in Iraq:
There is corruption in our business. We need to get back to basics. This war should be studied and talked about. In the run up to this war, to my mind, there was a gross abdication of responsibility. You have to be ready to listen to whispers.
12:10 AM
Monday, September 22, 2003
Wow. A must read interview with Bernard Lewis.
Although we "keep voicing fears that democracy won't work in Iraq, that's not what they're saying in the Middle East." There's a real terror there among the despots "that democracy in Iraq will work." Here, Mr. Lewis rests his case, as if to ask, Is there anything more to be said?
9:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|