Pay no Attention to the Interview Behind the Curtain

"So just what is newsworthy about getting him [Saddam Hussein] to sit down for a one-on-one interview? Did the executives at CBS expect him to announce his hopes for a career in professional baseball? Did they suppose he'd hand over his weapons of mass destruction to Dan Rather personally?"
Mona Charen

"And in a quest for higher ratings, network anchors continue their efforts to make Saddam appear credible. Last week, Dan Rather of CBS deadpanned the dictator about whether he really wanted to debate President George W. Bush on live TV. "I'm not joking," Saddam explained. "This is because of my respect for the American public opinion." And they call this "news"?"
Oliver North

Yep, Saddam Hussein had an interview with Dan Rather, and it's not news. You heard it hear first. For those who watched, i'm sorry, but Oliver North and Mona Charen (and others) have decided that it's just not worthy of your time. I mean it's not like there's any attention focused on Iraq right now. It's just bizarre that CBS would allow an interview with such an un-newsworthy charectar, let alone seek one out.

I have to admit I didn't watch it--I don't know when it was supposed to air.

In other news, on the road tomorrow--so no updates, but feel free to read my archives. Lots of funny stuff there.

The Liberal Media

Good article today at Salon about the "Liberal Media." It is a review of Eric Alterman's recent book "What Liberal Media?" In a bit criticizing the media's coverage of the post election struggle, Alterman writes, "Liberal columnists Al Hunt and Richard Cohen offered this novel rationale for why the majority who voted for Gore should welcome a Bush presidency: The far right had turned America into such a nasty and brutish place that it could not be governed by a Democrat. Only Bush, wrote Cohen, could keep the "GOP Dobermans" on a leash. To which the only response could be: Why had the country bothered with an election at all?"

Anyway this is hardly news. The press is liberal on some social issues and conservative on must economic issues. They are also usually hawkish, enjoying the drama inherent in a good war.

In Which Brandy Asks Herself "Have I switched to the 'anti-war' group?"

The story so far, Brandy wrote several well-written and passionate articles in support of the upcoming invasion of Iraq. As we join her she is considering her position.

"So as I have said MANY times, I long for a reason to be against this war...I have now found 2 reasons to, in the very least, be supportive of waiting quite a bit longer/ possibly being AGAINST attacking Iraq. The first of my -oh, I shall stop and contenplate on this for awhile is from: US Senator Robert Byrd's comments on the Senate floor,

Feb. 12, 2003
WE STAND PASSIVELY MUTE
"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. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter."

I know this has been stated before...the whole "but Iraq hasn't done anything yet" ideaology...but Byrd has stated it in a way that makes me think...in America one is not jailed for 'thinking' of doing a crime, that until a crime is committed the individual can not be held -even IF everything points to him being a criminal...not sure if I'm making any sense...but the whole Minority Report thing. Now then, this isn't to say that this reason ALONE would work -if one could go back in time would they assassinate Hitler BEFORE he did anything? And Saddam is by no means innocent...but this certainly has made me stop and think.

The second reason I think we should wait is in what Pres. Bush had to say last night....I mean what the F was that all about?

He clearly stated that he does NOT have a completed plan on dealing with post-war Iraq...now then I love this country, but we suck at establishing foriegn governments, as a matter of fact I can't think of a single success story...maybe Germany? I can NOT support Bush if he has not planned this ALL the way through...this really scares me. This is a REAL reason to be anti-war."

I will say that although I thought Bush's speech was a bit too pat, particularly in relation to some of Paul Krugman's articles on the recent failure to initially budget money for Afganastan. But there is a success story in our history, namely Japan. The Japanese economy was devestated by the war. General MacArthur essentially rebuilt the country, making it a strong and productive democracy in the far east. At the time it was believed by many that the Oriental mind was incapable of understanding and practicing democracy.

Make me a Commentator!!!'s Military correspondent Justin commented that he felt that MacArthur's success was more a reflection on the nature of the Japanese people, rather than the US. The Japanese people's acceptance of a stratified and highly organized society let them accept MacCarther's commadns in a way that perhaps the people of Iraq might not.

New Website

This won't last long, because the Limbaugh show will sue. But it's pretty cool for now. There is a website that transcribes Rush's show each and every day, so that we can know what he's saying and how he says it. Check it out.

Here's a sample of the hard headed analysis from Mr. Limbaugh. "The Left, on the other hand, all during their fifty-year monopoly, never was challenged on what they believe, and so when they are challenged, they have no answers. If anybody's in a state of disarray, it's the Left. If anybody is out there culpable, or capable, of being suckered, it's the Left." Yep, up until Fox news, nobody ever challenged a liberal view.

Israel - The Only Foreign Policy Issue that Matters

"Terrorism against Israel must end. A two-state solution is the only path to eventual peace, but Palestinian territory cannot have the capability of being used as a platform for attacking Israel. Some degree of separation between Israelis and Palestinians is probably necessary in light of the horrible bloodshed of the past two years. To be viable, the Palestinian Authority must become democratic and purged of corruption."
Howard Dean, February 17, 2003

Now you may not realize it, but that is the wrong opinion for Howard Dean. According to Stephen Zunes, if he is going to win over the right kind of people he has to essentially reverse that statement, emphasizing the evil nature of Israel and the largely innocent nature of the Palestinians. As Zunes states, "Many in the peace and human rights community may conclude, however, that any endorsement of Dean’s candidacy must be withheld as a means of pressuring him to back away from his support for the rightist Israeli government. Failing that, we may see large numbers of peace and human rights activists give up on the Democrats altogether and throw their support to the Green Party." Yeah, that worked out great last time. The Democrats failed to change their views, and the Republicans got to run everything.

More Movies

Well, just got back from lunch which required a stop at a local Gas Station. As I was waiting in line, noted that they had a DVD for sale. Hmmmm. So ask yourself, what recent movie do Gas Station operators think their patrons are most likely to buy?

Was it The Hours, a touching story about the humanity that binds us all? Nope. That isn't out on DVD yet, anyway.

Was it Spiderman, a touching story about a young man who gets bitten by a radioactive spider? Nope.

Was it A Fistful of Dollars, a touching story about a cowboy who rides into town and shoots the heck out of everybody? Nope.

It was the completely untouching story of xXx, a spy who has lots of stuff happen to him (that I mostly can't remember, although I did see the movie), and kind of dresses like a pimp in a bad seventies movie. The New York Timed reviewed the movie, saying, "This movie chooses to spotlight its vaunted "new breed of secret agent" by having Xander use the term "first-person shooter," in case someone misses out on the video-game point. Which is in keeping, since "XXX" isn't exactly a movie — it's more like the world's biggest reset button."

The Unbearable Lightness of Geekdom.

Just finished reading Mark Simpsons review of "Star Trek - The Adventure." My only comment is that maybe someone who was not quite so obsessed with sex would have a different opinion of the exhibit.

Ideaology

There are three potential visions for the future, according to Dennis Prager.

One is the Muslim Vision, where in we all convert to Islam.

One is the Secular/Socialist vision, where in we all become Europeon.

One is the Judeo-Christian/Capitalist vision, where in we all learn not to mess with America.

These are our three potential futures.

In this war of ideas America stands alone. Our only allies of note, the United Kingdom and Israel, are good allies, but both have socialist programs and parties. So it is up to the United States alone to bring the world to light.

As Prager says, "But the American way can only prevail if Americans believe in it. That is why, as important as the military and ideological battles against militant Islam are, the most important battle is the ideological one within America. But with America's universities, unions, professional associations, mainstream news media, and one of its two major parties ideologically aligned with Europe, and with big businesses constantly undermining Judeo-Christian values, the battle within America itself for America's unique values is far from won. And given that only America offers a viable alternative to both militant Islam and secularism/socialism, if we lose the battle here, humanity has a very dark future."

While it's fun to imagine apocolyptical visions of the future, lets return to reality. Since its inception the United States has engaged in a debate over how powerful the federal government should be. Has it destroyed America? No. Has one side conclusively won? Not yet. The very greatness of America is that as we deal with these struggles peacefully, the struggles make us stronger. The problem with Prager is that he believes that unless his side wins by eliminating all conflicting ideas, than they have lost. Fair enough--everybody is allowed to believe what they want. For example, I'm allowed to believe that President Bush's tax cut strategy, which Prager probably agrees with, will eventually empty the treasury, requiring the US to raise taxes to an even higher rate in order to pay it off.

But by casting it in apocolyptical terms, Prager cuts off debate. In his view, there can be no compromise with the forces of Europeon thought (let alone Islam), only victory and elimination of the hated ideas. And that kind of victory is no kind of victory at all, in the long run.

Movies Movies Movies

Interesting article today at National Review Online by Mackubin Thomas Owens. The article contrasts the recent Civil War drama "Gods and Generals" with the more remote film "Glory." Owens talks about movies as history. He argues that although "Glory" did get several aspects of the story wrong, it did convey the essential truth of the story. "By inaccurately depicting the 54th as a regiment of former slaves, Glory reveals the deeper truth that blacks in general were not the natural slaves that southerners believed them to be and that abolitionists feared that they might be."

"Gods and Generals" is much more historically accurate, but it contains myth of Southern History; namely the myth of the Lost Cause. Here I think Owens over explains. The Myth of the Lost Cause is very simple; it is that the south succeeded for dozens of reasons (depending on who you ask) none of which have to do with Slavery. This is generally nonsense. As Owens succinctly puts it, "Slavery, not states right, was both the proximate and deep cause of the war. There was no constitutional right to dissolve the Union. Southerners could have invoked the natural right of revolution, but they didn't because of the implications for a slave-holding society, so they were hardly the heirs of the Revolutionary generation."

It's painful for the South to accept this I know, and many don't want to, but it is true.

Nation Building

This is the key issue in the future war in Iraq.

If the US takes a hands-off approach, as we largely have in Afganistan, than the country may descend into a quagmire of generals and fundementalists, battling each other. If we install a provisional government that keeps 90% of Saddam's government with a change at the top, than we will look like hypocrites. Our only hope is to do what President Bush has committed us to doing.

Mona Charen, writing today, lays out the argument. "The Arab world's hatred and resentment of the United States has many roots -- envy, frustration over the Islamic world's stagnation vis a vis the West, anger at American support for Israel and dismay at America's popular culture. We cannot wave a magic wand and make those resentments disappear. But we can look honestly at the countries of the region and recognize, as a 2002 United Nations report documents, that they are among the most backward nations on earth. . . .

Backwardness, despotism and a violence-prone religious elite have made the Arab world a cauldron of radicalism. But if the nation in the geographical and metaphorical heart of the Arab world were to be firmly planted on the road to freedom, prosperity and pluralism, it will represent a decisive rollback of the forces of darkness. It's no wonder that Saudi Arabia, Iraq's neighbor to the south, is scheming for Saddam to be deposed and publicly calling upon him to commit suicide. They know very well that a reformed Iraq will be a beacon for all Arabs. No wonder Syria is helping Iraq to hide its weapons of mass destruction.

Americans have scorned nation-building in the past. But we can no longer afford that particular luxury. The repressive, cruel and closed nations of the Muslim world have bred a fanaticism that has already been profoundly painful to us and may be catastrophically so in the near future. The question of war will be decided within weeks, but there is far more at stake than Iraq's fate."

While I disagree with her often enough, on this point I think Ms. Charen is right.

Website of the Week! Last Week! Today!!!

Yes here is the website of last week for you. It's a website with the catchy title "Vote to Impeach." Apparently they would like to Vote to Impeach President Bush.

Hmmmm, I wonder if there is any way this could backfire on the Democrats. Lets recall what happened during the Clinton Impeachement. Hmmmm, two Republican Speakers of the House leaving Washington in disgrace. And Clinton got away. And of course these articles of impeachment are even shakier.

More to the point, the whole website ignores September 11. Now I'm the last person who believes that September 11 gives Bush the right to do pretty much whtever he wants. But impeaching him for trying to defend America after September 11th? That is insane. It shows that the organizors of this website have more hate for President Bush than they do love for the American people.

New Quote

There's a new quote at the top. Hooray!!!!!

On France

I meant to comment on this over the weekend--but ran out of time. At any rate, I think this is a really good article by Molly Ivins on France, and it well warrents reading.

A New Guest Commentator

Here are some comments from Caleb, a new commentator here at Make me a Commentator!!! joining the illustrious Brandy. Caleb says he wrote this because he was bored, but I think it's pretty good.

The problem with this whole war is that we are going about it the wrong way. That, in my opinion, is the problem with much of US foreign policy.

When referring to us policy there are two conservative points of view. 1). The US is the morally superior power and it is our duty to ensure the rights and privileges of humanity world wide, and 2). We matter more than anyone else, so who cares what they think. Of course, neither of these views is held unilaterally or exclusively by any significant segment of society. They are primarily mixed and matched with other ideologies and even with each other, but they are both correct and reasonable.

If we did not believe ourselves to be morally superior then we might as well admit to ourselves that we are a group of proud, ignorant, bottom feeders who are advancing a pointless conflict for the good of no-one not even ourselves. We should all turn tail and hide under the wings of terror as the proper and respectable alternative to our own misguided interests.

\And of course we matter more than anyone else. We're us. As ridiculous as that argument sounds who better to look after our own needs than we ourselves? I'm certain that I know my own best interests better than I know yours. Therefore, while I feel confident in propounding my own self interests I do not feel qualified to comment on the self interests of the peoples of the world, nor liberals, for we all know that liberals are a breed apart from the morally, intellectually, and in all other ways that matter superior conservatives.

And here it comes. A bit of dribbling from the fountain if intellectual reserve I call myself. What we get when we combine the two opposing views of conservative foreign politics is this. We can't police the world as much as we'd like to, not because we couldn't overthrow the world's minor powers one by one, but because it’s not effective. We tried it. It didn't work. Perhaps our meddling has gotten better in the past perhaps it hasn't. Maybe we graduated from assassination of troublesome leaders to nation building, but it hasn't worked yet. I don't put much stock in our recent efforts. We'll see. The following is a compromise:

Instead of assassinating leaders willy nilly, or replacing entire governments and expecting them to remain stable for any significant period of time why don't we just tell them they are going to die if they continue their actions. We don't need to threaten a war that the sneaky little vermin will be able to hide behind, killing thousands of young soldiers in their stead. Just one little bullet is all it takes. Dictators have never feared the lives of their subordinates, and they have never feared war so long as they could sit in their snug homes or, if it got to dangerous a dank little hole in the ground. And yet every one of them fears for his own life. Go figure.

Why wouldn't the world hate us just as much for assassinating leaders as pouring war forth upon the world in a reckless and self satisfying manor? They will, but then who cares what they think. I'm sure we can find a hired gun or two in the mountains of Montana.

One little quibble, Conservatives may be morally and intellectually superior to Liberals, but Liberals rock harder. What do you think? If you have any comments or responses to Calebs Comments, send them to me, and I might post them.