spinbadz own

I disagree, in a minor sort of way, with only the second part of William Safire 's conclusion (about the UN oil-for-food scandal and Kofi Annan's son's kickbacks therein):

"Kofi Annan, even if personally innocent (ought to) resign ... having, through initial ineptitude and final obstructionism, brought dishonor on the Secretariat of the United Nations."

That Kofi Annan ought to resign - (1) sure; and (2) who cares.

No question that the Nobel-strength twerp deserves the old Buttkick + Begone in a told-you-so sort of way. The whole (oil-for-graft) affair, and indeed the UN itself, stinks to high heaven, which belies the second part of Safire's conclusion.

It seems rather disingenuous to talk about Annan's actions bringing "dishonor", unless the words "even further" are prefixed and "if that is possible" follows.

As Victor Davis Hanson put it some time ago (I've lost the link):

"... Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the U.N. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press (that non-liberal Safire currently writes for) on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials."

In this article Hanson reminds us that Libya --infamous for its dirty war with Chad and cash bounties to mass murderers--chaired the 2003 session of the U.N.'s 53-member Commission on Human Rights, a body on which Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam and Zimbabwe, have all served.

Then of course there's the fact that nearly half of the UN's resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors.

Under Annan this trend has become, if anything, even more widespread. A recent declaration of UN Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) - which include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and exert a tremendous influence in the U.N. - held that:

"targeted victims of Israel's brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women, and refugees"

and called for

"a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state ... the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel."

while also condemning Israel's

"perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide."

Not exactly perspicacious stuff. All without any reference whatsoever to Palestinian suicide bombing, terror, videoed head-lopping, bomb-making factories, missile launches at civilian areas, rock throwing, calls for holy war, children's television programs inculcating hatred of Jews (did you hear about this? And there's lots, lots more) or racist vilification of Jews throughout the Arab media. Nor even to Israeli peace offers and massive concessions of territory, violent Palestinian rejectionism, extremist Islamic chauvinism or corruption-fueled Palestinian atrocities and violence.

Acutely juxtaposed to the endlessly streaming, colourful and wanton liberality with which the UN rebukes Israel is the recent news that the world body is edging closer, after 30 years of slavishly trying, to defining "terrorism", according to a fresh report from Reuterland.

Journalist Anton La Guardia assures us that by doing this the UN will, in the nick of time, rescue its "moral authority".

The problem seems to have been that "Palestinians, Iraqi insurgents, Kashmiri rebels, al-Qaeda militants and ... Muslim states" have "blocked agreement", apparently claiming that targeting and killing civilians is totally justifiable in the fight against "occupation" and "colonialism"(and the US and "Israel").

It's not a done deal yet but the brave UN may well, shortly, "send an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes".

Phew.

Meanwhile UN leader Annan himself has recently pompously purported to concern himself with the law and with legalities, famously telling a receptive (and no doubt delighted) BBC that, of the US invasion of Iraq:

"From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

It was also Annan who, at the behest of the NGO-led mob, referred "legal" questions about Israel's anti-murder lemming security barrier to the International Court of (political in-) Justice, a referral that led to a declaration (against Israel - need it be said?) nearly as unbalanced and bereft of reasoned fairness as the adjective-laden NGO Israel-bash quoted above.

Apart from his son Kojo who, one wonders, will shed tears if Annan himself pays the penalty for breaking the law, or for allowing others to, or for merely incompetently twirling administrative thumbs while laws were broken and the embers of UN credibility ground into fudge?


More on UN bias and incompetency here

Even during the US Civil War, A-list enemies could chow down together at Thanksgiving and exchange views, as illustrated in this excerpt from Gore Vidal's 1984 novel Lincoln:

"I wish," said Mary Todd Lincoln from behind her silver tea service, "the newspapers would leave the war to Mr. Lincoln."

"So do I, cousin Mary," said John C. Breckinridge, late Vice-President of rather more United States than his successor was Vice-Presiding over. "With Mr. Lincoln in absolute charge, Mrs. Davis will be pouring tea in this room by the end of the month."

"Oh, cousin John! How you tease me, sir! Sugar?"

Breckinridge indicated two lumps. His return to the Senate had caused a sensation. Although Kentucky was being held in the Union, its new Senator Breckinridge was suspected of favoring secession. "I've already had several pleasurable meetings with President Davis, cousin Mary," he said.

"I don't know of any president called Davis, cousin John."

"Oh, there's such a president, all right."He looked appreciatively around the newly papered and gilded Oval Room. "He'll be much in your debt for going to all this expense. Or at least Mrs. Davis will. You know what they're saying all over the South now? 'Onward to Washington.'"

At the other end of the room prickly London Times correspondent William Howard Russell was chatting with Senator Elihu B. Washburne.

"I do want you people to win,"said Russell, "But you've got to train your men better. They are rabble. Not like the Southerners. I was impressed with them, let me tell you."

"You've been to the South - lately?" Washburne was surprised.

"I've only just got back. Pleasant chap, Mr. Davis. But looks sickly. Even so, they're spoiling for a fight."

"We are the same, sir."

"No, sir, you're not. That's the problem. Of course, the North is more populous, more rich. But where are your soldiers to be found? Mostly Germans and Irish, who've only just arrived from Europe. Nothing to fight for except the pennies you pay them."

Since this was exactly Washburne's private view, he was obliged to object strenuously, as befitting an American statesman.

Russell genially changed tack. "You know what I heard in Charleston?" He chuckled at the memory. "A group of quite serious people told me that if we'd send them a send them a royal prince or princess as sovereign, they would rejoin our Empire."

"I never thought the rebels had that much sense of humor." But this was something new, and Washburne wondered if some capital might not be made out of the South's treason to the great republican principle itself.

"They have no sense of humor, as far as I can tell. They are serious, like you."

There was a stir as President Lincoln entered the Blue Room.

"He looks somewhat ... "Russell paused.

"Tired," said Washburne, not about to allow the Englishman an adjective that might look disagreeable in the hostile columns of the London Times.

"That, too," said Russell, with a smile.

Compare the above with the post-election experience of former New York City Democrat Mayor Ed Koch in 2004:

"Many of those supporting Bush were literally afraid to make their preference known to family and friends, because emotions - particularly hate - were running so high. At a public dinner I attended a week after the election, five people separately came over to me as I was eating my lamb chops and whispered, 'Don't tell anyone, but I voted for Bush.'"

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Beyond the dining table or party, civility permeated Civil War relations, even between enemies, as demonstrated in this unforgetable description (also from the Vidal novel) of Lincoln interacting with Confederate soldiers, after the battle at Frederick, 1862:

The President reined in his horse. They were now opposite a large farmhouse on whose porch a dozen wounded men lay on pallets. Lincoln turned to his Colonel-escort. "What's this, Colonel?"

"Confederate prisoners, sir. Wounded at Sharpsburg. We'll be sending them on to Washington once we've finished shipping our own wounded back."

"I think I'd like to take a look at these boys," said Lincoln. "And I'm sure they'd like to take a look at me."

"No, sir!" Lamon was firm.

"Yes, Ward." Lincoln was firmer. You stand outside with Mr. Pinkerton, while Mr. Washburne and I, two harmless Illinois politicians, pay these southern boys a call."

Lamon cursed not entirely under his breath, but did as he was ordered. The colonel led Lincoln and Washburne up the steps and into the house, which consisted, at this level, of a single large room lined on both sides with cots. At least a hundred men and boys lay on the cots, some missing arms or legs or both. Some were dying, others were able to limp about. The smell of flesh corrupting was overpowering; and Washburne tried not to breathe. But Lincoln was oblivious of everything except the young men who were now aware that a stranger was in their midst. The low hum of talk suddenly ceased; and the only sound in the room was the moaning of the unconscious.

When the colonel started to call the men to attention, the President stopped him with a gesture. Then Lincoln walked the length of the room, very slowly, looking to left and right, with his dreamy smile. at the end of the room, he turned and faced the wounded men; then slowly he removed his hat. All eyes that could see now saw him, and recognized him.

When Lincoln spoke, the famous trumpet voice was muted; even intimate. "I am Abraham Lincoln." There was a long colective sigh of wonder and of tension and of ... ? Washburne had never heard a sound quite like it. "I know that you have fought gallantly for what you believe in, and for that I honor you, and for your wounds so honorably gained. I feel no anger in my heart toward you; and trust you feel none for me. That is why I am here. That is why I am willing to take the hand, in friendship, of any man among you."

The same long sigh, like a rising wind, began; and still no one spoke. Then a man on crutches approached the President and, in perfect silence, shook his hand. Others came forward, one by one; and each shook Lincoln's hand; and to each he murmered something that the man alone could hear.

At the end, as Lincoln made his way between the beds, stopping to talk to those who could not move, half of the men were in tears, as was Washburne himself.

In the last bed by the door, a young officer turned his back on the President, who touched his shoulder, and mutmered, "My son, we shall all be the same at the end." Then the President was gone.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


Confederate General Robert E. Lee was of course renowned as a gentleman. In the following excerpt from Michael Saara's Pulitzer Prize winning historical novel "The Killer Angels", we see the essence of nuanced, controlled and thoughtful leadership, as Lee reproaches one of his generals for failing the southern army in the lead up to the ill-fated battle at Gettysburg, 1863:

"I asked to see you alone," Lee said quietly. "I wished to speak with you alone, away from other officers. That has not been possible until now. I am sorry to keep you up so late."

"Sir, I was not asleep," (Cavalry leader Jeb) Stuart drawled, smiled, gave the sunny impression that sleep held no importance, none at all.

Lee thought: here's one with faith in himself. Must protect that. And yet, there's a lesson to be learned. He said, "Are you aware, General, that there are officers on my staff who have requested your court-martial?"

Stuart froze. His mouth hung open. He shook his head once quickly, then cocked it to one side.

Lee said, "I have not concurred. But it is the opinion of some excellent officers that you have let us all down."

"General Lee," Stuart was struggling. Lee thought: now there will be anger. "Sir," Stuart said tightly, "if you will tell me who these gentlemen ... "

"There will be none of that." Lee's voice was cold and sharp. He spoke as you speak to a child, a small child, from a great height. "There is no time for that."

"I only ask that I be allowed - "

Lee cut him off. "There is no time," Lee said. He was not a man to speak this way to a brother officer, a fellow Virginian; he shocked stuart to silence with the iciness of his voice. Stuart stood like a beggar, his hat in his hands.

"General Stuart," Lee said slowly, "you were the eyes of this army." He paused.

Stuart said softly, a pathetic voice, "General Lee, if you please ... " But Lee went on.

"You were my eyes. Your mission was to screen this army from the enemy cavalry and to report any movement by the enemy's main body. That mission was not fulfilled."

Stuart stood motionless.

Lee said, "You left this army without word of your movements, or of movements of the enemy, for several days. We were forced into battle without adequate knowledge of the enemy's position, or strength, without knowledge of the ground. It is only by Gd's grace that we have escaped disaster."

"General Lee." Stuart was in pain, and the old man felt pity, but this was necessary; it had to be done as a bad tooth has to be pulled, and there was no turning away. Yet even now he felt the pity rise, and he wanted to say, it's all right, boy, it's all right; this is only a lesson, just one painful quick movement of learning, over in a moment, hold on, it'll be all right. His voice began to soften. He could not help it.

"It is possible that you misunderstood my orders. It is possible I did not make myself clear. Yet this must be clear: you with your cavalry are the eyes of the army. Without your cavalry we are blind, and that has happened once but must never happen again."

There was a moment of silence. It was done. Lee wanted to reassure him, but he waited, giving it time to sink in, to take effect, like medicine. Stuart stood breathing audibly. After a moment he reached down and unbuckled his sword, theatrically, and handed it over with high drama in his face. Lee grimaced, annoyed, put his hands behind his back, half turned his face. Stuart was saying that since he no longer held the general's trust, but Lee interrupted with acid vigor.

"I have told you that there is no time for that. There is a fight tomorrow, and we need you. We need every man, Lord knows. You must take what I have told you and learn from it, as a man does. There has been a mistake. It will not happen again. I know your quality. You are a good soldier. You are as good a cavalry officer as I have known, and your service to this army has been invaluable. I have learned to rely on your information; all your reports are always accurate. But no report is useful if it does not reach us. And that is what I wanted you to know. Now," He lifted a hand. "Let us talk no more of this."

Stuart stood there, sword in hand. Lee felt a vast pity, yet at the same time he felt the coming of a smile. Good thing it was dark.

Stuart had too much respect for Lee to speak. He began to move slowly away. Lee saw him stop before going back into the night and put the sword back on. A good boy. If he is a man, he will learn. But now he will be reckless, to prove himself. Must beware of that.

Some may raise an eyebrow at the apparent hijacking of mainstream media and public affairs institutions by leftist thought police, imagining this to be a fairly recent phenomenon.

In her book "Treason" (Random House, 2003) Anne Coulter builds a jaw-dropping case that this is not so. It has been de rigeur, she shows, since the Second World War era and before.

Of course this kind of narrative is not something you will readily find on CBS, even a Rather-less CBS, or in the morning broadsheet.

Instead you will find clues. Like the negative connotations immediately conjured by the word "McCarthyism", a malediction Ms. Coulter believes is used or assumed by many of us, but truly understood by very few.

The author proceeds to demonstrate that the routinely reviled Senator Joseph McCarthy in fact:

- Intended to prevent - not mythical but real, actual, active, proven - agents of a foreign country from operating in high-level positions in the US government;

- Never set out to interfere with freedom of speech, or with freedom of political association;

- Was supported in his endeavours, at the time, by most Americans and had the unreserved - and fully deserved - respect and admiration not only of Republicans but of Democrats like John and Robert Kennedy;

- Achieved popular support despite being badgered by a universally hostile media literally to his death at the age of 48.

That is, far from there being anything like the anti-Communist atmosphere of terror mythologised in Hollywood today, media and public affairs institutions belittled, besmirched and rounded on McCarthy in virtual unison.

They did so without any semblance of fear, and in the face of contrarian public opinion and evidence.

Similarly, supporters of McCarthy - principally, one Richard M. Nixon - were never forgiven for the very real inroads they made against actual Soviet infiltration. Retribution was taken against them, their legacies smeared.

Coulter begins her account with one Whittaker Chambers, an American Communist Party member who becomes unnerved by the activities of his political associates. He decides to inform US Government officials of disturbing goings-on.

Chambers tells authorities that the USA Communist Party is not merely a passive political collective. Many of its members, including whistleblower Chambers himself, are actively involved in spying on behalf of the Soviet Union and infiltrating the US Government. He names Roosevelt confidante Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy.

Alger Hiss was not some insignificant political hack. Far from it. He worked closely with Roosevelt at the post-WWII Yalta conference, when the American president agreed to cede Poland to Stalin's Soviet bloc. You have to keep in mind that the Nazi invasion of Poland was the reason WWII started. Poland was the proverbial line in the sand crossed by Hitler, but later crossed out for "Uncle Joe".

Hiss was a key advisor at Yalta. He was also the official United States representative who crafted and signed off on the Charter establishing the United Nations.

According to Coulter, Mr. Hiss was an Ivy League man with buddies in the media and in high places.

The friends of Hiss did not take kindly to the (ugly, unrefined) outsider Chambers' shocking accusations, and Chambers was routinely bucketed and reviled in a very public affair that stretched out over a number of years.

In the face of loud doubters Chambers again and again produced evidence of Hiss's spying: documents, cables, minute personal knowledge about a man who claimed never to have met him.

Hiss was eventually brought down, screaming, while the media all the while and ever since highlighted his protestations of innocence and never accepted his guilt.

Despite this, it became clear to a few that the Alger Hiss affair did not occur in a vacuum.

Even Roosevelt's Vice-President Henry Wallace, as well as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (who gave the Soviet Union the nuclear bomb) and as many as 300 high-ranking US Government and army officials, have since been shown to have been Soviet spies (!)

The evidence has come from secretly decrypted cables to the Soviet Union, direct testimony from the likes of former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev and from KGB operatives who confirm they "handled" the Americans. In recent years it has come to light (though reports have of course been buried by the New York Times and other news outlets) that J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated a secret project known as "Venona", which gave the FBI access to decoded communiques between the Soviet Union and many of its spies in the USA.

The amount and quality of evidence, and the subterfuge it indicates, appears to be staggering.

In the post-WWII period, there was enough evidence to set off significant alarm bells. It was in response to this and in this atmosphere that Joseph McCarthy sought to protect the US Government from infiltration.

McCarthy never tried to malign anyone, and did evidently try hard to protect the identities of persons under investigation. He sought only to prune actual foreign operatives from dangerously sensitive positions within the US government.

We know what has become of the poor man's name since that time.

Anne Coulter provides an astounding amount of detail in presenting a viewpoint that might dramatically alter the historical perspective of many who read this book, and provides a service to anyone seeking truth in history.

From Bridget Johnson, writing in WSJ:

"It's stunning how silent the American artistic community, Hollywood in particular, has been about the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam...Do they care someone was killed for making a film which protested violent abuse against women? Are they even interested?

"...You didn't see the National Rifle Association order a hit on Michael Moore over Bowling for Columbine."

Nor do you see immigrants to the United States subjected to the same fear and threats as, say, Americans and Westerners in Iraq, as Rupert Murdoch testifies in an adjacent piece.

With the Clinton library show and Hilary-for-President boost campaign in full swing, some of us wonder why mistrustful bile reflexively wells inside in contemplation of the former first couple.

There are many reminders out there. One is the Enron debacle of a few years ago. That company and its financial advisor Arthur Andersen presented a grotesquely skewered financial picture that had the effect of defrauding ordinary investors. Blame fell squarely, you may recall, on the Bush White House.

However, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris in his book "Off With their Heads" (HarperCollins 2003) says the foundations of the matter were laid back in the mid-90s when Chris Dodd (Democrat) sponsored a bill to make sure that accountants and lawyers couldn't be sued for aiding and abetting fraud.

While Dodd's bill was pending, the accounting industry and big accounting firms gave nearly $8 million to congressional candidates. Arthur Andersen gave more to Dodd than any other senator.

Says Morris:

'As the president's pollster, I advised a (presidential) veto (of the bill)... then I ran into Bruce Lindsey, the president's oldest friend and closest adviser (who asked Morris about it)...'

'A lot of Democrats favor it ...,' Lindsey noted,'We're getting a lot of pressure from our friends in California to sign it.'

'You mean the Silicon Valley types?' asked Morris.

He nodded.

Morris says this was the only time in 2 years with Clinton at the White House that he "ever heard anyone mention a policy issue in terms of its effect on possible campaign contributions."

Dodd was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a key fundraiser for President Clinton. The President did not want to upset Dodd. In mulling what to do about the matter, the President said to Morris later:

'What if I veto the bill and its overridden? Would the override hurt me politically? ... Even if Democrats join in the override?'

'No,' I conceded, 'Even if Democrat senators vote for the bill, that's their political problem. It won't interfere with your standing against it.'

The dye was cast, Morris says, and eventually this scenario was played out. Clinton vetoed the bill, and the veto was overridden by Congressional Democrats and Republicans voting in unison.

Morris says that Senator Dodd (with Republican Phil Gramm of Texas) orchestrated the override, knowing full well that he would not incur the wrath of the President, who exercised his veto in the foreknowledge that it would certainly be overridden - and that, incidentally, thousands of small and unsuspecting investors would be defrauded with no legal recourse to recoup life savings.

Not surprisingly, the facts of the case haven't stopped the man some call Slick from cynically criticising Bush and blaming his administration for the Enron-Global Crossing-Arthur Andersen affair. And for the loss of confidence that has dogged the stock market ever since.

However, Bill Clinton emerged with a clean nose.

That's the important thing. Isn't it?


*******************

In the same hypocritical, media-mounted vein, this report from the NY Sun:

"LITTLE ROCK, ARK. - President Clinton's new $165 million library here was funded in part by gifts of $1 million or more each from the Saudi royal family and three Saudi businessmen.

"The governments of Dubai, Kuwait, and Qatar and the deputy prime minister of Lebanon all also appear to have donated $1 million or more ...

"Democrats spent much of the presidential campaign this year accusing President Bush of improperly close ties to Saudi Arabia...in Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11," in a bestselling book by Craig Unger titled "House of Bush, House of Saud," and by the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Kerry...

"... (F)ormer Clinton White House aide, Harold Ickes, spent millions airing television commercials in swing states with scripts such as, "The Saudi royal family...wealthy...powerful...corrupt. And close Bush family friends.""

According to Newsmax:

"In January 2002, Clinton traveled to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to speak before a conference of Middle Eastern businessmen organized by the Saudi BinLaden Group, the powerful construction conglomerate run by the family of Osama bin Laden.

"Clinton was paid $267,000 for his appearance ..."

Elsewhere in the Hitchens piece (see blog entry below) he compares Bin Laden's pre-election anti-Bush bash with the dogma of Michael Moore:

"... The Bearded One moved pedantically through Moore's (Fahrenheit 9/11)... bill of indictment, checking off the Florida vote-count in 2000, the 'Pet Goat' episode on the day of hell, the violent intrusion into hitherto peaceful and Muslim Iraq, and the division between Bush and the much nicer Europeans...

"The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, (are) pictured prettily ... by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers..."

Bin Laden's US election intrusion was probably about as welcome and effective as Moore's. It seems that the Hollywood and media impact on his al-Jazeera speech extended beyond that of the self-parodied Stupid Fat White Man.

There were, for example, Osama's repeated Godfatherly reminders to America-and-friends of the need for "Security", and of his big-hearted capacity for...protection. Vito Corleone couldn't have said it better.

Then there were the left-narrative keywords and concepts that Hitchens refers to: Bush's real aim of stealing Iraqi oil, dubious Halliburton and it's dubious contracts, monster Israel as the root cause of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism, falsified elections in Florida 2000, multilateralism and the huge effectiveness of the former Iraq inspection regime, Iraq as quagmire.

Finally, and most explicit of all, were Bin Laden's direct references to CNN and Time and his endorsement of The Independent's "unbiased" Robert Fisk.

"Would those ... in the White House and in the TV stations that answer to them, would they conduct an interview with him [Fisk] so that he might convey to the American people what he has understood from us concerning the causes of our fight against you?" queries Bin Laden.

What a laugh. Well, not so funny really. Rabid Robert Fisk would probably lap up that endorsement. As many know, he is a highly emotional and talented writer who has constructed a journalist career out of bashing and demonising Israel and its supporters (especially its patron-in-chief USA) week-in and week-out.

Fisk's vitriolic Jew-microscope extends even to tepid sometime Israel supporters on the left like Tom Friedman of the New York Times. His anger may have been fueled during the Ariel Sharon-led Lebanon incursion beginning in 1982, the same event Osama says is the "cause" of 9/11.

More on Fisk and his hatred of Bush and Sharon (and Israel and the US) here.

Natch, the tone in that linked article of Fisk's is not comparable to the gentle understanding the writer displayed to the people (Muslims, one assumes) who physically beat him nearly to death in Afghanistan a few years ago. The beating evidently occurred simply because Fisk appeared to be an American - totally excusable and justifiable reasoning on the part of these poor downtrodden, intimates Fisk, momentarily suspending his standard rabidity for Pope-like, cheek-offering Christian virtue.

But you'll look hard to find such understanding and sympathy for Israel (or the US, especially under Bush) from the pen of Osama's "unbiased" scribe.

In what may or may not be his first article after Osama's speech, the subject is ailing Yasser Arafat, whose loathsomeness Fisk assures us (again and again) is (of course) tied up with his being some kind of stooge agent for Israel.

Imagine that.

Says Fisk:

"The only time he (Arafat) did stand up to his Israeli-American masters -- when he refused (at Oslo) to accept 64 per cent of the 22 per cent of Palestine that was left to him -- he returned in triumph to Gaza and allowed the Israelis to claim he was offered 95 per cent but chose war."

One assumes that the former Palestine of which only 22% is now left included the entire Arab country now known as Jordan, comprising most of pre-mandate Palestinian territory.

Of the same events that Fisk talks about in this quote, Arafat's then-counterpart, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, says that he offered all or more "than the Israeli body politic could stand."

William Safire too describes those same events in today's New York Times slightly differently to Mr. Fisk:

"...(A) soon-to-be ousted Israeli prime minister ... made the Palestinian Authority an incredibly generous and dangerous offer: dividing Jerusalem, handing over almost all of the West Bank, and even partially establishing a "right of return" for some Palestinians who fled an Arab invasion of the new Jewish state a half-century ago.

"Arafat's 'good deed' was to reject this sweeping offer and to launch another wave of suicidal homicide... if those huge concessions had later been presented to Israelis in a promised referendum, Jewish voters would surely have turned down the Clinton-brokered deal. Proof of that was in the avalanche that then ousted the desperate Ehud Barak and elected the determined Ariel Sharon."

Seeing as Barak lost his job over those events, one might take heed of his opinion, even though it seems to run counter to that of Osama's nominee, or to the (shocking, I know) view that the Palestinians might have treated the Israeli offer as a starting point, at least, to build and grow a homeland and end bloodshed.

After all, so the saying goes, any dunkie can pull down a barn, but it takes hard work to build one. There is a distinct dearth of such barns in the Middle East. And a lot of nasty dunkies, armed with rockets and apologists.

Regarding Osama, for those feeling scorched by the burning question: "WHERE BE HE?", I put it to you that the answer is simple: Osama lives, and has for some time consistently lived, on our television screens. His reliance on them as a prize tool in terrorizing and embarrassing his enemies is self-evident, never more so than in this recent speech.

From Christopher Hitchens today in Slate:


"Islam, which was once a civilizing and creative force in many societies, is now undergoing a civil war. One faction in this civil war is explicitly totalitarian and wedded to a cult of death...

"Only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed.

"George Bush ...- and the U.S. armed forces - have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.

"Secularism is not just a smug attitude. It is a possible way of democratic and pluralistic life that only became thinkable after several wars and revolutions had ruthlessly smashed the hold of the clergy on the state. We are now in the middle of another such war and revolution, and the liberals have gone AWOL."

***************

Update (Fri, 28 July 2006): The world according to Christopher Hitchens

"Christopher Hitchens' new book, Love Poverty and War, is launched in Brazil this week. Last week he gave an interview to Veja, Brazil's equivalent of Time or Newsweek.

"He came out with some great stuff, as follows":

Veja - What is the meaning of the new Israeli offensive in Lebanon?

Hitchens - When the creation of an Israeli state in the Middle East was being discussed, one of the dissenting voices came from within Judaism itself. These radicals considered that a state of this kind in Palestine would be an injustice to the Arab population. In general terms this is my point of view: Israel, from the beginning, was a mistake. I don't believe that Jerusalem can redeem the historical suffering of the Jews. To me, Israel is not the end of the Diaspora, it is part of it. I have nothing in common, however, with those who consider the Jews a plague, a conspirator race with designs on world government. If I were forced to choose between Israel and the Lebanese terrorists of Hezbollah, clearly I would be on the side of Israel. Hezbollah is the enemy of civilisation. I cannot stay neutral but I participate with reluctance, and with a tragic sense that this situation could have been avoided.

V- Do you agree with the EU's position that Israel is using excessive force?

H - They say the same thing every time Israel uses force. They have lost all authority to say this. Yes, Israel uses excessive force but I am not impressed when I hear Vladimir Putin, with his authoritarian credentials, make this accusation. There is my criticism of Israel and there is theirs. They are not the same thing.

V - You have long insisted that the comparison between the Vietnam War and the current conflict in Iraq makes no sense. Why should My Lai be different to Haditha?

H - There are various reasons. Vietnam was not subject to international sanctions. It didn't invade other countries, did not have WMDs, didn't shelter terrorists and didn't promote genocide. Saddam's Iraq committed all these crimes. In Vietnam, the USA was continuing a French colonial war against a communist-led nationalist movement. For the US forces in Vietnam actions such as we have seen in Haditha, which resulted in the deaths of many civilians, were routine because the entire population was considered hostile. In Iraq the only popular army is on our side - the revolutionary Kurds. Those who are against us are not an army of national liberation, as were the Vietcong, but members of Al Quaeda and the fascist remnants of the Ba'ath Party. The Vietnamese are still my comrades and I have no desire to insult them. I reject the slightest comparison between them and and Saddam's assassins. I think it's a disgrace that the left makes this comparison.

V - But the WMDs weren't found.

H - And I'd like to know where they were taken. As a matter of fact this isn't actually true; some were found. Last month 500 shells were found containing gas that attacks the central nervous system. Today we also know that, in February of 2003, Saddam's representatives met in Damascus with envoys from Kim Jong Il to discuss the purchase of North Korean missiles.

V - If it was justifiable to topple a dictatorship like Saddam's, shouldn't the USA do the same in Cuba, Sudan or North Korea?

H - In the majority of these countries, no UN resolutions were broken. In the case of the Darfur genocide in Sudan, it is said that it's too late to stop it, it appears that it has already been completed. Unfortunately, in this case they decided to follow Kofi Annan's strategy, with predictable results. This is what happens when UN diplomacy is applied in countries that have no respect for international law.

V - The UN is too lenient with transgressing countries?

H - After the way the UN conducted itself in Ruanda, Bosnia and Darfur, it is impossible to support the idea that the UN is the international court that decides when force should be used. We would be in a far more dangerous world than we have today. The UN today admits that there was a criminal conspiracy in the oil for food programme in Iraq. This iniciative enriched the UN bureaucrats and the Saddam regime, leaving the Iraqui people with nothing. One side effect of regime change in Iraq; the UN was obliged to admit its own corruption and inefficiency. Even opponents of the war agree with this.

V - Some critics of the war argue that the American presence in Iraq reinforces jihad ideology, that it is a crusade between the West and Islam.

H- This is a very lazy way of thinking. One cartoon in a Copenhagen newspaper was enough to inflame opinion about a crusade, of a cultural confrontation between East and West. A novel by a friend of mine, published in London in 1988 - Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses - was denounced as the work of the Israeli secret police, who had written the book for him as a weapon against the Islamic faith. Anything we do could result in such a reaction. In Iraq, on the other hand, today we can see millions of muslims voting for the first time, many of them for religious parties. Pilgrimages to Shia holy sites, banned for twenty years, have been re-established thanks to the US army. Are the Kurdish Sunnis in Iraq or the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan somehow less muslim than Al Quaeda? Moreover, I am certain that the forces of Al Quaeda in Iraq will be defeated.

V - Your evaluation of the achievements so far in Iraq does not ignore the shameful side of the invasion, for example, the torture at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, which was recently condemned by the Supreme Court.

H - I have written on all these matters. When you decide to go to war, for whatever reason, it is important to bear in mind that incidents like Abu Ghraib or Haditha can happen. what is necessary in thse cases is that the armed forces charge and convict those responsible. This is what happened in Abu Ghraib, where the abuses were not discovered by a journlist, but by the Department of Defense. I believe this is also the case in Haditha. The perpetrators will be subject to the law and this is the big difference between the USA and her enemies.

V - You have stated that you no longer believe in socialism, so what is left for its adherents to defend?

H - Good question, and I believe that many people cling to outmoded ideas because they have no answer to it. They don't understand how they can continue in opposition if there is no longer any socialism to defend. Neither was it easy, I must admit, for me to abandon this doctrine, but in no way does this mean that radicalism is at an end. We still have many important tasks, and the greatest of these is the defeat of the newest form of totalitarianism, theocracy. Those who call themselves radicals, militants, must redefine the debate around a secular society, an enlightened aspiration, and must fight theocratic dictatorships. the fact that I have distanced myself from the traditional left does not signify abstention from political solidarity, or even revolutionaty solidarity. We are not in a cul-de-sac.

V - So your ideal, or utopia, would be an entirely secular society?

H - Yes. My next book, which has been completed but not yet edited, will be called God Is Not Great. The title openly contradicts a known principle of the muslim faith, but it is not just a criticism of Islam. It is against any belief in God. I believe that today, he who would call himself a radical must support and broadcast scientific discovery in areas like cosmology and genetics for two reasons. The first is to combat racism. We have already had a moral abolition of racism, and genetic discoveries have delivered its scientific defeat. The second is that these discoveries diminish the power of the church.

V - There are those who argue that mankind cannot live without faith, that moral education cannot be sustained on a purely secular basis.

H - The use of an illusion is irrelevant in the understanding of its moral content. There are millions throughout the world who live an ethical life without believing in God. Furthermore, I don't believe that one can point to any single country in which people behave better because they believe in God. On the contrary, we can pick out countries where people behave worse because of a belief in God.

V - Would you include the USA among those countries where religion provokes such behaviour?

H- Without a shadow of a doubt. I can give examples. People who, today wish to prevent children from learning about new discoveries in evolutionary biology, which will make them incapable of functioning in the modern world, are christians. In all churches we find people who state that AIDS is bad, but not as bad as contraception. American anti AIDS programmes in Africa are based on these ideals, and will lead millions to a horrible death.

V- In your book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, you express resentment that you are only seen as the man who attacked Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Why?

H - What irritates me is when they describe me as always looking for something to attack. My books about Orwell, Jefferson and Paine prove that I can write about people I admire. But I am still proud to have exposed Mother Teresa as a fraud and a fanatical fundamentalist. The Church, following this, decided to declare that an Indian woman's recovery from cancer was caused by a medal owned by Mother Teresa. This is not how cancer is cured. We have statements by doctors, and even the woman's husband that it was medical treatment that cured her. The Church, however, considers it a miracle cure. This is an irresponsible lie that encourages Indians to seek charlatans in place of doctors.

V - In the introduction to Love Poverty and War, you state that the literary essays collected in it are the ones tht have given you the greatest pleasure. Have you considered the possibility of retiring from politics and writng solely about literature?

H - In 2000, I began to read and take notes from Proust's À la Recherche du Temps Perdu. My plan was a definitive return to literature. I finished my reading on September 9th, 2001. Two days laters I realised that I would have to return to writing about politics. This endorses what I always say; you can try to run away from politics, but it always catches up with you.

V - But to a certain extent, the writers you describe in your book isolated themselves from public life in order to finish their works, no?

H - In 1977, when I met Jorge Luis Borges in Buenos Aires, this was his position. He declared himself disinterested in politics, but happy that Argentina was governed by the military and not politicians. But even he, old, blind and a semi recluse, was forced to make public statements on subjects such as the disappeared and the Falklands War. My previous collection of essays, Unacknowledged Legislation, is dedicated to this theme; the role of writers in the public sphere. In ancient Athens, a word arose to describe those who did not wish to participate in public life, idiota. Only later did the word become an insult, but I have always believed that anyone who wishes to remove homself from public life is, de facto, an idiot, sometimes an admirable one.


*********************

It might be that the majority of Americans see President Bush as talented and reasonable.

That he does love democracy, and is trying to deliver the best for his country in circumstances including those unwanted.

Asked about the role his Christian faith plays in decision-making, he said:

"I will be your president regardless of your faith. The great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbour."

Regarding Chief Justice Rehnquist's cancer he said. "when I told people ... that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law - you might have heard that several times - I meant what I said."

Despite majority perceptions and the evidence of vision, actions and events, the new post-election world does not comfortably sit with many in public affairs.

For most of a dummy-spit of an article in the Guardian by Sydney Blumentahl (BBC commetator, Clinton advisor) he seems to deny that there are actually any new realities to be dealt with - not those foist upon the public by the paranoid demon Bush and his "(fear) machine of centripetal force ":


"Fear of the besieging terrorist, appearing in Bush TV ads as the shifty eyes of a swarthy man or a pack of wolves, was joined with fear of the besieging queer

" (T)he faithful ... were shepherded to the polls as though to the rapture.

"They grafted imperial unilateralism on to provincial isolationism.

"Only imposing manly authority against "girly men" and girls and lurking terrorists can save the nation."


As spin doctoring, great stuff to rally the brainwashed. But why so much recent MSN exposure for Sydney or for other recently aggrieved, who are getting plenty of attention, like here.

Perhaps there is general agreement amongst these Purveyors of Wisdom that Bush has graduated from idiot to puppet-master. Even master-minding 9/11 (says, eg, French author) and Osama's election speech (suggests Walter Cronkite).

Maybe he'll still prove to be an idiot. You can be sure that Syd and Jane and their many friends will keep you updated, and will continue to per- and conspire angrily rather than evaluate honestly or consider self-examination following another election setback.

**************

From Michael Barone:

"The victories of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Mr. Bush came despite the vigorous and outspoken opposition of media elites. The New York Herald in 1864, the Chicago Tribune in 1944 and the New York Times and CBS News in 2004 led the opposition...

"Millions were chagrined at the results."

"During Election Day, the Times...conducted exit polling. Those polls query voters as to their choices when they leave polling stations.

"A veteran New York Times U.N. correspondent of 30 years conveniently... repeated the "prediction" several times throughout Election Day (that Kerry would win the 2004 election), though official paper policy was not to disclose such results till after polls closed.

"...When John Kerry conceded the election late Wednesday morning, the Times ignored the story...(and) let its edition from 6 a.m. local time remain as its final edition for the day... (with the) headline "Bush Holds Lead - Kerry Refuses to Concede Tight Race."

"Times readers were forced to wait almost 19 hours to be informed that John Kerry had conceded."










From Peggy Noonan:


"George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936.

"...The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million...

"Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? ...I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America.

"It was Agincourt."



*******************



Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Begrudgingly-hee, it can editorially emerge,
even in the Bush is Bad New-hoos:


"Those whose candidate was defeated yesterday, and that includes this page, must recognize (the) political reality and figure out how to deal with it. It's a profound challenge.....

"We entered this election season discouraged, as usual, by the caliber of the candidates running for president. As time went on, we were forced to admit - perhaps a little grudgingly - that Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry shared the steely discipline and self-possession that are critical requirements for the most difficult job on the planet."


Anybody hungry?

I enjoyed reading the interview with author Tom Wolfe linked to The Drudge Report today from Tabloid Guardian, and enjoyed even more the twisting and turning of Guardian interviewer Ed Vulliamy in trying to obfuscate Wolfe's mistrust of liberal elites.

Natch, Vulliamy tried to portray the eminent writer's views in a "balanced" fashion - one more in synch, that is, with the British newspaper's sacred anti-Bush shibboleth. It is nowhere near as bad as what has become the Guardian norm, but we still get helpful little lead-ins and questions from Vulliamy like:


"On the flip side of the culture of ubiquitous sex is that of puritan Christianity, as harnessed in no small part by Bush...


"Where does it come from, this endorsement (by Wolfe, one presumes) of the most conservative administration within living memory? Of this president who champions the right and the rich, who has taken America into the mire of war, and seeks re-election tomorrow...?...


"Parting cordially, it seems strange that such an effervescent maverick, such a jester at the court of all power - all vanity, indeed - should so wholeheartedly endorse the power machine behind George Bush."


But far from wholeheartedly endorsing the Republican Party and President Bush, Wolfe makes it clear that his thinking is individualistic. He simply does not think and never has thought in lockstep with the sanctimonious and uniform views of the ordinarily-brained but tidily-monied types to be found in places like Boston and New York:

"Here is an example of the situation in America...Tina Brown wrote in her column that she was at a dinner where a group of media heavyweights were discussing, during dessert, what they could do to stop Bush. Then a waiter announces that he is from the suburbs, and will vote for Bush. And ... Tina's reaction is: 'How can we persuade these people not to vote for Bush?' I draw the opposite lesson: that Tina and her circle in the media do not have a clue about the rest of the United States. You are considered twisted and retarded if you support Bush in this election. I have never come across a candidate who is so reviled. Reagan was sniggered it, but this is personal, real hatred.

"Indeed, I was at a similar dinner, listening to the same conversation, and said: 'If all else fails, you can vote for Bush.' People looked at me as if I had just said: 'Oh, I forgot to tell you, I am a child molester.'"


How Wolfe himself will vote was not entirely clear. It's great to see that the author of the seminal "Bonfire of the Vanities" (a book which absolutely leaves for dead the terrible movie adapted from it) has not lost his individualism or insight, and can command the attention (albeit for 5 minutes on page 97) of a newspaper as singularly bent on Bush's demise as Britain's Guardian.