Your Weekly Rush

"Our attitude should be this: these other countries had better be worried about our street and our anger at their lily-white, sorry rear ends. I realize they don't have to pay us back for WWII forever, but this business that we're weak? Screw that! We hold their destiny in our hands. We don't depend on them for diddlysquat. We paid the UN a courtesy call while waiting for our military to give the president the "go" signal."
Rush Limbaugh, Demonstrating his deep understanding of Foreign Policy

"Q: Should the people of the world fear us, or see us as a friend?
BUSH: They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us."
President Bush demonstrating a somewhat different take on foreign policy.

Tallahassee Anti War Rally

I just got back from the Anti War Rally in downtown Tallahassee. It was interesting. As you know my modus operandi is to mock the people I comment on. In most cases they are wealthy or well off commentators who, frankly, are well enough paid that they can take my abuse. That's not the case with these protesters. I know it's common enough to say that they are all students or teachers who never have to do anything anyway, but I've been a student. Yeah, there are fun times, but there is a lot of work too. I'll post longer comments later on, but I write this just to say, don't expect me to be as vicious as I usually am.

Here are some pictures.

Bonehead of the Week

This will not be a weekly feature. It's not that people don't do bonheaded things each week. It's the difficulty of narrowing it down to just one. This award goes to Eric Alterman this week for his idiotic comments to Esquire magazine. Here's a shot of the magazine page from Rush Limbaugh.com (with their own redlines).

Here's his statement, "The lack of civility he [Limbaugh] demonstrates toward liberal politicians is really dangerous to our political public. I hate to say it, but I wish the guy would have gone deaf. I shouldn't say that, but on behalf of the country, it would be better without Limbaugh and his 20 million listeners."

This makes me angry. It's exactly, EXACTLY, the same kind of things that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh say about their Democratic enemies, but that does not excuse Alterman. The only advantage liberals have had in this debate has been in taking the moral high ground on this issue (in general). And now Alterman has surrendered that. Presumably because he is a bonehead.

Websites of the Week

OK, here are some posters for you to look at.





OK here's a fun game. Which of the above posters was made by a liberal website, and which was made by a conservative one? Well let me give you some hints. One came from the Propaganda Remix Program, and the other came from FreedomAds.Org. Freedom Ads has a contest going, where in you can create your own posters and send them in (plan on seeing my entry some time tomorrow. I'm debating themes ("Bryant, Truly Indispensable" or "Bryant, Mightier than all Puny Mortals.")). The Propaganda Remix project, on the other hand, is more about selling this guys book. Anyway, one site is ideologically liberal, and the other conservative.

Figure it out yet? Well I'll tell you. The top is a liberal ad, and the bottom a conservative ad. Looks like there is some common ground, though.

Senator Robert Byrd

If you listen to Rush Limbaugh for any length of time, he'll eventually point out that Senator Robert Byrd (D, W.Va.) is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Rush never tires of pointing that out, because it puts the lie to all the nonsense about Republicans being racist. It can also be used to discredit anything Senator Byrd ever says. Byrd left the Klan in 1943, but it is his original sin, so to speak. That being said, he is one of the few democratic senators who challenges the President on the issues these days. Yesterday, February 13, 2003, speaking from the floor, he stated the following;

"This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. . . . And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?"

That is a good question. Is there anybody who thinks that we could drop an atomic bomb on Iraq and not suffer grave consequences? Senator Byrd also wonders why congress is not debating the issue; I'm afraid the answer is all to obvious. Congress has rendered itself useless to address this issue. They have given that power to the president, in House Joint Resolution 114, which states,

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

So there it is. Congress gave up their power to wage war to the President.

History



For those interested in History, you should check out www.diggers.org. It contains a history of the San Francisco diggers, and their links to the English Diggers and other movements in San Fran in the sixties. Of particular interest is the bit on the Communications Company which contains many of their early broadsides, including the famous (or infamous) Money is an Unnecessary Evil (reprinted below). Check it out.

Money Is An Unnecessary Evil

It is addicting.

It is a temptation to the weak (most of the violent crimes of our city in some way involve money).

It can be hoarded, blocking the free flow of energy and the giant energy-hoards of Montgomery Street will soon give rise to a sudden and thus explosive release of this trapped energy, causing much pain and chaos.

As part of the city's campaign to stem the causes of violence the San Francisco Diggers announce a 30 day period beginning now during which all responsible citizens are asked to turn in their money. No questions will be asked.

Bring money to your local Digger for free distribution to all. The Diggers will then liberate it's energy according to the style of whoever receives it

In Which Bryant Imagines Himself as a Typical Conservative Commentator Imagining what It Must Be Like to Work At the State Department

"Hmmmmm, I've sat around being useless all morning. I think after lunch I'll start actively working to destroy America. But before I do, let me check out Townhall.Com and see if they have any helpful advice."

"Hmmmm. Here's an interesting article by Joel Mowbray about the plight of Domestics hired by Saudi visitors to the US. Hmmm. Mowbray seems to suggest we, here at the state department, start an aggressive campaign to investigate conditions for domestics, and to set free those that are being mistreated. Ha ha ha! Hasn't he forgotten that we are evil? Does he expect us to just open the boarders to helpless innocent victems?

"Now Michelle Malkin, she has the right idea. It's not our place to let in innocent kind hearted young girls cruelly aboused by their Saudi Masters It's our job to facilitate the infiltration of evil terrorists, with bogus religious visas."

That was fun, but now I'm back to normal. It is a little bizarre for a conservative asking the State Department to study the abuse of immigrants. Usually conservatives pretty much only care about those immigrants who are abusing the system.

What it Takes to Protest a War

Apparently this Sunday there is to be an anti-war rally in Sunday, sponsered by ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, Not In Our Name and Bay Area United Against War. Rabbi Michael Lerner, a dovish rabbi who opposes the war will not be allowed to speak. ANSWER apparently feels that his stance that Israel has the right to exist and his condemnation of Palestinian Terrorist Acts render him unfit to comment on the war.

Salon has the story. They've been very critical of ANSWER in the past, deploring their stance of solidarity with despotic governments around the world. It's a hassle going to any Salon story I know, but they employ some really good writers, so I'm going to continue linking to them.

Here's a quote from Rabbi Lerner on a bombing at Hebrew University, written on August 8, 2002. "There is no excuse for these terrible murders of Israeli students at Hebrew U. Please don't tell us, "last week Israel bombed a civilian apartment house in Gaza and murdered 14 people, including seven chldren, and wounded 140 people." There was no excuse for that act on Israel's part (and don't tell us "there was a terrorist in that building" because murder is murder and it's wrong). And that act of Israel's does not justify this act against Israeli civilians. One immoral act does not justify another immoral act. Those were our brothers and sisters who were killed and wounded on Mt. Scopus. Those were our brothers and sisters who were killed and wounded in Gaza last week. Stop this craziness! Take out of power the people on both sides who think murder is a solution."

More from Osama

Here's the direct quote, as translated by the Washington Post.

"First, the sincerity of intentions for the fighting should be for the sake of Allah only, no other, and not for the victory of national minorities or for the aid of the infidel regimes in all Arab countries, including Iraq."

You can see the rest of the speech here. Joe Conason, updating his Blog today, commented that this message might be for the West as much as the Middle East. Bin Ladin wants war, knowing as he does that he might be able to use it to rally troops against the West. So that's comforting.

Osama and Saddam, Bestest Buddies

Well according to those who would like to see us invade Iraq immediately, yesterdays message from Osama Bin Ladin proves his great love for Saddam Hussein. The two are clearly allies, and so we should hold Saddam responsible for September 11th.

One minor fly in the work, apparently Osama in his message called on the Iraqi people to eliminate the secular Saddam, and replace him with a good religious leader. MSNBC initially reported this, but then, realizing that it flew in the face of the pro war argument (wars make for good ratings), withdrew the statement. Reuters, however, reported it this way. "The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said."

So there you have it. For more info on this story, check out the reporting at Antiwar.com. I'm not saying everything on this page is accurate--but this story seems solid.

The Oscars

As many of you know the Oscars were announced today, and you'll be pleased to note that "Make me a Commentator" was nominated in the category of "Best Political Website, Dog Shaving, or Freeform Slalom." Most stories on the Oscars won't mention this particular category, and I've already been informed that there is little need for me to attend the Oscars, but still, it's nice to be nominated.

In other website news, those who read Portuguese might check out Airstrike. I don't know much about it, but they added a link to me on their web page, so the least I can do is return the favor. They have a nice picture on the site, and a good layout, at any rate.

Self-Evident

Marvin Olasky printed some interesting comments at Townhall today.

"The unstated assumption is that since people are endowed by the Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those who live under dictatorship inevitably yearn for freedom. That familiar concept from the Declaration of Independence is crucial to the administration's calculation of how Iraq's people and ordinary soldiers will respond if a war begins and Saddam's forces suffer initial defeat."

Obviously the adminsitration would love to see at the end cheering crowds welcoming American Soldiers into Baghdad. I hope that, assuming we go to war, that is what happens in the end. But, as Olasky points out, Saddam has been more careful to drape himself in Islamic trappings the last couple of years. He is courting the religious sentiment of his people, hoping to turn this into a holy war. And if he has succeeded, well, it seems unlikely we'll be welcomed with cheering crowds.

And the kicker is, its hard to know what's in the Iraqi people's hearts until the situation presents itself. They are obviously unable to express themselves now.

And They Called Me Paranoid

Here's a quote from an editorial printed in the New York Sun on Thursday February 6, 2003.

"So long as the protesters are invoking the Constitution, they might have a look at Article III. That says, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

. . . And there is no reason to doubt that the “anti-war” protesters — we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq — are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein.

. . . So the New York City police could do worse, in the end, than to allow the protest and send two witnesses along for each participant, with an eye toward preserving at least the possibility of an eventual treason prosecution. Thus fully respecting not just some, but all of the constitutional principles at stake."

There's nothing like a sane and calm voice during these days of trial and tribulation. Thank goodness for the New York Sun, putting it all in perspective. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back under my bed.

Some Thoughts

"A virulent hatred of America is being preached in the Middle East and around the world, and that propaganda is often echoed by regimes that claim to have no connection with terror. Yet they give these jihadists aid and comfort, not to mention hideouts. The way Saddam Hussein sheltered the late and unlamented Abu Nidal. And continues to work with others, as Colin Powell pointed out in his prosecutor's brief at the United Nations.

That's why, in addition to tracking down individual terrorists like Richard Reid, the free world must go after those governments that produce, nourish and dispatch them.

Terror needs a sponsor in order to flourish. It needs a base - like Afghanistan before Sept. 11, or the mosque where Richard Reid hung out in London, or the caves along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. . . .

No, toppling Saddam Hussein will not put an end to the hatred for America that pervades a once great but now sick, decayed civilization. But acting in Iraq will strike a clarifying blow at the widespread contempt for America in that part of the world."
Paul Greenberg, Al-Qaida is a distraction

"Hussein is above all a master of survival. You don't gain control of a brutal police state and keep it for three decades without a keen instinct for self-preservation. He showed it during the Gulf War, when he chose to leave his chemical and biological weapons on the shelf rather than invite complete devastation. He showed it again afterward, when everyone expected him to be overthrown. If he sees that he can survive this time by giving up his forbidden arsenal -- and only by giving up his forbidden arsenal -- he may seize the chance.

That outcome would not please quite everyone. Administration hawks are after regime change, not mere disarmament. They don't want Hussein defanged; they want him dead. Their preference is understandable. But it would be criminal if the administration spurned the chance to solve the central problem without the grave perils of invasion and occupation.

If Bush is hoping to force Hussein into submission, he's handled this showdown perfectly. But he has to be prepared to take yes for an answer."
Steve Chapman, In the drive toward war, a last exit

"The enemy has exposed its fangs and is fighting our religion and is doing its best to drive Muslims away from their religion. . . . Your enemy would not defeat you with its vast troops and equipment, but you will be defeated if your faith is weakened."
Sheik Abdul-Aziz bin Abdullah Al al-Sheik, commenting during the Hajj.

I should write some commentary too--but instead I think I'm going to go hide under my bed 'till this thing blows over.

Support the Troops!

We find ourselves on the brink of war; a war that many Americans oppose. So the question becomes what is the proper attitude one should take if one opposes the war. One possibility, certainly endorsed by many conservatives commentators, is that once war begins (or even before) the only American thing to do is give unwavering loyalty to the President by keeping your mouth shut. Debra Saunders made the case that opposing the war is by its nature anti-America. "If you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy, you're anti-Bush on Iraq. It follows then that if you strongly object to not only the Bush Iraq policy, but also the popular war on terrorism and maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and if you believe that the United States attacks other countries, not in self-defense, but as an act of hegemony, and if you believe the American people are the war on terrorism's willing dupes, sorry, but you're anti-American." Ms. Saunder does make a lot out of a little. But perhaps she's right. Perhaps we need a group of people to sit in judgement and determine what American opinions are. Maybe you'd be ok, if you thought the American people were unwilling dupes. Or if you believed that the war in Afghanistan was justified, but not the war in Iraq.

I do love the idea expressed succinctly that we are invading Iraq out of self defense.

Another possible reaction to the war is to let it have no effect. Clay Evans, writing in the Boulder Daily Camera, supports this proposition. He states, " it's disingenuous to lay aside reasonable moral objections and "support the troops." One need not "support" the deaths of innocents simply because the government has started an unnecessary war." I don't know exactly what Mr. Evans means by the phrase "Support the Troops." In his essence he does state that he "would never treat with disrespect the men and women who defend us." But he's insistent the war movement not "Support the Troops." Does he hope that the US loses in Iraq? That we suffer large casualties? I also don't know what he means by the death of innocents. The far left for weeks has been making dire predictions over how the US will fight this war, suggesting that we will use a rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad or that we might use nuclear weapons on Saddam. Assuming you take all those predictions at face value I gather it will be pretty bloody. But I don't buy it. Our leadership knows that the rest of the world will be paying close attention to how we wage this war. If we inflict massive civilian causalities we will damage our credibility in the region for generations. So I gather most of the people who will die during the war will be the Iraqi National Guard. Certainly its sad, but it is part of war.

Truthfully I find Mr. Evans take on the situation rather despicable. Once troops are on the ground, I hope they succeed. I am an American, and while I certainly know that my country does things I wish it wouldn't, I still know what side I'm on.

So what is the proper response? As always somewhere in the middle. Don't make common cause with Saddam Hussein. He is a monster and he does oppress his people. But at the same time, don't stay silent about the unjustness of the men who brought this war to us.

Part of a Whole Paragraph

One thing I've noticed on Fox is that they keep introducing new episodes of their half hour shows as "part of a full hour." I hate to tell you, but that's really not that impressive. All half hour shows are part of a full hour. It would be more impressive if they managed to do a half hour show that wasn't part of a full hour. That would show they were committed to the program. I'm not sure how you do that, but still . . .

New Quote, New Title, New Attitude

Changed the quote at the top, and changed the title of this blog. Instead of the old "Make me a Commentator" now it's "Make me a Commentator!!!" We have a new dynamic attitude and stuff. Stay tuned for lots of cool . . . uh . . . commenting.