97 Comments

1. lindenen:

Roger, it’s so funny to see your post just after having read this delusional letter to the editor regarding an article on Trans-Atlantic relations in the UK’s Prospect Magazine. This letter really has to be seen to believed. It contrasts beautifully with your excellent post. Every time I read stuff like this I begin to think we are the last sane Western country.

Oct 6, 2004 - 11:17 pm 2. Sandy P:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041006-012158-7663r.htm

U.N. panel to frame guidelines on legality of pre-emptive strike

They do have delusions of grandeur, don’t they?

Oct 6, 2004 - 11:25 pm 3. zeppenwolf:

The strange thing about this report, though, is that we knew all this a long time ago. Right? In fact, we had a huge list of exactly what individuals in what countries were receiving these “vouchers”, etc, months ago.

So how or what part of this is “news” ?

Oct 6, 2004 - 11:30 pm 4. Roger:

Yes, we know it, zeppenwolf. But that public does not know it. The MSM has hidden this crucial news from view with an incredible willful tenacity. That is why some of us bring it up and ever opportunity.

Oct 7, 2004 - 12:07 am 5. Foobarista:

And news actually has to be covered to be “news”. The only US reporter on this story, which is far bigger than Watergate in its scope, countries covered, and fundamental importance to historical events, is the woman from the WSJ who did the early work on the story. Can a “third-rate robbery” possibly compare to the corruption of two and possibly three of the five members of the Security Council, a vast subversion of the UN bureaucracy and inspectorate, pumping of billions into the pockets of an enemy dictator, and actions which lead to clear strategic consequences in a time of war?

An example of the historical chain that this story touched: France’s store-bought veto threat of the UN resolution meant that Turkey didn’t allow the 4th Infantry Division to enter and attack from the North, which meant that the unfought army that was in the north could melt away and morph into at least part of the “insurgency” after seeing the south overrun, instead of being crushed in the field.

Saddam definitely got his strategic money’s worth.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:50 am 6. David Thomson:

ìRoger, it’s so funny to see your post just after having read this delusional letter to the editor regarding an article on Trans-Atlantic relations in the UK’s Prospect Magazine.î

I strongly recommend that everyone reads these comments of Ulrike GuÈrot. This individual is bluntly stating the views of the utopian left. George Soros and many others (perhaps even the majority) of John Kerryís supporters think this way. It will almost certainly be the underlying theme of a Kerry presidency. The elitist have no hesitation to deceive us. We are, after all, supposedly unsophisticated children who must be persuaded by any means necessary to do what is best.

Oct 7, 2004 - 2:34 am 7. Terrye:

I hope that somebody ask about this at the town hall debate but I doubt they will.

In fact I think people will ignore this as long as possible and the people of Europe are accustomed to corruption. To them this of little importance, it is just how things are done. They will be more concerned with the lack of weapons stockpiles.

And as far Europe’s desire to restrain America through institutions such as the UN I don’t think that is very likely. Even if Bush gets beat Americans are not going to sit back and allow themselves to be attacked and if the Eurotrash and the DNC think differently they are mistaken.

If this country is attacked again, here or abroad, a meeting at the UN will not cut it.

And if the Europeans think that democracy is so American and we are only try to make countries over in our own image, what do they call themselves? Do the Euroepans think or believe that they would be living in peace today with stable governments and not at war with their neighbors if not for the deliberate and concerted involvement of the United States?

I think that after WW2 Europeans were tired of war and wanted to change and we gave them assistance to make that happen. Why are they so determined to deprive the Arab world of the same oppurtunities?

Oct 7, 2004 - 4:32 am 8. Peter Boston:

Look at the secular trend and it should scare the Hell out of you. Kerry is the front man for a not insignificant part of the American population eager to trade American wealth, liberty and sovereignty for nothing more than a pat on the head and “good boy.”

When these folks say that the American President is the greatest threat to world peace they are not kidding. American wealth, power and reach is unprecedented. In their minds this is an intolerable situation. Since no other country or region is likely to catch up with the USA enough to offset, this situation can only be “corrected” by taking away from the USA those things that contribute most to its ascendancy: wealth, liberty and sovereignty. Kyoto and the ICC are today’s tools. A French-Russian-Chinese led United Nations will fashion the tools of tomorrow.

This is the Grand Game of the 21st Century.

Oct 7, 2004 - 4:39 am 9. Terrye:

Peter:

It is not that simple, if it were Kerry would be out there telling people that a vote for him is a vote for a chastened America.

Most Americans think Europeans are jealous and therefor they bitch. Most Americans would like to be liked, they don’t like the scenes of burning flags but that does not mean they are willing to sacrifice their children’s safety to appease people who don’t like them anyway.

I remember back when Reagan was in office and the Dems tried to make a big deal out of the hatred Eropeans felt for Reagan. They tried to pass him of as a fascist for his central American polices. I know I was one of them.

Did it work? Do Americans today think gee, we should listened to the Eurotrash back in the 80’s and not that big bad Reagan?

Oct 7, 2004 - 5:27 am 10. David Thomson:

ìDo the Euroepans think or believe that they would be living in peace today with stable governments and not at war with their neighbors if not for the deliberate and concerted involvement of the United States?î

The answer is an unhesitating yes. Many Europeans give us little to no credit whatsoever for defending them. Need evidence? In my previous post, I referred to Ulrike GuÈrotís views. He claims that ìNuclear deterrence worked for us for more than 40 years.î Please note that he ignores the harsh fact that America power backed up their nuclear deterrence.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleView.asp?P_Article=12816

Once again, please take the time to read the comments of GuÈrot. Heís blantantly telling us how the far Left perceives the threats of our era.

Oct 7, 2004 - 5:32 am 11. rastajenk:

There isn’t a single solitary reason why the United States should even acknowledge the scent of moral superiority with which Europeans (either individuals or governments, doesn’t matter) powder themselves. Decades, or centuries, of horrendous war, nationalism, anti-semitism, colonialism, and bureaucratic statism, among other social ills, should be enough for us to say to them, “shut the fuck up and mind your own business.”

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:07 am 12. rastajenk:

Make that, “Old Europeans,” above. There are some on the continent who embrace progressive ideals and they shouldn’t be tossed out with the rest of the Eurotrash.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:11 am 13. pdq332:

Oon the original posting:) Hear hear! Since we are not getting any material support from the UN, Bush should start echoing these sentiments in his campaign speeches. It is clear that when Kerry was talking about the coalition of the bribed and the coerced, he could have been talking about the UN.

On the reactionary title, I have been posting comments like that here and there around the blogosphere for months. Much as it pains me being a hawkish liberal myself, I think my more dovish bretheren are ripe for the “Archie Bunker” treatment, because there is nothing so easy to make fun of as people who put themselves up over you on the basis of knee-jerk convictions.

How many anti-war liberals does it take to change a light bulb?

Four. One to break the original lightbulb while protesting Haliburton for stealing the “Ooooiiiiiillllll!!! (TM)” that was burned to make the electricity that kept the bulb lit. One to denounce tax cuts while lifting change out of the pockets of passerby to pay for a new light bulb. One to actually change the light bulb, but according to union rules he only works that neighborhood on Tuesdays between 3:30 PM and 4:30 PM, and there’s already a long list, so it’s going to be a few months’ wait. And one to screen a movie, since we’re all in the dark anyway in the meantime, alleging that Bush lied and wanted to protect the Saudis after 9/11.

(OK, I’m no humorist. Someone else should have at it!)

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:14 am 14. asher:

Roger, spot on as always.

Europe, “a state in the making” … right. Ulrike Guerot is seriously delusional.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:17 am 15. Hylas:

Ulrike GuÈrot’s comments show that Europe never overcame the psychological damage resulting from its self-destruction in the wars of 1914-1945. Their “multipolar” balance-of-power world fractured in 1914 and we’ve been dealing with the wreckage ever since. Fascism, Communism, unstable artificial “nation” states like Iraq carved out of dying colonial empires, all maggots crawling out of the corpse of European hegemony.

The result of this is that we’ve been struggling with issues of security and war constantly since 1945. Even if we don’t want to think about it we don’t have a choice. But European thought about these matters is mostly neurotic remorse over what they’ve lost.

They’re terrified of national or patriotic sentiments because that was the fuel of their funeral pyre.

They’re afraid of democracy (although they don’t like to admit it) because of the various genocidal totalitarian socialists that hijacked the new post-WWI democracies. Look at how many people still vote for fascists and communists today in both France and Germany. Wouldn’t you be worried too?

And above all they are terrified of war. European intellectuals have spent the last 60 years obsessively demonizing anything related to warfare. They simply can’t imagine a cold rational decision about the use of military power. They have been so conditioned by the likes of Erich Fromm and Elias Canetti they no longer have the mental framework to even imagine such a thing. So they assume that we must be in the grip of some horrible mass psychosis. They consider it their duty to restrain us until we regain our sanity.

European civilization is still suffering from shell shock.

I wish they’d snap out of it. But I don’t think they will.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:18 am 16. gbl:

There are two amazing things going on right now. First the lack of good reporting on the Oil for Food scandal and second the inability of the press to truly analyze the Iraq Survey Group Report. After reading the report it is oblivious that MSM only pick up stories from the wire services and regurgitated it with their own bylines.

Iraq (Saddam) was playing with the U.N. like a drugged up crack whore breaking the rules of the sanctions, creating dummy companies to skim money from, and under the table payoffs to our so called allies. This was not to feed babies with infant formula but rather to slowly build up his power and lay the ground work for duel-purpose facilities.

He knew he could drive a wedge between countries and played the weak and easily bribed like cheap violins. Sanctions were falling apart and he knew it. It was his intent to resume this WMD programs after getting the all clear from the UN.

Focusing solely on the ìsee there were no WMDís in Iraqî is dangerous and short sighted. If not now we would have to face Saddam down the road with WMDís and god knows what else. Anyone who would believe that Saddam would negotiate after resuming or having finished WMDís ready to go is foolish and has not taking his past reckless history into account.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:47 am 17. GhostOfAtwater:

Has anyone considered why Bush is reluctant to criticize France and the UN by name? Does he honestly believe that there is a significant portion of the electorate that would be offended by blunt remarks regarding this well documented example of corruption? Reagan was not shy about naming names and if I recall correctly it did not cost him any votes!

Is this some sort of inherent blind spot given his father’s long diplomatic career?

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:47 am 18. gbl:

GhostOfAtwater:

I too have wondered the same. I would be blasting the French and a few other countries regarding the Oil For Food program and their assistance to Saddam during the build up to the war. Somethings it’s best to just lay the cards on the table and let people know the truth of our so called allies.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:51 am 19. jerry:

I have good news for Senator Kerry. He was right, there is a coalition of the bribed and a real coalition. Now the bad news: The coalition of the bribed is his coalition. France was on Saddam’s Payroll. Bush’s coalition turns out to be the real deal. Looks like another case of projection.

The problem with Europe is that we allowed them to live in a dream world from the formation of NATO right up through the Balkan Civil War. In the beginning they knew that without the United States, and initially the British Commonwealth, European Security was impossible. After the Vietnam war, a perceived American defeat, Elements of the Europe establishment began to seek accommodation with the USSR. However, they always had in the back of their mind that the US would bail them out. Sometime between the INF deployment and the end of the Cold War Europe forgot that the US was the “straw that stirred the drink.” They began to congratulate themselves on how the sophisticated Europeans finessed the end of the Soviet Union. Their collective failure to do anything in the Balkans went unnoticed because the Clinton Administration was easily duped to do Europe’s bidding.

The collapse of European values and their descent into cultural nihilism has caused the European people to create this illusory world where surrender equals sophistication. Islamic Radicalism has succeeded where the Soviet Union failed. Europe has been “Finlandized”, or more properly “Vichyized” since they now cooperated with their occupiers. France, the principle architect of this policy, has become a vassal state in the Islamic world. They have bought peace at the price of their own sovereignty. They actually got a better deal from Hitler.

The only hope of fixing the situation is a total abandonment of formal alliances with both new and old European nations. US security is better served by pickup coalitions with common interests in specific areas. Only then will Europe be forced to confront the reality of the post 9-11 world.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:51 am 20. Peter Boston:

Hanoi – French President Jacques Chirac warned on Thursday of a “catastrophe” for global diversity if the United States’ cultural hegemony goes unchallenged. Jackass Speaks.

Add to Jackass’ list United States’ military power, wealth, and political influence and voila, you get a strategy that differs only in kind, but not in purpose, from the jihadis. The existential battle for the idea of the United States of America is joined and we’re the people in the trenches.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:00 am 21. Clay:

Not an important point, but Ulrike is a female name. Ulrich is male.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:01 am 22. David Thomson:

ìDoes he honestly believe that there is a significant portion of the electorate that would be offended by blunt remarks regarding this well documented example of corruption?î

Life is not fair. President Bush would lose the election if he were so blunt. The MSM and their allies would crucify him. Too many American swing voters would be scared off by such ìcowboyî rhetoric. However, after the election—this is one of the first things Bush should do.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:06 am 23. Rick Ballard:

GhostOfAtwater:

Great name. W has done very little to upset the applecart of pretence regarding the UN. If you think about the reality of action versus the lip service for a bit, he did deal the death blow regarding UN relevance 2 years ago. Regarding Iraq, he told them that without enforcement their sanctions were meaningless and the the US and its allies were going to enforce sanctions with or without UN approval. Unwinding the ties with the UN and our once allies in Europe is going to take some time. The process has started and will be very well underway by the end of W’s next term.

The pretence is needed to keep fodder from the MSM cattle until after the election. As much as I’d like to see demolition charges planted at the UN, a plurality of the American people cling to the fantasy that it has a 21st century relevance. With the DNC/MSM sitting with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut it is very difficult to disabuse the hoi polloi of the notion of comity that provides the facade for UN thievery. At least the first steps have been taken.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:08 am 24. Morgan:

From Peter Boston’s link:

“Vietnam is a former French colony, but only around 375 000 of its 81 million people speak French. English is considered by most people a far more valuable and practical second language, particularly among businessmen.”

You mean Vietnamese businessmen aren’t interested in the language of “deep play”?

Heh.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:09 am 25. Mark Poling:

While I would dearly love for Bush to give France et. al. the pimp hand, I think he’s more concerned with actually governing over the next four years. As much as the cheese eating surrender monkeys need to be put in their place, they still have their uses.

On a more depressing note, he also has to deal with his own State Department, which at times seems near open revolt. Spanking the preferred dinner partners of every mid-level factotem in Foggy Bottom, while satisfying, would not help Bush esprit de corps-wise.

When you start thinking about all the interests and forces a President has to juggle, you have to wonder why anyone would want the damn job.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:25 am 26. Matt Evans:

Somewhat off-topic but did anybody read Totten’s 2 part series, making the case for Kerry and Bush.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092004E.html

It seems to me that the entire basis for his argument is that Bush won’t be able to be pre-emptive because he’s already been pre-emptive- but somehow, Kerry will be able to be pre-emptive (for instance, in Iran) because he hasn’t “wasted” his political capital.

So basically, the argument is, Kerry will be pre-emptive and aggressive, eventually, and will be more effective because he doesn’t have the “polarizing effect” that Bush has. So it seems to me that he’s saying that if we found nukes in Iran during Bush’s term, Bush wouldn’t be able to go after Iran for promolgating nuclear aggression ?

My mind boggles over this. It seems the basis for his entire argument is that Bush’s personality was the catalyst for the split in this country- I call BS on that one. Bush’s personality translates into “He will make war” and a little less than half the country has a problem with that. They have demonized W the same way they tried to demonize Reagan- he’s not too bright, he’s hyper-aggressive, etc. BUt its not Bush’s personality that has polarized this country, its the far left’s insistance that its nuanced position is the correct position and that it is the party that should be in power.

Does anyone here agree with Totten, that electing Kerry would give us a fresh start globally ? Does anybody actually think Kerry would use this so called “fresh start” to the advantage of Americans?

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:45 am 27. GhostOfAtwater:

I must disagree with the notion that voters would react negatively to Bush if he were to chastise the UN and “Old Europe”. Granted the MSM and DNC would attempt to paint it in a negative light BUT this would only serve to put the self serving corruption charges on the front page of the papers every day. Who has more to lose in that scenario?

John Kerry has had to move from hawk to dove and back to hawk during his campaign (primary included) because his internals are telling him that the voters do care about security. Thus with a clear message of subservience to the UN and our “allies” as the main plank of his security platform John Kerry would be on his heels once again if he had to spend the next 30 days defending UN and French corruption. Especially given that their actions may have cost US lives via Turkey’s policy.

And…focusing on the corruption outlined in the report will help to deaden the “NO WMD” cacophony in the MSM.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:48 am 28. Matt Evans:

Also, maybe its just me but in reading Totten, I do not believe he’s an undecided voter any longer. Its seems to me that he’s very much made up his mind, along the same thinking in the article- that Kerry, for all his flaws, represents a “fresh start” for America.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:48 am 29. chuck:

Also, maybe its just me but in reading Totten, I do not believe he’s an undecided voter any longer.

Michael has never struck me as undecided, he just thinks he is. However, he has begun to question some of his basic assumptions, and once he escapes from his utopian mindset he will be home free.

I won’t complain if he pulls a fast one and proves me wrong.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:39 am 30. Peter Boston:

Kerry would be a fresh start – but in the wrong direction. I’m not panicking. It took two generations for liberalism to morph into virile domestic anti-Americanism and may take almost as long to reverse the tide, although the WoT has increased the probability of a catastrophic reversal of the veneer of legitimacy of this new leftism.

The Kerry candidacy has brought these fundamental issues into the open. A Kerry presidency would avalance the debate. I don’t think it would be pretty but the roots of individualism go very deep in America and it would take more than a Kerry/Jackass tag team to overcome it.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:46 am 31. Elric:

Actually, as I’m reading Totten’s (who I’ve never read before) part 2, he’s being particularly viscious to Kerry and the anti-war Democrats.

Come to think of it, part 1 is just as viscious to the same people Dems and Kerry. I think he’s just trying to be thought provoking and flesh out the Mickey Kaus theory. I’m not quite so sure from how he constructs it that he actually believes it. It’s irrelevent, it was an interesting read either way. Unconvincing, but good. His part 2 though, is echoing many of the things Roger has been saying about “liberalism” for a while here.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:50 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):

Michael has never struck me as undecided, he just thinks he is. However, he has begun to question some of his basic assumptions, and once he escapes from his utopian mindset he will be home free.

Chuck, I think you’re on to something here.

I was re-reading Atlas Shrugged recently — for the umpteenth time, but the first time in years — and was struck by something. (Jamie, chime right in on this, this is up your alley.)

The overt plot of AS is the revolt of the creative “motor of the world” people against the parasites; works fine, except for that damnable “This is John Galt Speaking” chapter.

But, on re-reading, it really struck me that the subtext, the emotional content, is the rejection of shame: becoming self-actualized, accepting the responsibility inherent in that, and then rejecting the external shaming that results.

“Bush=Hitler” and “Bush is dumb” and “Cheney is cheating for Halliburton” and “It’s all about Oil” — and, finally, the whole underlying notion that the US should be more like Europe and less self-assured — is really, I think, an attempt to use shame as a means of control.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:55 am 33. Skookumchuk:

My wife was watching The Today Show (gasp, hack) while getting ready for work. I told her I would give her $10,000 if they mentioned the Oil For Food scandal while she had it on. Somewhat academic since the checkbook is in her purse, but it is the thought that counts.

And besides, I seem to have won.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:58 am 34. Old Dad:

The UN is hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional, and Old Europe has been literally unmanned. The diplomatic charade, though, has a purpose.

When my kids were young, I’d listen patiently to their complaints, but neither party ever doubted whose opinion would ultimately carry the day.

Old Europe is like the aging black sheep uncle who tries to demand respect at Thanksgiving. Everyone tries to humor him for the sake of a peaceful meal, but everyone knows he is a joke.

Oct 7, 2004 - 9:17 am 35. Peter Boston:

Old Dad

I like the family analogy. We all will demonstrate high tolerance within the family for the snipers and backbiters. People change and time erases memory. But what happens when we learn that the sniper is cooperating with our real enemies to damage our childrens’ future? That’s different.

Oct 7, 2004 - 9:35 am 36. Old Dad:

Peter Boston:

Of course, you’re right. Uncles Jacques and Gerhardt are not only criminals, they’ve been aiding and abetting the enemy. It will be tough to maintain the civil charade.

Oct 7, 2004 - 9:54 am 37. TmjUtah:

A few days ago Michael Totten proposed that Hillary Clinton would be a viable option to either Bush or Kerry.

I haven’t been back much since.

Some on the left haven’t quite got “it” yet; it’s not about which party will fight the War on Terror better.

It’s which one will fight it at all.

I admire Michael’s writing. As far as I know, he’s the only blog on the internet that put up a link to my blog. I respect his opinions most of the time, but then I get blindsided by stuff like the Hillary mention and the casual assignment of chauvinism as a de facto component of Republican philosophy I just have to shake my head.

You’ll find this in the second link:

“But I don?t trust Bush as much as I used to, in part because he really does appear to be in denial. Also because he has practically no political capital to carry out a foreign policy I basically agree with, and because he is such a polarizing figure he has become an enormous liability.”

Conflict=failure drips out of that statement. I’ve never thought that Bush was in denial. He’s just refused to attempt to spin or temporize the gravity and scope of the challenge before us. And to lay the onus of polarization on Bush ignores the incessant, frenzied character assassination and obstruction that has defined the Democrat strategy on both the political PR and within the government function from the second the polls closed in 2000.

We are engaged in the transformation of an entire culture. In the short term this has the effect of keeping the bombers, beheaders, and babykillers at arm’s length. In the long term we may reprise the accomplishments of our post-WW2 diplomatic efforts to return Germany and Japan to the civilized world as vibrant, free societies that had no further interest in wars of aggression or expansion.

We face killers on both the retail and wholesale levels. Individual free agents and national governments that support them are actively and aggressively working to kill us. That is the single most salient fact to remember, the pivot on which our political choices should primarily turn, and it is obvious to me that many Americans, especially those who were raised left, have failed to make the leap required to survive in a post 9/11 world.

This isn’t a social engineering or environmental or entitlement argument that can be horsetraded to the satisfaction of a bloc of senators, congressmen, lobbyists, and president. The consequences for failure in this undertaking will be measured in terms of death and destruction – not the wink and nod of ‘it’s just another wasteful government program’. Failure won’t be a redline entry on the deficit report, it will be smoking dead bodies, corpses in hospitals, and citizens crouched behind their own doors in fear of what lies beyond them.

Kerry. Bush. There is no comparison to be made here for which man will aggressively prosecute this war. Might Kerry be “better” at some aspects? Maybe. There’s nothing in his public record to encourage optomism on that front; no track record of executive experience, a publicly avowed willingness to subsume U.S. interest to some amphorous global test, twenty years of voting consistently against defense or intelligence improvements, and a consistent supporter of tax hikes and income redistribution.

Kerry believes that government solves problems. All problems. His party seems to believe that the biggest problem facing them is that they aren’t in power. They have abandoned their public trust to work toward defending this nation, instead using the uncertainty, costs, and unavoidable shortcomings and tragedys that define war for their own political ends.

Bush believes that Americans solve their own problems and that government’s duty is to provide the defense to make it possible for citizens to pursue their dreams. I’ll stick with Bush.

If Michael thinks that Bush is somehow impotent for a second term, maybe he might ask himself why Kerry is the choice of Kim Jong Il, the mullahs in Tehran, and the whining paid shills of france and Germany?

Where is the chauvinism there? The treasure that is American citizenship transcends race, ethinicity, or religion. Rich/poor/red/blue DOES NOT MATTER as long as we remember that our freedoms exist because we have agreed to govern ourselves – not submitted to government control of our lives. I demand that my government use the power it is granted to keep my family safe, not to engage in some PC, perfect world debate while individuals, organizations, and rogue states retrench and reorganize under an old ‘business as usual’ pre-9/11 farcical construct.

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:00 am 38. Bostonian:

I gave up on Totten when he said that Kerry’s Vietnam history didn’t matter, because it was all so long ago. If he cannot appreciate that character matters in a presidential race, I’m just not interested in the rest of his ideas.

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:07 am 39. Michael J. Totten:

TmjUtah,

I do not for one second believe conflict=failure. I’ve been railing against that idea for the entire time I’ve been blogging. Sorry it it looked like I slipped.

As for Hillary Clinton, she’s a hawk. And the liberals love her. Bush will never carry them out of the Vietnam Syndrome, but she could. Her husband did…for a brief period when he declared a unilateral war against Slobo.

I want the Democrats to snap out of this awful phase they are in. You should, too, even though you aren’t a Democrat. (I’m not a Democrat either these days.) The GOP isn’t going to win this one by itself.

But this is all academic anyway. I am not voting for Hillary Clinton. I intend to vote for George W. Bush.

As for “Bostonian” (who commented above) who doesn’t want to read my blog because I’m irritated that the 2004 election has been about Vietnam instead of Iraq…fine, don’t read me. My traffic is at record highs.

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:34 am 40. Matt Evans:

Well, I’m glad to see my assumptions were incorrect about the direction you’re voting. I have read quite a bit of self-reflection type blogs, from democrats who making a legit effort to examine if the Bush doctrine makes sense. And the funny thing is, so many times they seem to make an argument against Kerry and for Bush and at the end, their conclusions are “Bush is right globally but we’re still voting democratic”. Their denial is almost painful to watch – logic and reason says we must take this fight to the terrorists but they just can’t seem to vote for Bush.

On the upside, I spent my lunch hour talking to two undecided’s in my office, discussing Toten’s interesting argument for Kerry’s election (the “fresh start” thing) – both said they were leaning towards Bush because the “fresh start” was not as important as WHO was going to be in charge when the alleged “fresh start” occured.

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:51 am 41. Lola:

Matt Evans

both said they were leaning towards Bush because the “fresh start” was not as important as WHO was going to be in charge when the alleged “fresh start” occured.

Wow . . . that’s an interesting perspective.

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:15 am 42. Matt Ward:

Kerry’s 4-POINT IRAQ PLAN

1. I’ll speed up the training of Iraqi troops (by training them out of country, if necessary)

2. I’ll speed up reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure

3. I’ll hold summits with France/Germany/Russia to get them to contribute troops and money to Iraq

4. Can’t remember #4

So the only way Kerry’s professed Iraq policy (#3)differs from Bush’s has been proven to be a sham. These countries were taking bribes from Saddam to block our invasion of Iraq, and they won’t do so now even if Kerry is elected.

Everything Kerry has promised has been done by Bush, including #3 (remember the funding summit in Spain a year ago?). So what does Kerry have to offer?

I’m leery of Kerry.

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:24 am 43. dougf:

For those Michael Totten fans,and I count myself among them(AGAIN,as of the message pasted below.)Geez it took forever but alls well that ends well.

$lick: I can’t believe that you are REALLY still undecided. Who do you think you are, Bill O’Reilly? C’mon, you’re not foolin’ anyone but yourself….

No, I intend to vote for Bush. I mentioned this the other day. I’ll write another post about it to make it clearer. But there are some good arguments for Kerry, and I understand why people prefer him. (My wife is going to vote for him.) I’m not going to be as gung-ho about Bush as most of his supporters are.—MJT

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:37 am 44. Percy Dovetonsils:

“More important than WMDs is the reputation of the United Nations. It is in tatters.”

I respectfully – and sadly – disagree, Roger. As Foobarista said, “news actually has to be covered to be ‘news’.” This is getting no traction in the MSM, and thus it’s being swept under the carpet.

I talk about the U.N.’s corruption at work, and people just look at me like I’m a John Bircher, protesting the fluoridation of water as a Pinko plot. The soon-to-be new Senator for my state, Obama, talks about the need to go hat-in-hand to the UN (not to mention signing up for the ICC and the Kyoto accords), and people just nod eagerly in appreciation of his “sophistication.”

Just to add to my stomach acid, on my way home I pass several houses owned by NPRistas who fly the UN flag, and not the U.S. one. I have the strongest, saddest certainty that such people will never learn to feel the shame deserved for flying the standard of such a corrupt institution. (Just to be clear: I’m not saying that anyone should feel compelled to fly a U.S. flag – I don’t fly one – but to fly a U.N. one strikes me as a particularly “F*** you” kind of gesture.)

It’s so damn tiring. I’m just grateful that you run this blog/support group for like-minded folks, or else I’d lose my mind.

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:40 am 45. Michael J. Totten:

Dougf: Geez it took forever but alls well that ends well.

Yeah, yeah. I went undecided for a while. Probably for too long, but I did it on purpose. I wanted to make really sure I wasn’t overreacting to John Kerry and conflating him with Dennis Kucinich. So I tried to talk myself into voting for him as best I could. And I tried to talk myself into it on my terms and my terms only by completely rejecting the conventional wisdom and thinking hard for myself. This is the first election where I have done this. If I’m going to declare myself Independent, I need to think like one instead of just hopping onto a different bandwagon. If that alienated some people, I guess that’s just too bad for them. I have no regrets.

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:49 am 46. jerry:

Michael:

I beg to differ with you on Hillary. She is pigeon dressed up as a hawk. The actual implementation of her policies would be no different then Kerry’s.

As far as Bill’s little adventure in in Kosovo goes it was truly the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Two pillars of Clinton’s foreign policy were counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism (well not really on the later). The Kosovar Albanians were either (a) narcotics trafficers/narco-terrorists or (b) Islamic radicals. This was well known at the time and was briefed to Gen Clark, Albright and Berger prior to the war by DIA, CIA and the EUCOM J-2. The only reason that Clinton went into Kosovo was Clark and Albright’s obsession with getting Milosevic. The rank and file Democrats supported Clinton out of both loyalty and the self-delusion that Milosevic was some how a fascist when in fact he was a Stalinist. The Bosnians, Croatians and the Kosovars were the descendents of the WWII Fascist movements. Had folks like Kennedy and Kerry really understood the pedigree of our “allies” they would have opposed the war and supported Milosevic.

The State Department bureaucracy also had a hand in steering Clinton to the Albanian partisan side because of State’s obsession with promoting Islamic radicalism

.

Oct 7, 2004 - 12:13 pm 47. Jamie Irons:

Charlie

“Bush=Hitler” and “Bush is dumb” and “Cheney is cheating for Halliburton” and “It’s all about Oil” — and, finally, the whole underlying notion that the US should be more like Europe and less self-assured — is really, I think, an attempt to use shame as a means of control.

I’ve never read Atlas Shrugged, but I agree that “shame as a means of control” is operative here.

When I was last speaking to my dear sister (and she is my dear sister), who now despises me because of my hawkish views, about how Israel had every right to “oppress” the “Palestinians” who were trying to destroy them and their country, she left me in no doubt that my views were aggressive and therefore “shameful,” because a decent person would never think of supporting a people or a country that “oppresses” these helpless “victims.”

(My sister has lived all her adult life in Morocco and thinks as a French person would, alas.)

(That people at a Bar Mitzvah or in a nightclub blown up by a suicide bomber might really be victims just wouldn’t enter into her thinking.)

Jamie Irons

Oct 7, 2004 - 12:21 pm 48. geoffg:

Roger,

Kerry’s “global test” would be a continued validation the UN’s behavior. And, of the nations that actively participated in the OFFal scandal, which are of course, enemies in every sense of the definition, nuance aside.

Clearly, the U.S. (as led by either candidate), plus its real allies, must make some radical and immediate changes in, or withdraw entirely from the UN, as soon as the extent of that organization’s corruption is made completely public. Faster please.

The U.N. as a entity, the UNSC as a sub-group, and France, Germany, Russia, China, as individual countries, and hundreds of unscrupulous persons, intentionally sabotaged the efforts of the U.S. to stop this corruption and liberate Iraq. If these are the actions taken by our friends, who needs enemies? And, time is inexorably ever-shorter in the current wartime situation.

The imminent US “take it or leave it” demands on the U.N will cause howling consternation on all fronts, from all corners of the globe; so be it. At least the U.S. and its rational citizens will know more precisely, who is with us and who isn’t.

Clearly, Kerry isn’t disposed to do what is necessary to get the UN and its members to either get their house in-order, in short order, (including jailing the individuals involved, after publicly televised trials, not exceeding 4 weeks in length), or face dissolution by March 2005.

And, in order for the offending countries to have any chance of rejoining the “new UN” or “newly constituted organization of democracies,” each country will be required to televise these trials in their entirety and unaltered, in prime time, and have every major newspaper in that country print the trial transcripts, unaltered and accurately translated, at least half of each day?s transcript beginning on the front page, for as long as it takes to educate the citizens of those countries, of the level of greed, deceit, graft and corruption their officials were guilty of.

The prosecution also needs to emphasize in each trial, the effect of these criminal activities on the “coalition of the willing” that took on the responsibility of removing Saddam, and seize assets of the those found guilty, to be applied to the “bill” for liberating Iraq.

Doesn’t some version of the above have to take place, soon?

Oct 7, 2004 - 12:34 pm 49. geoffg:

Timj,

diplomatic efforts to return Germany and France and Russia to the civilized world as vibrant, free societies that had no further interest in wars of aggression or expansion…only to have to deal with their cowardice, deceit, corruption and outright treachery.

Oct 7, 2004 - 12:44 pm 50. blogaddict:

The fact that the oil-for-food scandal is off most people’s radar screens is further proof–as though we needed any–that the MSM is nearly as corrupt as the UN–although their corruption doesn’t involve payoffs and bribes.

I’m feeling really low today about the possiblity of countering the media spin of the Duelfer report, and the lack of coverage of oil-for-food in general.

I forced myself to try to be fair today and to read the entire NY Times coverage of the Duelfer report story, and I’m stunned. The spin is even worse than I thought. The headlines emphasize the lack of WMDs and fail to even mention Saddam’s intent to start again once sanctions were lifted. The articles themselves do briefly mention his intent to start again, but make it sound as though that was a distant and unlikely event of no real import. The articles state that the Republican attempt to say otherwise is simply spin, and bad spin at that–the NY Times article on Cheney’s response says, for example, “Cheney’s comments reflect a GOP strategy to use portions of the report, including abuses of Iraq’s `’fuel for food” program, to try to move discussion away from the central conclusions on the absence of weapons of mass destruction.” Wow. And this wasn’t in an editorial, it was in a straight news article suposedly saying what Cheney’s reaction was.

What’s even more amazing is that, although there is indeed an article about the growing oil-for-food scandal, it is totally separate from all the other “no WMD” articles, and no connection is ever made between the two issues. There is no mention of how the oil-for-food scandal directly ties into the WMD/sanctions controversy, how it affected the runup to the war, how it meant that our “allies” were actively working to lift the sanctions and allow Saddam to resume his program, how corrupt the UN and the “allies” are, and how this impacts on everything KERRY has said, not what Bush said.

And the oil-for-food article is not on the front page (I don’t know what page it was on, since I only read the Times online, but my guess is it was buried rather deeply within the paper). The oil-for-food article also was not a featured article online–I had to click on the “International” heading to get ALL the international articles in the newspaper in order to find it. So, people who read the NY Times online and only look at the highlighted articles would never even know it existed.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:01 pm 51. rumblestrip:

We ar fighting a war on two fronts: fascism on the one and socialism on the other. Both “isms” require individuals and, indeed, countrys to surrender their sovereignty to the idea of the perfect.

Religious Islamofascism wants you to behave perfectly so that you can go to God’s paradise. Socialism wants you to behave perfectly so that they can create a paradise here on Earth.

Behaving perfectly requires people to be in the right place at the right time doing the right thing. Behaving, in an individual, only requires self-control but in order for society to behave requires a social controller. This is “God” for the Islamists and “The State” for the Socialists. Contolling behavior in order to perfect it requires, not just control, but perfect control and the only perfect control is total control. Total control is, of course, totalitarianism.

By what right, then, do they claim authority over our behavior? For Islamists, God gives them that right. For Socialists, their liberal intellectuals give themselves that right. In the Islamist mind God is the ultimate authority. For liberal intellectuals, it is their own mind, governed by pure reason, which is the ultimate authority. Pure reason, in the liberal mind, is the equivalent of God. So, they, too, would claim God’s authority.

America, with its freedom and opportunity, where people control their own destiny through capitalism and democracy is antithetical to the totalitarian visions of both “isms.” But

which “ism” is the biggest threat to us? Is it Islamofascism? I don’t think so. They are, ultimately, just vulgar thugs, highly visible and stupid and, for the most part, easily tracked down and killed. But liberal socialism is another matter. It has infiltrated and colonised almost all of our institutions, corrupting them and the minds of our fellow citizens, especially our children.

We play by the rules; they do not. We are constrained by morality; they are not. This is what makes our adversaries so dangerous. They know we will respect, for better or worse, the will of the people.

Ostensibly, this election is about who is most competent to prosecute the war on terrorists. But, as dangerous as the terrorists are, the real danger to America is from the left, the Pied Piper of politics, leading our children and our country to God knows where. I don’t know if America can remain true to the vision of the Founding Fathers if the left gets its hands on the levers of power for another four to eight years. America is at a critical juncture in its history. That is why this election is so important.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:06 pm 52. Michael J. Totten:

Jerry: The Bosnians, Croatians and the Kosovars were the descendents of the WWII Fascist movements. Had folks like Kennedy and Kerry really understood the pedigree of our “allies” they would have opposed the war and supported Milosevic.

The State Department bureaucracy also had a hand in steering Clinton to the Albanian partisan side because of State’s obsession with promoting Islamic radicalism

For God’s sake, Jerry.

The Bosnian government was the only one that could be in any way shape or form described as “liberal.” The Croatians at the time under Tudjman were reviving the Ustashe movement, this is true. The Croats were awful then, and you won’t see me excusing any of their behavior. (Although they have mellowed out now.)

But you really think we should have supported Milosovic? Please. Here’s a guy who was a former Stalinist turned genocidal Serbian ethnic nationalist.

As far as “Islamic radicalism” goes, apparently you don’t know that the (formerly) Yugoslav Muslims are the most liberal and most secular of any Muslims in the entire world. Most of them have never read the Koran and don’t go to Mosque. Most are nominal Muslims at most. Do you know which country is their favorite amongst all in the world? America. And they’re Muslims. I’m surprised Bush hasn’t taken that to the bank yet. And do you know who they think of as their number one enemy? Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabis have tried to radicalize them, and are despised for their efforts.

Chew on that.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:13 pm 53. Michael J. Totten:

The second paragraph in the post above should have been italicized. It was Jerry’s, not mine.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:14 pm 54. Jamie Irons:

MJT

Good to see you here; I often read you, but mostly lurk. (Though I was one of your very early readers, and you even emailed me an answer to a query, for which I was grateful).

Be well,

Jamie Irons

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:30 pm 55. jerry:

Michael:

I hate to disillusion you about the Bosnian [Muslim]Government but your impressions are obviously formed through media and not through less emotional sources. I highly recommend you read “Fighting for Peace” by LtGen Sir Michael Rose [I have an autographed copy sent to me by his intel officer]. You will get a different perspective on the Bosnian Government. During WWII the Nazis recruited extensively from the Bosnian Muslim population. Their attitude toward Jews remains unchanged. The current Muslim government is committed and always has been to the establishment of Sharia law in Bosnia, including its Dhimmi status for non-Muslims. The Bosnian government was not above staging self-inflicted atrocities against its own people. The infamous Sarajevo Market mortaring was in fact an in situ explosion. That is a fact emphasized by LGEN Rose. I also know the commander of the US MI battalion that conducted the investigation on bombing. He confirmed that it was in situ and most likely placed there by the Bosnian government.

As far as the Albanians go, you should become familiar with INTERPOL reports on European Cocaine trafficking. Many of these same names show up in the Kosovo muslim power structure. And yes Michael, a large proportion of the Albanian Muslim population is made of Islamic radicals many of whom received training in Al Qaeda camps long before 9-11. Kosovar Albanians control the distribution of South American Cocaine throughout Europe. When I was in London during the 1999 war, the Metropolitan police broke up an Albanian gang that was controlling drug sales and prostitution in the Paddington Station area. During WWII the Nazis raised two divisions of “SS Skadergeg” troops. When Serbian forces left Kosovo, the small Jewish population left for Belgrade with them. The Kosovars would have been all too happy to finish up with the final solution in their area. As it is they have succeeded in making Kosovo “Judenrein”.

Oct 7, 2004 - 1:41 pm 56. geoffg:

Timj,

After reading Ayn Rand’s seminal work in 1961, I found I had been intellectually raped. For me at the time, it was a life-changing event, and it appears to be for many others to this day.

Caution: Heavy reading. B^)

Oct 7, 2004 - 2:02 pm 57. geoffg:

Sorry, Timj I meant Jamie Irons to be the addressee of my last comment.

Preview…………

Oct 7, 2004 - 2:04 pm 58. mrp:

Jerry -

As far as the Albanians go, you should become familiar with INTERPOL reports on European Cocaine trafficking. Many of these same names show up in the Kosovo muslim power structure.

Concur. Why did you leave out the white slavery and car theft rings?

The infamous Sarajevo Market mortaring was in fact an in situ explosion. That is a fact emphasized by LGEN Rose. I also know the commander of the US MI battalion that conducted the investigation on bombing. He confirmed that it was in situ and most likely placed there by the Bosnian government.

There you go, spoiling some reporter’s 2050 block-buster report. Command-detonated mines.

Oct 7, 2004 - 2:27 pm 59. Katherine:

jerry,

You have to understand the disbelief in response to what you write about former Yugoslavia, because it is completely opposite to what we read and saw all those years. Obviously, as we have a chance to observe daily, MSM does not hesitate to distort reality to serve their own agenda. But surely Srebernica massacre, the rape camps, the random killings, the ethnic cleansing did happen?

I have great respect for your information, insight and judgment. Donít you think that we should have responded to the atrocities? What do you think we should have done?

My Russian neighbors do not think that Milosevic did anything very wrong. But isnít he a genocidal thug?

Oct 7, 2004 - 3:49 pm 60. Sandy P:

MJT – no offense but this is going to be harsh – but I’m a mean pubbie;)

You can tell your wife from this tail-end boomer there is no good reason to vote for the commie sympathizer and appeaser.

There is no fresh start w/Europe, they have never really liked US. Gratitude lasts 1 generation. We were a thorn in their sides for about our 1st 100 years and have turned into a hot poker into their eyes daily. When we can go back 100-150 years and read the exact same things they say about us now, they haven’t changed.

She needs to start thinking w/her balls, not her boobs and ovaries. She should have learned years ago that w/6 billion people in the world, no matter what she does, someone somewhere won’t like her. But that doesn’t mean she can’t work with said person. There’s a reason our ancestors didn’t return to the motherland, chose to face bear, cougar, wolf, Indians, and the hostile terrain while they traveled from sea to shining sea. For US to get along, we must give up our inalienable and ennumerated rights and become as miserable as our betters are. That price is too high. We hold certain truths to be self-evident, and it is simplisme.

W has not divided the nation. Until the boomers (68-haters) are senile, dead or learn to take NO for an answer, this country will be divided.

All W represents is the 60s boomer the world didn’t hear from. The 68-haters are being inextricably (sp) drawn into the real world and adulthood and they’re fighting all the way.

They cannot realize that we’re not so fond of their voices as they are. They are over. It’s not their time anymore.

Oct 7, 2004 - 3:57 pm 61. Rick Ballard:

Sandy P,

You’re comments regarding Mrs. Totten were as inappropriate as they were uncalled for.

You’re not a “mean pubbie”, you’re an idiot with as narrow and fallacious a focus as any lefty ever dreamt of having.

Oct 7, 2004 - 4:34 pm 62. Terrye:

Sandy:

I am voting for Bush and my ovaries [at least the one I have left} and my boobs have nothing to do with it.

sheesh. You are not helping.

I agree that the Europeans have never liked Americans. I think it is partly jealousy, partly rejection and partly good old fashioned bigotry. We are a different race to them. And we are stupid, fat, tacky, unsophisticated, dangerous, violent, simplistic, overly emotional, religious and just plain imperialistic.

So what is new. We got everything we have by using slaves and killing Indians and taking advantage of their distress at the end of the war. Of course we called it the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift and thought it was a good thing, but they know better. Can’t fool them. Why we even held off on getting the war so they could do all the work and then we get the glory and rip them off.

BTW I have heard all this from Europeans. I am not making it up. Some of my ancestors are natives, but the rest of them were European and I thank God everyday they made that journey.

Oct 7, 2004 - 4:51 pm 63. jerry:

Katherine:

Before I answer let me give you a story from Rose’s book. I believe I initially read it in the Washington Times. During his tenure he received a visit from Gen Joulwan, who SACEUR at the time. Gen Joulwan was accompanied by a woman from the US Embassy in Belgrade. They were going to take Helo ride to Mostar which is in a predominantly Croat area. On the way to Mostar they passed over numerous abandoned villages out. The woman from the Embassy pointed the villages to the General as said see what the evil Serbs have done here. LGEN Rose chimed in and said “Sir, those villages used to be Serb villages and the Muslims had driven them out. When they got to Mostar the woman from the Embassy took Joulwan to the abandoned Muslim section of town and told the General “see what those evil Serbs have done?” Rose let out sigh and said “Sir, this is not a Serb area, it was the Croatians who drove out the Muslims.” At this point the womand from the Embassy stomped her foot like a petulant child and said well those evil Serbs must have done something to the Muslims. Rose responded “yes, they have done some equally nasty things but not here. They operate farther east in Pale and Srebenica.”

Now I love this story for two reasons. First, it demonstrates that there are no good guys in the Balkans, unless of course you are a Jew or Roma. Then Serbs are good guys to them. The second is more amusing. When I read the story I immediately showed it to my wife. She burst out laughing because she easily identified the woman from the Embassy. She lived 5 houses up the street from us and it was perfect description of her attitude.

Now, given the history of the Balkans it was obvious then and is still obvious today that if you want to prevent atrocities in the region you separate the people through a ethnic partition of the former Yugoslavia. Herztogevena should have been given to Croatia and the Serb areas returned to Serbia proper. However, the Administration was committed to multi-culturalism, and by god they were going to force the Serbs and Croats into a union with the Muslims. The Europeans once again showed themselves incapable of policing their own house either by making wise choices or enforcing order at gun point.

Milosevic is a thug but he is not genocidal. A Dutch parliamentary report exonerated Milosevic from Srbenica. He neither had foreknowledge nor did he like the idea that they did it without imforming him in advance. I donít want to give the impression that he was a humanitarian just that heís not stupid. He knew that it would make it impossible to meet his objectives. As far as Kosovo goes there was no genocide. There were only about 3500 Albanians unaccounted for after the war.

Oct 7, 2004 - 4:59 pm 64. mrp:

For twelve years the US and its allies maintained a constant presence to enforce the provisions of the 1991 cease-fire agreements and the 17 UN resolutions. The allies did so despite paying a terrible cost in blood and treasure.

On November 13, 1995, five American military advisers were killed by a bomb in Saudi Arabia

In June, 1996, at the Khobar Towers housing complex, ninetee American USAF servicemen (mostly from the 4404th Fighter Wing) were killed by a truck bomb. More than 370 people were injured.

Furthermore, by August, 1999 more than 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 American military personnel were committed to enforcing the ‘no-fly’ zones at an estimated cost of $1 billion dollars a year (reference).

Enforcing the “sanctions”, such as they were, was a bloody, expensive business.

And during his post-1991 rule, Saddam was finding other means of killing Americans.

During Tuesday’s VP debate, Vice President Dick Cheney gave this response as part of the reason the US invaded Iraq in March, 2003:

Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with al Qaeda.

That was putting it mildly. According to a report authored by Ken Layne, by March, 2002, Saddam had doled out $10,000,000 to the families of Palestinian terrorists. Terrorists who killed men, women, and children. Terrorists who murdered American citizens.

Where did that $10,000,000 of blood money come from?

Yeah. Thanks, UN, France, Russia, et al.

Peace.

It was all about WMD, JFK? Halliburton, John Edwards?

Oct 7, 2004 - 5:00 pm 65. zeppenwolf:

Ok everyone, repeat after me: “Steyn is God, Steyn is God”.

I accept the rebuke that it is not news if the Legacy Media ignores the subject; I merely found it curious that the “report” refers to stuff that “we” already knew.

Mark Steyn reprints what he claims to have written “six months ago”, and as usual, (imho), he makes a good and entertaining case, which still applies.

Jamie Irons: “I’ve never read Atlas Shrugged…”

Gott In Himmel/Sacre Bleu/Oy Vay!! Moderator, Admin, help, help!! Jamie, where can we send donations?

Oct 7, 2004 - 5:53 pm 66. ricpic:

Very frosty UN Under Secretary Bevan toward the Kurds, very discomoded; very inconvenient the Kurds, impeding all those profitable deals between Sadaam’s people and Bevan’s people.

It’s really all you have to know. When the sleek corrupt likes of Mr. UN/Bevan is put out with an individual, or a faction, or a whole people — rest assured that that individual or faction or people is in the right.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:03 pm 67. ricpic:

Very frosty UN Under Secretary Bevan toward the Kurds, very discommoded; very inconvenient the Kurds, impeding all those profitable deals between Sadaam’s people and Bevan’s people.

It’s really all you have to know. When the sleek corrupt likes of Mr. UN/Bevan is put out with an individual, or a faction, or a whole people — rest assured that that individual or faction or people is in the right.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:05 pm 68. richard mcenroe:

Peter Boston ó Kerry is the front man for a not insignificant part of the American population eager to trade American wealth, liberty and sovereignty for nothing more than a pat on the head and “good boy.”

No, you get that wrong. Those people don’t think at all that their wealth, liberty and sovereignty will be given up… they have a long list of other people whose wealth, liberty and sovereignty must naturally be surrendered first.

Oct 7, 2004 - 6:47 pm 69. Terrye:

richard:

Ain’t that the truth.

They are ready to trade their wealth and liberty? Hell they are not ready to pay $2 for a gallon of gas.

Can you imagine what would happen if Kerry signs Kyoto and even half the worse case scenarios are right? Or the ICC, and the first time some 20 year old Ranger gets dragged off to the Hague?

It would not be a second term he would have to worry about, it would be the angry mob with a rope.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:06 pm 70. WichitaBoy:

Did I just read Michael J. Totten claim that Hillary Clinton is a hawk? Oy vey indeed.

Hillary Clinton is no hawk. I think we should get very clear on this: Hillary Clinton is exactly whatever it is that she thinks you want her to be.

I believe it was Katherine who pointed this out some time ago: the primary function of politicians is to act as chameleons, to allow you the voter to see in them whatever it is that you want to see. To some extent their chameleon-like nature is their true nature and to some extent it is only worn on the surface; where they lie on this particular continuum depends entirely on the individual politician. For an extreme politician who is entirely without beliefs of his own, who has never engaged in a single activity in his entire life other than winning elections, the chameleon-like nature extends throughout the depths of his soul. On the other extreme are the ideologues who really don’t care what you think. The extent of their chameleon nature is minimal. They are rare because seldom elected.

Chameleon-ness is what allows Kerry to simultaneously claim to be for the war and against the war, for more federal spending and against the deficit, for the troops and against the conflict, for hunting and against guns, for the right to choose and against abortion, yada yada, the list is endless. Each voter, if willing to give Kerry a little trust, a little leeway, can then see exactly what he or she wishes to see in the mirror that is so adroitly held up for his or her eager inspection. This is how otherwise sensible people are able to convince themselves that Kerry–of all people!–could by some ineffable magic manage to prosecute the War on Terror better than Bush.

Nor is Kerry solely to blame; obviously Republicans engage in the same rules of deception. But for most individuals there are limits to the chameleon-ness. Evidently both Bush and Kerry in comparison to, say, Bill Clinton, have some rock-solid principles somewhere underneath. By looking at the prior records, such as they are, we are able to discern some pattern within these political lives. Kerry has a pretty consistent long-term record of fecklessness coupled to anti-Americanism and anti-militarism. He hasn’t been a very potent Senator, and that’s probably just as well, but we do have some inkling where he would like things to head were he given the chance to be dictator and here’s a hint for the class: it’s not in the direction of a militarily stronger America.

As to Hillary, she has managed to be all over the board from time to time but I at least perceive in her a difference from Bill. Hillary does, we can all agree, have at least one principle she believes in quite firmly: more power and control should be given to Hillary. Bill just wanted to win elections; that was more or less the alpha and omega of his inner core (and of course, shall we say, a few on-the-job percs didn’t hurt).

I don’t necessarily blame the politicians for their chameleon-like behavior, in fact that behavior is necessary–300 million people will never agree on anything at all–but I do take serious exception to intelligent and articulate citizens who fall for the ruse and forget the game that is being played.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:42 pm 71. Charlie (Colorado):

Jamie, in all seriousness, I would really recommend reading Atlas Shrugged. Think of Barry Goldwater channeling Victor Hugo and Leo Tolstoi.

But, no joke, first time through skip the “This is John Galt Speaking” chapter. Just assume that he gives a speech explaining the Strike, and go on. If you really dig the book, you can go back later.

Oct 7, 2004 - 7:56 pm 72. Sandy P:

You’re right, Rick, I do have a narrow focus. However, while I am not helping, I am finally getting fed up. Which part of my rant was fallacious? There are 3-4 good reasons for voting for Kerry. We know his plan(s) for Iraq. He’s posted a HC overview, I wasn’t aware his economic plan was posted, I am still under the impression that Robert Rubin(?) stated it wouldn’t be released unless he became pres so it couldn’t be picked apart, other than raising taxes and possibly wages subject to SS. Neither side has really said anything headline-grabbing on the environment, possibly there will be questions during the next 2 debates. In my narrow-mindedness, and I’m sure I will make an ass out of myself for assuming, more restrictions will be forthcoming from Kerry’s side. We know he wants to take us back to the 70s nuclear stance. Trade? Not looking so good, Internationalist? Not as good an idea at this time, while recognizing one must usually keep lines of communication open. UN’s still being covered. Allies? Kerry and I have different definitions. Tort reform? Edwards did acknowledge it, that I was pleasantly surprised at. We disagree on the solution. Education, while I think NCLB overall was a good thing, I will once again make an ass out of myself and believe he’ll bully pulpit the NEA way. An argument can be made that he is a communist sympathizer and an appeaser. I have lived under the cloud/pall of Viet Nam most of my life, as have a lot of others here, and he was one of the people directly responsible for it. I want that cloud dispelled. Others believe that cloud was good for the country, and have been actively reminding us for the past 30 years. Considering I was not going vote last Dec because I was so disgusted or for a life-long pubbie would have voted for a decent dem candidate as many dems here and pubbies would have, I just might not be as narrow-minded in some areas as you think.

You can disagree, but I believe that at least once in every female’s life she’s going to be in a situation where she’ll have to downplay her softer side. Kerry will not bring dignity and respect back to this country. While all children are now being taught to be non-confrontational, as we know, that used to be more of a societal expectation of women. But my belief/experiences does not make me an idiot (most of the time I hope) or my argument fallacious. You are correct my argument is narrow-minded since I am a female most of the time. And considering I have a very odd sense of humor, the comment I would have inserted here to possibly lighten our exchange would have fallen as flat as………

If Roger does not ban me, I believe I can still provide links to further discussions here. Some of my postings might not actually be narrow-minded or fallacious. I do expect some to skip over them because of what I wrote, but then again, on one of the previous threads Mexico and borders was mentioned and Shannon Love, IIRC, at ChicagoBoyz had something interesting to say about the Mexicans controlling their side of the border. And when there’s another HC thread, I’m still gathering stuff. But I’m on a laptop until I get my act together and I hate this thing.

——-

I agree, Terrye, I come from similar ancestry as you do, tho I’m not as informed. Well, other than the Civil War and a pig. Conversations with Europeans have been quite entertaining. Britain’s The Independent used to have a chat room. Much love was sent back and forth across

the pond. One thing I had never thought about was a comment from 1 Brit to another. The guy’s dad didn’t like Americans because he felt we took his birthright away.

And sometimes I’m very YEESH!

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:25 pm 73. chuck:

Um…cough…ahem…I have never read “Atlas Shrugged” either…blush. And folks, after all that groveling on my part, it better be good.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:30 pm 74. gb_in_ga:

Chuck:

Don’t feel too bad about not reading it. I’ve got a copy right over there in the bookcase, and I’ve never even gotten around to picking it up. So, I’ve got absolutely no excuse at all. Laziness, pure laziness.

Oct 7, 2004 - 8:42 pm 75. Katherine:

Jerry,

Thank you for your explanation. Yes, Balkans were always a mess and you are likely to be right that although we did better than the Euros there, that does not mean that we did it right.

The whole Balkan war reminds me of the horrible killings of ethnic minority Poles in Western Ukraine by their long term, good Ukrainian neighbors in WWII. Or similar killings of Jews – by Poles.

It is just unbelievable what people can do to one another.

Re: Atlas Shrugged

It is an interesting book ideologically speaking and it presents a compelling picture of a collapse of a society when its parasites overgrow the hosts (the producers), but Ayn Rand, poor dear, could create psychologically or physiologically believable characters. I cannot recommend it as a literature or even a good read. But as tracts go, it is one of the best.

Oct 7, 2004 - 9:17 pm 76. Katherine:

It should read…”could NOT create”…

Oct 7, 2004 - 9:19 pm 77. Sandy P:

Was just reading an article from the Weekly Standard.

I haven’t watched the news today, has Blixie chimed in?

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:23 pm 78. Michael J. Totten:

Katherine: Yes, Balkans were always a mess and you are likely to be right that although we did better than the Euros there, that does not mean that we did it right.

I’d just like to point out that Jerry is taking the side of an avowed enemy of the United States who also happens to be a genocidal monster. I’d keep those things in mind when reading his posts about Bosnia. He is Ramsey Clarke in right-wing drag.

Oct 7, 2004 - 10:56 pm 79. Katherine:

Michel,

I don’t know if jerry does take a side of a genocidal monster. I read what he wrote more in a spirit that there was more then met the eye (or an official report) in Balkans, which I can readily believe.

I personally think that Milosevic and all the merry band of the Balkan murderers belong with Osama ñ in hell.

Oct 7, 2004 - 11:27 pm 80. Goof®:

I can’t say I’ve read every word of Atlas Shrugged (I’ve read a lot of it), but I have read every word of the review that is reprinted beginning about halfway down the linked page.

http://www.potowmack.org/aynrand.html

Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal.

Amen.

26 days to go.

Oct 8, 2004 - 12:07 am 81. Goof®:

Make that 25.

Sorry, Charlie.

Oct 8, 2004 - 12:10 am 82. Mogwai:

“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.”

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3723924.stm

Hint: Cheney

Oct 8, 2004 - 2:26 am 83. Mogwai:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

Under Cheneyís watch, two foreign subsidiaries of Dresser sold millions of dollarsí worth of oil services and parts to Saddamís regime. The transactions were not illegal, but they were politically suspect. The deals occurred under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, at a time when Saddam Hussein chose which companies his government would work with. Corruption was rampant. It may be that it was simply Halliburtonís expertise that attracted Saddamís regime, but a United Nations diplomat with the Oil-for-Food program has doubts. ìMost American companies were blacklisted,î he said. ìItís rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top.î

Oct 8, 2004 - 2:33 am 84. jerry:

Michael:

I did something unusual for me. After reading your post I got up and took a short walk over to the snack bar on the 8th corridor of the Pentagon (gedunk in Navy parlance) to calm down and give a measured response.

It is quite ungentlemanly to engage in name calling when encountering someone who disagrees with you, e.g., “Jerry is a rightwing Ramsey Clark.” You have me at a significant disadvantage in this argument because, unlike you, I am constrained by the National Security Act and therefore cannot give you the chapter and verse intelligence on the Balkans that I have at my fingertips on the classified version of the Internet. So in any discussion itís my known bona fides versus yours and I suspect you are considered a more reliable source then me by most people on Roger’s blog.

I don’t know what you were doing during the Kosovo war but I was on the shuttle between DC, London and Stuttgart working on the planning and execution of some rather special components of the war. In January of 2000 I was also part of planning exercise held by GEN Clark in Kaiserlauten, Germany. So I was present at briefings or have been the briefer at many conferences during the period.

Information/Intelligence/Knowledge is like a Chinese box or set of nested Russian dolls. There are things that you know you know (or think you know), things you don’t know you know, some things you know you don’t know and things that you don’t know you don’t know. By and large the latter is the biggest category. The surprising thing is that increasing levels of access to information only give you the illusion of movement to the “know what you know” category. However, eventually you come to understand that the more you find out the more you realize the more you don’t know what you don’t know. Today people who live on the Internet believe they know a lot, well that too is an illusion because there is entire class of information that you don’t even know exists. So rather than insult you I will just smile at your self-illusion that you have an understanding of a problem when if fact you have absolutely no idea what lies beneath the surface

I cannot resist making the following observation. You decided to insult a person who just told you that he was given an autographed copy of book written the Commanding Officer of a military operation in Bosnia by his Chief of Intelligence. What do you think that implies about our relative standing of knowledge of the Balkans?

Oct 8, 2004 - 5:10 am 85. dougf:

“I’d just like to point out that Jerry is taking the side of an avowed enemy of the United States who also happens to be a genocidal monster. I’d keep those things in mind when reading his posts about Bosnia. He is Ramsey Clarke in right-wing drag”—MJT

Uh,I read Jerry’s posts and although I have zero sympathy for the ‘Greater Serbia’cause,I also feel that there are no ‘good guys’ in the Balkans and don’t have enough information to be able to make a decision on what he has said(apart from condemming Serb agression and ethnic cleansing).

Otherwise I did not find his posts offensive or ‘wrong’and if you are going to be an ‘independent’,should you not at least count to 10 before before saying that a type of information is ‘politically incorrect’ per se and that therefore further investigation of the issues is therefore unacceptable.

Just my opinion,but ‘objective’is a full time job.

Oct 8, 2004 - 8:42 am 86. mrp:

As is my habit for long threads, I read jerry’s 5:10AM post first. After finishing, I slowly shook my head and wondered what in the hell Totten typed to provoke such an impassioned defense of honor.

Eventually, I reached T’s green gob of spittle. A drive-by sliming without the use of reason. Typical.

For hundreds of years the Balkans have been a seething cauldron of ethnic hatreds. Fear and loathing of ‘the others’ is taught virtually at the mother’s breast. Enclaves of Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, Croats, Wallachians, Muslims, Albanians, Roma, and God knows how many derivations of the same live cheek-by-jowl in enclaves throughout the region. We shake our heads at the multi-century mutual animosity between Catholic and Protestant Irishmen in Ulster. Multiply that by a thousand-fold in an area that stretches from the Austrian border to the Black Sea, from the Polish border to the Adriatic Sea.

Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron fist. He played Croats against Serbs, Serbs and Croats against Muslims, Kosovars against Serbs. A simmering stew of ethnic hatred, fear, and revenge. Milosevic was a thug sitting in a powder magazine, playing with matches. If the bombs that blew up the Chinese embassy had killed Milosevic instead, exactly the same number of Kosovars, Serbs, Bosnians and Croats would have been killed in the days that followed.

I’ve never read a classified intelligence report, except on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, but it doesn’t take an intel officer to tell me how badly the Clinton Administration screwed up in the former Yugoslavia. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake’s infamous ‘Greenlight’ secret arms shipments to the Bosnians might serve as an example.

Everything I’ve seen posted by jerry has been gold standard. So far, so good. And thank you jerry, and your colleagues, for working so hard to keep our country safe.

Oct 8, 2004 - 8:48 am 87. Terrye:

mogwai:

You don’t know what you are talking about.

Halliburton got the same deal with this administration they got with the last one. That is right, they got the deal from Clinton.

If there is really a problem then all these weird little Dems with their weird little conspiracy theories need to take the contracts away from Halliburton or shut the f*** up and let them do their job. I am getting tired of hearing about this, it is like the AWOL nonsense.

BTW Haliburton got stuck with this job because they needed someone to go in with the 82nd Airborne and there were not any volunteers. Now Halliburton wants out becasue they are losing their ass in Iraq and the same people who bitch they got the contracts refuse to let them out of them so Halliburton is currently trying to sell the subsidiary in Iraq so that they can extricate themselves from the contracts you say they cheated to get.

Besides, if you don’t give a rat’s ass about the food for oil proigram what the hell do you care who is on the list? If Kofi can get away with this why worry about Cheney whose great crime was that he was CEO for a company that employees thousands of people and has been doing work for the government since WW2?

Oct 8, 2004 - 9:27 am 88. Michael J. Totten:

SandyP: She [your wife] needs to start thinking w/her balls, not her boobs and ovaries.

Fuck you. You don’t know a goddamned thing about my wife or how she thinks.

If you want to go through life thinking half the people in your country are idiots for voting the “wrong” way, well, I hope that works for you.

Oct 8, 2004 - 9:43 am 89. Sean Fitzpatrick (Logomachon):

There is something about the Duelfer report that doesn’t make sense. Duelfer says that Saddam took real steps toward his real overriding goal of getting rid of the sanctions, then covered it all up with a charade of trying to hide something. This turns everything upside down. The stated explanation that Saddam wanted to keep people thinking he had WMD for the deterent effect doesn’t cover it.

Perhaps the answer is in Duelfer’s sources, supposedly cooperative members of Saddam’s regime. As the report says, there is no documentary evidence of Saddam’s plan for a quick resumption of WMD development, only reports from his close associates.

Why should we assume that the Ba’athist strategy of asymmetrical resistance aimed at American public opinion was limited to the military? By conspiring with some, keeping others in ignorance, and planting misinformation where facts could not be hidden, Saddam could have created the story pieced together by the ISG.

This scenario would also account for the reports of heavy traffic between Iraq and Syria in January and February 2003 and reports that Syria wants to send Iraqi nuclear scientists sheltering in Syria to Iran because they are too hot to hold on to.

Oct 8, 2004 - 10:08 am 90. Rick Ballard:

MJT,

As strongly as I agree with your quite warranted response to Sandy P, I must just as strongly disagree with your assessment of Jerry. As MRP noted, he is the gold standard (along with Charlie (C)) on this blog regarding intelligence assessments.

The fact that you have apparently bought the assessment promoted by the MSM in favor of Clinton’s Balkan adventure seems a bit strange to me. In reading your blog I have noted that you remain open to the idea that the DNC/MSM’s “quagmire” assessment might not comport wholly with reality with regard to Iraq. Why would you suppose their Clinton Balkan fable to be any more rooted in the “truth”? Lieing by journalists in support of their favorite meme du jour is how they make a living. Rooting out fallacious memes is difficult and the task is not helped by unthinking support by those with the intelligence to discern fact from fantasy.

Oct 8, 2004 - 11:10 am 91. mrp:

A few minutes ago, I clicked over to Michael Totten’s web site for a report of fallout over the jerry-Totten skirmish. There is some.

After the visit, I decided to carefully read this thread in order to review their discussion and to see if there was something that I had missed.

The critical posts appears to be jerry’s 10-7 12:13PM text and Totten’s 10-7 1:13PM reply.

An excerpt from jerry’s 12:13PM post:

The rank and file Democrats supported Clinton out of both loyalty and the self-delusion that Milosevic was some how a fascist when in fact he was a Stalinist. The Bosnians, Croatians and the Kosovars were the descendents of the WWII Fascist movements. Had folks like Kennedy and Kerry really understood the pedigree of our “allies” they would have opposed the war and supported Milosevic.

My understanding is that jerry was commenting strictly on the activities in Kosovo, NOT Bosnia-Hercegovinia, as Michael Totten’s 1:13PM post seems to imply. True, most of the Albanian Kosovars (and how many Albanians?) are Muslim, but they are ethnically distinct from the Muslims living in Bosnia. It looks like an important point of distinction that lead to a misunderstanding by the parties involved.

I don’t agree with a formulation that identifies Serbian grievances in Kosovo with the person of Slobodan Milosevic. The Kosovars have proven themselves to be superbly competent in the age-old Balkan game of ethnic-cleansing. And one may sympathize with the plight of innocent Serb civilians living in a sea of Kosovar hostility without endorsing Slobo’s political viability.

Milosevic is a Stalinist and a war criminal. He (at the very least) encouraged ethnic cleansing, fomented war, and authorized violent political oppression. Does anyone disagree?

Oct 8, 2004 - 11:24 am 92. Charlie (Colorado):

As MRP noted, he is the gold standard (along with Charlie (C)) on this blog regarding intelligence assessments.

Just as a side note, I’d take out the qualifier: Jerry’s a real intelligence officer, I’m a theory geek.

Oct 8, 2004 - 11:45 am 93. Michael J. Totten:

Rick Ballard: In reading your blog I have noted that you remain open to the idea that the DNC/MSM’s “quagmire” assessment might not comport wholly with reality with regard to Iraq. Why would you suppose their Clinton Balkan fable to be any more rooted in the “truth”?

I hate saying this sort of thing, but I feel I must in this case. I’ve read a stack of books about three feet high about the Balkan conflict. I probably know more about it than the overwhelming majority of people who post here. I’m not trying to brag or pull rank, and I apologize for even saying this. But I need to counter the suggestion that I’m absorbing a bunch of “spin” from the mainstream media. I’ve learned almost nothing about the Balkans from the media.

I’m sure Jerry knows things about it that I don’t know. But he also said this: Had folks like Kennedy and Kerry really understood the pedigree of our “allies” they would have opposed the war and supported Milosevic.

Am I misunderstanding something? Has Jerry wandered into Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark territory? Or is he saying the Democrats would have been that stupid if they knew what he knows?

If I misunderstand what Jerry said, fine. I take back what I said and apologize. But it looks to me like he’s saying we should have allied ourselves with Slobo.

Oct 8, 2004 - 11:54 am 94. Charlie (Colorado):

Let me add a second point, now that I’ve caught up with the rest of the thread: Michael, while I’m a theory geek now, I was once very heavily involved in real intelligence collection and analysis, and I’ve stayed in the community.

I’m also, by the by, one of the folks who helped invent that classified version of the Internet to which Jerry alludes.

I’ve had exactly the experience Jerry talks about — the inability to tell a damn fool why you know he’s a damn fool, because the basis for that opinion is classified.

What I can tell you, though, is this: I’d not want to be the person betting against Jerry’s knowledge of the situation.

Oct 8, 2004 - 12:58 pm 95. Charlie (Colorado):

Michael, I think the point is that it’s a generally bad neighborhood. No surprise there, it’s been the Hell’s Kitchen of Europe for a couple thousand years at least. Jerry is saying that of the options, Milosevic was better.

I don’t know if I’d agree — but what I do know is that Jerry very likely has better data that either of us. But calling him a “right wing Ramsey Clark” seems excessive.

Given Clinton’s record, I don’t find it hard to believe that he sided with the Even Worse Guys against the Bad Guys because it seemed the best PR option.

Oct 8, 2004 - 1:04 pm 96. Charlie (Colorado):

“Names of US companies or citizens found on the secret Iraqi lists were left out of the report on grounds of the US Privacy Act, the ISG report notes.”

Hint: Cheney

Mogwai, that’s a pretty harsh accusation; you have any proof?

Believe it or not, the fact that someone’s name was withheld is not proof it was Cheney.

Oct 8, 2004 - 1:06 pm 97. jerry:

Michael:

I did not have time this afternoon to respond to your latest and I am sure like most people you are off watching the debate. I am skipping the video portion and sticking to the blog/text version. In the mean time I will address your misrepresentations.

First of all I don’t know where you get the idea that I support the idea of an alliance with Milosevic. I specifically said that instead of putting together a so-called multi-cultural state that would not work that the country should have split along ethnic lines and merged with Croatia and Serbia and leaving Bosnia to the Muslim areas alone. You know “The Religion of the Prince is the Religion of the People” (Martin Luther) I did say that if you were a Jew or a Roma Milosevic was a better bet and if you look at where the Jews of Tito’s Yugoslavia ended up after the war it was mostly in Serbia.

Second, despite what the MSM put out and of course Steven Schwartz keeps propagandizing, the Muslim population of Bosnia cannot be describe as the most secular Muslim group in the world. That is because communist Yugoslavia enforced secularism among all ethnic groups. The Muslim were not secular by choice. They were secular by decree. Like all the peoples of the former Communist nations, the Muslims were undergoing a rediscovery of their own heritage. A separate Bosnian identity is a Muslim identity.

Third, the fact is that Kennedy-Kerry wing of the party has no problems with genocidal dictators as long as they are communists. The MSM and other opponents of Serbia reconstructed Milosevic’s identity as a Nationalist/Fascist. That simply was wrong. Milosevic was Stalinist, and like Stalin, promoted nationalism in crisis. He and his party remain Marxist in orientation. Had this reconstruction not occurred then there would have been signifant opposition from the “peace” wing of the Democratic party to any US intervention against Serbia.

I am glad to see that you have read a stack of books on the Balkans. I haven’t read quite that many. Just 3 or 4. However, If you have not read Ivo Andric’s “The Bridge on the Drina” then you reading is deficient. You cannot understand the Balkan wars without reading this book. If you don’t know its a work of fiction for which Andric won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Despite the stack of Balkan books that you have read you still donít know what you donít know. However, it would seem that judging from your posts that there is still an entire world of things you donít know that you could know from reading open sources. Much of the negative aspects of both Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Albanians are all available in the open source. I suggest you read the Dutch Parliamentary report on Srebenica and the transcripts from Milosevicís trial in the Hague on the conduct of the Serbian counterinsurgency operations that took place July-November 1998. In the later key testimony from Key prosecution witnesses proved that Serb forces followed the law of armed conflict in almost all cases. In a UN report (public domain) published in early 1999 estimated that about 1000 people on each side died during the conflict. What was interesting that the report showed a majority of Serbs (and other non Albanian deaths were civilians, while most of the Albanians killed were insurgents. The ratios were not quite as extreme as they are in Infitada but trend the same direction.

The Balkan wars were the first chance that Europe had to show it was capable of policing its own house. Europe showed itself as incapable of acting responsibly in 1990 as in did prior to WWI. When European failed they did what they always do. The dial 1-800-USARMY for help.

Oct 8, 2004 - 6:37 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: