February 21, 2003


Democrats.com has been one of my windmills of choice for a while. It's run by former Clinton insiders, has the Big He's backing, and is somewhere to the left of France and China on just about all issues including the war. It's an awful site, run by mean-spiritied bigots (anti-Christian, to be specific) and disturbingly deceptive in its tactics. It also willfully misunderstands the stories it runs as buttressing its own point of view. Yes, I have a case in point.

Today's email newsletter touts a story with the provacative headline "White House Advisors are Looking for a Way Out of W-ar with Iraq." Democrats.com always does that with "war"--separates the w- from the -ar to somehow insinuate that George W. Bush's middle initial stands for "War" instead of Walker. Or maybe they're trying to insinuate that he invented war, or something. It's pretty ham-handed, whatever it is. The article in question is a disturbing read if it turns out to have even an ounce of truth in it, which I doubt. Its first paragraphs do indeed seem to show that some of President Bush's closest advisors are trying to get him to climb down from his firm stance on Iraqi disarmament, which by itself would tend to make appeasers people like Democrats.com's faithful very happy. But the back half of the story should be a sobering read--for them, not for the President (whom Democrats.com always changes to Resident--aren't they witty) or his supporters.

The escalating loss of support for the U.S. officials has led to an increase of defiance by Iraqi officials, who have yet to live up to promises of increased support and aid to U.N. inspectors looking for the country's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

Taking heart from the split in the Security Council regarding possible military action against the country. and the world-wide protests against war, Iraq has changed from saying that its officials are complying with U.N. demands to asking for a lifting of sanctions instituted against Iraq after it was forced out of Kuwait more than 10 years ago.

"We have not seen any positive moves on the part of Iraq," one U.N. official in Iraq told The Washington Post, while another said, "They are not fulfilling their promises."

U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq in November after the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, a strongly worded document that promised "serious consequences" should Iraq not live up to the stipulations outlined in the document. Those included giving U.N. inspectors unrestricted access inside Iraq and orders to report any interference by Iraq with the inspections.

However, since last Friday, when lead weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohammad ElBaradei reported to the Security Council, the United Nations has not seen Iraq carry through on promises to deliver documents about old weapons programs nor have there been interviews with scientists involved with possible weapons technology.

First, yes I realize that this story is as full of holes as any foreign policy speech Bill Clinton has ever delivered. Iraq is actually playing a more subtle game than this story lets on. Worldwide support for the US position is much stronger than it implies. But that's not the point. The point is that, according to the author, the US position is weakening dramatically. Why is all of this going on? Why has Iraq turned defiant? Why has our position weakened?

Large anti-war demonstrations were staged in several cities around the world. The United States and Britain are having trouble finding support for anything stronger than additional inspections in Iraq in their Security Council deliberations.

These anti-war demonstrations are the very thing that Democrats.com has been trying to organize--they head each email newsletter with a roundup of their anti-Bush protests and activities, and have gone as far as to accuse him of personally orchestrating 9-11. And this story, which Dems.com trots out in support of their anti-Bush arguments, actually demonstrates that their actions embolden Saddam (and likely other immitators) and weakens democracies and the forces of international order which they claim to love so much (the international order bit, not democracies). That they've been less successful at protesting than the ANSWER Stalinists is a testament to Democrats.com's own uselessness as a political force. But it also shows what would happen if their fair-haired boy--Al Gore--had won in 2000. Iraq would have never even been challenged to disarm at all. One day we would probably have awakened to news that there was a big, smoking, radiation-blasted hole where New York had been the day before.

Truth is, like most on the hard left nowadays, Democrats.com has no coherent philosophy beyond hating Bush and mistrusting America and the majority of its citizens. On the one hand they insist Bush is wrong to pursue war, but on the other hand say (if you press them) they're all for Iraqi disarment and for the larger issue of international governance and order. How could we get a miscreant like Saddam to cooperate without a massive threat of terminal force? Well, in the dozen years since the Gulf War no other tactic has worked. It has only been since George W. Bush threatened to erase Saddam and his henchmen that the UN has finally gotten even a token level of cooperation out of him. People like Democrats.com, if they really believe in the UN and its laws and such, should be thanking Bush for making it all relevant again. But that (R) after his name blinds them, and their work against him is counter-productive to the ideals they claim as their own. Liberal spoon-banging such as that at Democrats.com makes war more likely, and the world a more dangerous place.
Posted by B. Preston at 11:56 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


If you haven't already watched this video documentary of the past weekend's protests, go do it now.
Posted by B. Preston at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Mansoor Ijaz lays out a compelling case that Osama bin Laden wants to become the first nuclear suicide bomber. His target would be a seaport on the US west coast. This assumes, of course, that bin Laden is still alive, which I don't assume at all. But, if he's dead but al Qaeda wants to simultaneously go ahead and "out" that fact while making his death a more glorious event than the Tora Bora cave-in which actually killed him, this attack makes sense. They'll keep his corpse propped up long enough to carry out the ship-board nuclear attack with "Osama" at the helm--it'll be their perfect day, and will allow them drop the transparent pretense that he's still alive and leading the band. This would also explain some of North Korea's actions--they've been contracted to hand off a certain amount of fissile material on the understanding that it will be used to cripple the US under al Qaeda's banner. A crippled, distracted US leaves South Korea and Japan vulnerable to a nuclear North Korea's bullying and blackmail, or even attack, at least for a while. In any case, it leaves Pyongyang a freer hand to deal with its neighbors at it sees fit.

It's a scary scenario, all the more so because there may be grains of truth in it.
Posted by B. Preston at 12:46 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Insight has a startling, if true, account of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his drive to establish an al Qaeda beachhead in his country. I remain somewhat skeptical, but Chavez has in recent days resorted to true strong-man tactics, arresting and detaining strike leaders and such, that lends credibility to the idea that he would join up with our enemies.

Whether it's true or not remains to be seen, but it does provide another angle from which to refute the ridiculous notion that the war in Iraq is about oil or empire. Baltimore radio talk show host Ron Smith, normally a reasonable conservative, has been beating this drum for months. But if he and those who agree with him are right and the war really is all about oil and establishing an American empire, why are we leaving Venezuela alone? Venezuela has oil, is run by a thug, and because of that thug is aligning itself with our enemies. Its people seem to want Chavez out. Venezuela is also much closer to the US than Iraq, and if you're building an empire, it tends to be strategically smarter to start close to home and work your way out. Why start with Iraq, half a world away, when Venezuela is just a short flight away from most of our domestic military bases? If we overthrew Chavez and returned Venezuela to democracy, we would probably be welcomed as liberators. And Venezuela's vast oil reserves would be within our grasp.

But instead, we're going after Iraq. If it's all about oil and empire, why?
Posted by B. Preston at 11:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 20, 2003


Of all the crap that the US has had to put up with in recent months--the French and the Germans, former Presidents Carter and Clinton's antics, "Peace in our time" protesters oblivious to the shame of appeasements past and pushing for appeasement today--this may prove to be the worst. The UN's inspectors, acting on US intel, aren't finding anything. Worse, the tips seem to be sending them on wild goose chases--US intel says to check this building for nukes, and the inspectors find nothing. It seems that similar scenarios have been going on for the past few weeks.

Though the inspectors are understandably frustrated at the US and the quality of its intelligence (well, the inspectors are frustrated if the CBS story is credible, which is debatable), their finding nothing where the US says there should be something actually proves--nothing. They're working in Saddam's territory, on his home field. He rules with an iron law, and can pretty much do whatever he wants. If he has even one mole within the UN's inspections regime, which is hardly a far-fetched possibility, he can sneak his goodies around and out the back way before the inspectors come in the front way. Colin Powell in fact insisted that this was the case--that Iraqi operatives were in fact moving banned weapons and materials one step ahead of the UN's inspectors--during his UN testimony. Hans Blix of course poo-pooed the idea during his most recent report, but how would he know? The whole point of the exercise, from Iraq's point of view, is to keep the bad stuff while making it look like they're cooperating to get rid of it. Deceiving Blix is a critical part of the game. The whole point of the exercise, from Blix's point of view, is to find the banned stuff or certify that Iraq is in full compliance and thus save it from invasion. He obviously can't find the banned weapons if Iraq is on to his team's movements, and is able to respond ahead of him, which only leave him able to offer up mixed reports that ultimately leave Iraq in the docket and Saddam in power.

All of this is fairly obvious if you're paying attention. The reason I say that this bit with the frustrated inspectors is so bad is that, ultimately, it will be their word that will delay, prevent or trigger war. If they see Iraq as the bad guy that needs to confess or be hanged, that's to the US advantage. Only full and verifiable compliance ith the UN's disarmament resolutions will satisfy them. But this story of their frustration with the US, if it holds up, points to something else. The inspectors may well find Iraqi moves frustrating, but if they blame their inability to catch Saddam in the act on Iraq and the US more or less equally, they will not offer reports that they believe will trigger a war. They just won't. They'll believe in their heart that while Saddam is up to no good, the US hasn't proven its case. This is of course backwards thinking--it isn't up to the US to prove anything. The burden of proof, according to 17 UN resolutions dating to 1990, is entirely on Iraq's shoulders. But that won't matter if the inspectors don't see it that way. This story of their frustration--at both sides, essentially--suggests that they see things backward, and will never trigger war no matter what Saddam does.
Posted by B. Preston at 11:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Brian Patrick Regan of Bowie, MD, was an Air Force Master Sergeant, and later a civilian contractor, who had access to some of our country's most sensitive data. He had access to intelligence about Iraq's and China's military and the times that that data was acquired. With a mounting debt likely brought on by simply spending more money than he made, he made a fateful decision to turn his access into cash. He offered to sell American intelligence data to its enemies. Fortunately, he got caught before transferring any of that data, and has been convicted of his crimes.

This man deserves the death penalty.

Whatever the jury ultimately decides, it's clear that he sold out his country to help himself. It's clear that he values his own well-being above that of his countrymen, and is willing to sell us out in a time of war. There are no excuses for what he has done. When he entered the Air Force, he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In offering to sell America's knowledge, he became one of those enemies himself. He took the trust that his country had placed in him, and spat on it.

Brian Patrick Regan deserves to die for his crimes.
Posted by B. Preston at 11:07 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


...is none other than Saddam Hussein. I haven't been able to access the StratFor story, probably because I'm not a Rush subscriber, but I'm sure it makes for very enlightening reading. According to it, not only is Chirac personally cozy with the Iraqi strongman, but he has personally helped arm Saddam with nuclear weapons since around 1975.

I don't know about you, but I think this relationship explains an awful lot of Chirac's recent irrationality. It's one part a struggle for dominance in the West against the US, and one part fear of total exposure of his role in arming Saddam in the first place, with perhaps another part thrown in for Chirac's personal friendship with the butcher of Baghdad. All three of these constitute reasons to resist French influence, and to break it in the EU and especially NATO. Any friend of Saddam's should be approached with extreme distrust.

(thanks to Chris)

UPDATE: Bill Quick has the full story. Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein...Chirac sure has an interesting set of friends. Anyhow, here's a money quote that could explain Chirac's behavior:

In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, "Le Canard Enchaine" published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir - - which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement "on the negotiation which you know about," and it speaks of the "cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country." In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as "my dear friend."
Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to "an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future." Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a "ridiculous invention." Assuming Chirac's sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the "essential chapter" refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like "negotiation which you know about."
Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq's nuclear capability, or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens.

Just read that last sentence again, then think: If you're Jacques Chirac, a known friend of Saddam's, and you worked out some super-secret deal with him that either a) included nuclear weapons, or b) something even worse, you just might be willing to do anything given the current climate to keep that truth from surfacing.
Posted by B. Preston at 03:12 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

No Title


Check out Kevin Holtsberry's review of the Kirk classic. If you're on the fence between conservatism and its alternatives, Russell Kirk's work is a great place to start your understanding of what it means to be a conservative.
Posted by B. Preston at 12:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 19, 2003


Well, I could say "I told you so" about Germany's role in helping Saddam acquire WMDs. Instead, I'll point you to an article that says it for me. The Germans may have built 8 mobile bioweapons labs for the madman from Baghdad. That's in addition to the one fixed lab for which they definitely initiated construction, and which I suspect they later finished.

Gee, d'ya think this might explain Germany's hesitance to take Saddam down? Just a little bit?

I do.

(thanks to Chris)
Posted by B. Preston at 09:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything

This slogan and more courtesty a few protest spoilers. I love it.

(thanks to Hanks)
Posted by B. Preston at 09:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


“All right everyone. Let’s get this going.” The leader paused to look at the faces around the board room, then continued. “We all know why we’re here.” He turned to a distinguished black woman to his left. “What’s the latest?”

“First the good news, sir. Our troops are in the field, and seem to be faring well. Thus far we have no terminal injuries, no problems with friendly fire, the press hasn’t gone into attack mode yet. We haven’t turned the corner yet, but things are running smoothly. We’re in good shape, all things considered.”

The leader whistled through his teeth, leaned back in his chair and studied his trusted aide.

“Ok. Very good. What’s the bad news then?”

She paused, swallowed. She made a show of looking at her notes, stalling until she could come up with the right way to broach the situation. Finding no easy way, she just plowed right in.

“Well, sir, we’ve determined that there’s a new threat. And it’s bad.” She looked down at the table, sensing his eyes studying the top of her carefully-coifed head. Slowly she looked up, and into his eyes. She gulped again, fearing one of his legendary outbursts was on the way.

But he never yelled, never raised his voice at all. “Tell me.”

“On our left flank, sir. It seems unstoppable, without resorting to tactics that could win us the proverbial battle while losing us the war. We’ve all been discussing it offline, and short of a frontal assault, we just don’t see a way to beat it.”

He paused, looked up at the ceiling. “Frontal assault. That could get messy. A real meat grinder.”

“Indeed sir. Estimates range from a few casualties to a full disaster. Worst case, sir, we could be looking at defeat if we don’t handle this thing right.”

“Defeat? How? Forget the frontal assault then. What will this thing do if we just leave it alone.”

She looked down at her notes again, then to the faces around the room. They seemed steeled for the moment, and gently nodded for her to continue.

“Sir, if we leave it alone it will blast us from the left flank, hard. It could wipe out half our troops, split our main force and cut off our main supply line.”

“And if we attack it head on?”

She looked into his eyes, and for the first time in memory saw a trace of fear there. “Well sir, in all of our simulations, attacking it head on, and quickly, will cause problems in the short run, but we think in the end we’ll neutralize it.”

“Ok. What are the down sides?”

“Sir, look at its position. In some ways it’s just a flank attack, but it’s more than just the straightforward flank attacks we’re used to. We’ve survived them, sometimes with a few losses, but ultimately they never threatened to defeat us completely. This one’s different. It’s positioned squarely across our main supply line. Attacking it head might stop it, but the risk is that we lose that line. Without that supply line, we have no way to press forward. Our field troops would be irrelevant then. No supply, no win.”

The leader broke eye contact with his aide, leaning forward in his chair. After a few seconds of staring at the blank table surface before him, he looked up at the ceiling again.

“How did we let ourselves get into this situation? Why didn’t we see this coming?” Then he looked squarely at his aide, and the others gathered around the table in turn. “This is your territory, you know. I just set policy. You’re supposed to take care of the day to day operations. How did you all get us into this? You’re all--”

Then he stopped, as if struck by lightning. She knew that look in his eye. It meant he had one of his visions, one of those ideas he gets to save the day just when things look hopeless.

“You say he’s on the left flank, positioned right across the supply lines?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And a frontal attack would probably neutralize him, but at too high a cost?”

“Yes, sir. It could split us, render us incapable of ever mounting any serious opposition again.”

“Got it. I know what to do now.”

The aide gulped. He really had had a vision. Just like that, he knew the way out. Sometimes his brilliance amazed her, not that she would ever tell him that. It would go straight to his head.

“What, sir?”

“We have to attack to his left, and knock him off that supply line. We’ll spread out his support. That should take care of him.”

“How, sir?”

“Hand me the phone, Donna.” He winked at her. “I’m calling Carol Moseley-Braun. She’ll get out there and take care of Sharpton, or my name isn’t Terry McAuliffe. And once she’s done with him, one of our real candidates might actually beat Bush in the general election.”

She sank back in her chair. It was brilliant, and more important, it might work. Though she was elated that the Sharpton threat now seemed less likely to ruin them, she wondered in the back of her mind if winning this way was worth it. In fact, times like this made her wonder if she was really helping the right team win at all. She also wondered why the party, her party, always responded with fear—a payoff once before, a cynical counterattack this time—whenever a black candidate entered the big race. She hoped there wasn't some deeper, more malevolent meaning to it all.
Posted by B. Preston at 08:56 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


Reader and blogger David Gertsman alerted me to Mike Kelly's column in the latest Atlantic Monthly. It's all about the lefty whining that debate re the war is being squelched, and points out that there are a zillion blogs debating every nuance of the war endlessly. Kelly is right, of course--blogs in and of themselves prove that the left is wrong about the "squelching" of debate, as it is wrong about so much else. The left's real problem with the war debate is that they're losing it fair and square.

A bunch of you other bloggers should also take a look at Kelly's column. It's as wickedly right as his other stuff, and mentions a few dozen of us. Cold Fury, Pejman Pundit, Right Wing News, the Inde-pundit, Cato the Youngest, and many, many more get a nod. Cool article. It's always nice when one of your favorite columnists mentions you, and I've had it happen twice (Jonah Goldberg's Washington Times piece of a few months ago is the other). Kelly even quoted my old tagline--"born with the gift of laughter, and a sense that the world is mad." Anyone out there know where I stole borrowed that line?

Now, if I could just get Mark Steyn to mention me....
Posted by B. Preston at 08:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 18, 2003


Oda Hussein, Saddam's demon-spawn, is not a nice man. The rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree, I suppose: He's known for committing pretty much every act of senseless brutality known to man. When Iraq's Olympic athletes (who knew they had any?) don't perform well, Oda orders a round of amputations. That's the kind of boy Saddam raises.

The French, who've been cozy with Saddam's regime for a while now, apparently like him so much that they won't make a fuss when his boy does nasty things to French citizens:

a former French official told 20/20 of an equally bizarre, more recent account allegedly involving Odai and a delegation of French college students in 2000.
Two of the students, a man and a woman, told French authorities that Odai invited them to a party in their honor at a Baghdad hotel. But when they got to Odai's room, they say three of his bodyguards forced them at gunpoint to have sex with each other while being taped on video.

According to Alexis Debat, who was a desk officer at the French Ministry of Defense at the time, the French government concluded there was little they could do about it. "I mean, after all, this is Saddam Hussein's son," said Debat, who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS."
Posted by B. Preston at 11:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 17, 2003


With the world seemingly headed to war, and with millions marching against that war around the globe, all the news that streams in from all parts seems bad. The North Koreans celebrated dictator Kim Jong Il’s birthday by hating the US, and promising themselves a victory should nuclear war result from Pyongyang’s own lawbreaking. Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden or one of his voice impersonators issued a new tape again, this time promising that his terrorist group’s “victory” in Afghanistan (a victory seen in their rearview mirrors, for some odd reason) was the beginning of the end of the US.

But all is not lost, even with the gigantic anti-war protests of the weekend. We Americans, especially we Americans who lean to the right politically, owe a huge debt of gratitude to one nation which has provided so much clarity to these confusing times. So all together now, folks—thank you very much, France.

Yes, you read that right. Thank you very much, France. You have taken a clouded world and made the view as bright as a spring day.

In your recent actions, France, you have vindicated a viewpoint that was once, as in last week, considered little more than a fringe idea. You have single-handedly shown that the United Nations is every bit as useless, feckless, amoral and corrupt as many of us have long suspected. You have proven that the UN isn’t about keeping international order, and hasn’t been for some time. You have proven its true purpose, which is to rein in the one country without which the UN will be irrelevant, the one country that has ever had the power but lacks the sinister purpose to conquer the entire world, and to reward that country’s generosity and goodwill with a big, multilateral finger in the eye. So thank you.

You’ve done it so openly, and in retrospect so obviously, that it’s a wonder we never saw it coming. Late last year you made a big show of voting yes to UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the 17th UN resolution aimed at disarming the rogue state Iraq, and this resolution seemed to have “we really mean it this time” attached. But now it’s obvious that you didn’t really mean it, since Iraq has continued to flout 1441 and the other 16 resolutions, and you’re still not ready for the enforcement that surely must come. In so doing, you’ve proven that the UN is a parliament of insincere blowhards. Given some of the UN’s other recent actions, that’s a good thing.

After all, just a year ago the UN gave succor to every tinpot nut who wanted to call the United States the world’s leading racist state. The august body met in Durban, South Africa, where it spent several days (and millions of dollars) to ignore the racism of all Arab states, the ethnic cleansings of at least one European state, the tribalism and slavery of many African states, and the religiously-inspired tyrannies of scores of other states, and instead focused on America, a nation organized according to the will of all its people and that welcomes the world’s tired, poor, and huddle masses without regard to ethnicity, or faith, or much of anything else. Our immigration service is so sweet it even allows avowed terrorists in, and refuses to kick them out when they break our laws. Aren’t we nice?

It’s also the UN that gives despots and terror-sponsors equal moral status with legitimately elected heads of states. It’s the UN that recently elevated Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya to chair its human rights commission (the same commission the US had been unceremoniously booted from about a year prior), and it’s the UN that recently placed Iraq at the head of its committee on disarmament. What’s next—North Korea to head the International Atomic Energy Agency? China to head the council on healthy children? The Palestinian Authority to chair meetings on free and fair elections? Whatever is next, we Americans need no longer care, because whatever the UN does from here on out will be totally irrelevant. If it can’t enforce the resolutions passed by its central policy-making body, what can it do?

To those of us who never much liked the UN, Friday’s moves by you, France, and your friends in Germany and your partners Russian and China have been immensely clarifying, and serve to remind us of how you folks like to operate. Looking at Germany, why, it was only a few decades ago that its chosen leader rampaged across Europe with his nation united behind him. We saved you from him, remember? Looking at Russia, why, its current head of state once ran the KGB, which sponsored its share of terrorism in the bad old days. In fact, that same KGB seems to have helped along the activities of one Joschka Fischer back in the days of the Cold War and West Germany’s pro-Soviet Red Army Fraction. Herr Fischer now runs Germany’s foreign affairs, which, surprise! have gone all anti-American and apparently pro-terrorist. Herr Fischer was present at an early meeting of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which decided in his presence that its goal would be to exterminate Israel. You’d think that any German would think twice about associating with anyone trucking in such ideas, but you’d be wrong here. And let’s not forget China, the other state that your UNSC actions have provided cover. China seems to be towing your anti-war line just fine, until the subject of Taiwan pops up. Then suddenly Beijing gets unilateral on us, growls about “one China” and continues to modernize its military in the hopes of one day forcing the “rogue province” to heel. It’s this same China, run by this same thugocracy, that swallowed Tibet and declares most religious groups “enemies of the state,” or in the new parlance, “terrorists,” and exterminates them. Anyone remember Tiananmen Square, circa 1989? That’s who you’re helping out, France. Nice job.

You’ve also reminded us just who it is that protects disarming the madman in Baghdad. Aren’t these the same people who blamed America when it was attacked on 9-11? Aren’t these the same people who warned us that we should give peace a chance in October 2001, oblivious to the fact that “giving peace a chance” had brought the terror war to our doorstep? Aren’t these the same people who warned us about the “terrible Afghan winter?” Heck, I’d take that winter over the actual Maryland winter that’s piling up in my yard. But I digress. Aren’t these protesters the same people that, marching this weekend in the name of peace, pulled a mounted policeman from his horse and beat him? And wasn’t that officer one of New York’s finest, those brave men and women who rushed into the Twin Towers on that awful day? Yes, he was, and yes, these protesters are the same useful idiots who have been wrong about so much—everything, really—since 9-11.

France, you’ve shown the UN’s true colors—several shades of yellow, it turns out. You’ve reminded us that the UN lets itself be mocked in the leadership it chooses. You’ve reminded us just who it is that we’re supposed to ask permission before we defend ourselves. And you’ve reminded us just who’s been out there protesting. And since NATO seems to be working better now that you’ve been shut out of its meetings, there’s hope we can kick you out of it. You voluntarily dropped out in 1966. Maybe you need a little shove this time. But for all your other fine work, we do owe you a deep dept of gratitude. You’ve vindicated a half century of right wing American politics.

Merci beaucoup.
Posted by B. Preston at 12:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack