Month: January 2005

Campaign workers pasting up posters in Saigon for the September 1967 election, four months before the Tet Offensive. SUCCESS! United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

Andrew Sullivan writes a post that’s a perfect example of the habitual triumphalism of the warbloggers as they mow down reality with a relentless barrage of verbiage, emotionalism and team spirit.

“In the blogosphere, we are often called to account for previous statements; or asked to concede that we were wrong about something or other. It happens. We’re all human and our judgment is never going to be 100 percent correct,” smarms Andrew. “But in the MSM, such accountability is rare. It seems to me, for example, that when the Iraq elections are a huge success and you have recently editorialized in favor of their postponement, you might owe your readers an acount of what you misjudged, or at least an acknowledgment that you have been proven wrong. So check the NYT editorial today. No such acknowledgment. The difference between the blogosphere and the MSM: more accountability.

OK, when you’re finished laughing over the notion of the fragile flower of “accountability” flourishing in the perpetual rock-fight that is the political blog warzone,(I assume Andrew means the political blogs, since he didn’t mention fact-checking the knitting, cooking or baby blogs)let’s look at the NYT editorial Saint Andrew of Blogistan is so smugly criticizing as being “wrong” on The Day After Iraqis Liberated Themselves.

After summarizing the ethnic rivalries that exist in Iraq, the editorial states, “Given the violence in Sunni areas, even voters who wish to take part may hesitate to turn out. In some places, the polls may not open at all.”

Check – There were reports, however, that in some areas election workers were too frightened to work and that polling stations did not open.

NYT: If the elections wind up taking place under current conditions, the new government could wind up with little or no Sunni representation when the new constitution was prepared.

Disputing that one, Sullivan? OK, score another one for the Times.

NYT:Many Americans – and many Iraqis – worry that if the elections were postponed, the terrorists would feel empowered by having won. That might indeed be the case for the next few months. But that outcome would be far outweighed by the danger that would come from a civil war, with the Sunni territory becoming a no man’s land where terrorists could operate at will.

Let’s use the example of the British Hercules C130 shot down trying to land at Balad, killing all aboard, of which the British said, “”It is thought the investigation into what caused the crash could prove difficult in the hostile territory.” Ponder the fact that the resistance can take down fixed wing aircraft. And, what’s that about “hostile territory?” Hrm. Advantage – Times: right again.

In fact, the only way Sullivan can claim the NYT editorial is “wrong” is by ignoring the fact that it was written about what is likely to occur during and after the election and pretending that voting was a “success” because “under 200 Iraqis” (revised downward from his original success metric of 500 dead Iraqis) died on the day it happened. Yes, that was Sullivan’s metric for success, along with “25 percent turnout for the Sunnis” which didn’t happen as far as anyone knows, but hey, this is standard in the warblogosphere, where jihad against the “MSM” is mandatory and “facts” are established by repetition and volume, not by objectively observing the real world.

The Times editorial defines “success” as something that will be detectable after a civil war fails to materialize and the various factions in Iraq negotiate a way to coexist. Andrew, eager to celebrate, crow, and cry over photos of purple fingers, defines success as whatever happens short of a catastrophic bloodbath and slams the cover shut on that book.

Of course, while I was plodding along writing this, Justin already posted about St. Andrew the Accountable. Oh well, here’s a double dose for the Dish.

I see Glenn “I’m a tax-supported professor with time on my hands” Reynolds — does that guy ever teach any classes? — is sliming Tom Woods’ best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, without — of course — having actually read it. Now, I haven’t read it yet, either — but based on Reynolds’ attempted smear, and the other smears he cites (from the evil Claremont Institute and some lawyer, natch) it looks like my kind of book.

Reynolds points to what he describes as “Wood’s belief that the War on Terror is the product of a Jewish conspiracy” — but where is the evidence for this alleged “belief”? In this summary of Dr. Woods’ view of foreign policy as recounted by one Eric Muller, another law professor with plenty of time on his hands:

“A commitment to ‘the unvarnished truth’ would also presumably include Dr. Woods’ description of current American foreign policy as ‘war after war against the enemies of Israel, at American expense.’

“It would also include Dr. Woods’ belief that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was planning to ‘use the distraction of [an American] war with Iraq … [as] an opportunity to carry out the ethnic cleansing of the two million Palestinian Arabs living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.'”

I would have included the links Muller provides to back up the quotes, but none of them work. Typical. But even more typical is the fact that none of these quotes mention a “Jewish conspiracy” nor is the word “Jew” or “Jewish” used or even implied. This is slander, pure and simple. Again — par for the course for Reynolds and his slimy ilk.

Conservatives of the “neo” variety are so eager to destroy “political correctness” — except when it comes to their favored hobby-horses. If you criticize Israel — sheesh, if you even look cross-eyed at Ariel Sharon — you’re the moral equivalent of Hitler. What a load of crap.

And that’s how the Bizarro Reynolds Seal of Disapproval works — if an intellectually lazy simpleton who’s just a sounding board for his fellow simpletons disapproves, it has to be good.

UPDATE: Here‘s a good review of the book by Anthony Gregory — somebody who, unlike Glenn “I take my opinions second-hand” Reynolds, has actually read it.

Good grief! When I read the following blog entry by Andrew Sullivan, I practically fell off my chair:

“THE NYT’S SILENCE: In the blogosphere, we are often called to account for previous statements; or asked to concede that we were wrong about something or other. It happens. We’re all human and our judgment is never going to be 100 percent correct. But in the MSM, such accountability is rare. It seems to me, for example, that when the Iraq elections are a huge success and you have recently editorialized in favor of their postponement, you might owe your readers an acount of what you misjudged, or at least an acknowledgment that you have been proven wrong. So check the NYT editorial today. No such acknowledgment. The difference between the blogosphere and the MSM: more accountability.”

When oh when is Sullivan going to retract the following comments made in the wake of the anthrax scare?:

“At this point, it seems to me that a refusal to extend the war to Iraq is not even an option. We have to extend it to Iraq. It is by far the most likely source of this weapon; it is clearly willing to use such weapons in the future; and no war against terrorism of this kind can be won without dealing decisively with the Iraqi threat. We no longer have any choice in the matter. Slowly, incrementally, a Rubicon has been crossed. The terrorists have launched a biological weapon against the United States. They have therefore made biological warfare thinkable and thus repeatable. We once had a doctrine that such a Rubicon would be answered with a nuclear response. We backed down on that threat in the Gulf War but Saddam didn’t dare use biological weapons then. Someone has dared to use them now. Our response must be as grave as this new threat. I know that this means that this conflict is deepening and widening beyond its initial phony stage. But what choice do we have? Inaction in the face of biological warfare is an invitation for more in a world where that is now thinkable. Appropriate response will no doubt inflame an already inflamed region, as people seek solace through the usual ideological fire. Either way the war will grow and I feel nothing but dread in my heart. But we didn’t seek this conflict. It has sought us. If we do not wage war now, we may have to wage an even bloodier war in the very near future. These are bleak choices, but what else do we have?”

~ Andrew Sullivan, 10/17/01

Sullivan clearly wanted us to nuke Iraq in “retaliation” for the anthrax attacks — except there was not one iota of evidence that Iraq was behind it. There still isn’t. And Andy — the silence is deafening.

The official results aren’t in yet, nor are any preliminary returns, but that isn’t stopping the United Iraqi Alliance backed by fundamentalist Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Sistani from claiming victory — and an overwhelming one at that:

“Officials in the United Iraqi Alliance believe their bloc of mainly Shi’ite parties has won almost half of the 275 assembly seats, based on their own exit polls and 13,000 monitors.

“Iraqis may have to wait days for the Electoral Commission to declare the results, but if those projections are correct, the Alliance could link with smaller parties to build a two-thirds majority in parliament, enough to choose Iraq’s new leaders.

“Party exit polls suggest voters ignored most of the 111 choices on their bulky and bewildering ballot papers and plumped for one of three main blocs in contention for power.

“A Kurdish grouping is expected to come second behind the United Iraqi Alliance, with a secular bloc led by Shi’ite interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi likely to take third place.”

The New York Times reports:

“One group of candidates that appeared to do well was the United Iraqi Alliance, a large coalition of Shiite parties brought together by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country’s powerful religious leader. One senior aide in that alliance said the party had been told by American and British officials that it appeared to have captured more than 50 percent of the vote.”

As usual, the drugs-sex-&-rock&roll brigade over at Reason is head-over-heels in love with the latest deformed offspring of American “democracy”-promotion, in this case the Iraqi election, with editor Nick Gillespie fawning — “some came on crutches” — over the fake “72 percent turnout” figure thrown out by Iraqi government officials and later hailing the corrected 60 percent estimate proffered by those same officials as “a pretty damn good turnout.” What he’ll do if and when it reaches 50 percent is anybody’s guess, but I can’t wait until he finds out that the Iraqi kingmaker, Ayatollah Sistani — who made the election happen in the first place, and whose endorsed slate seems destined to come out on top — is against cloning. And that’s not all he’s against….

According to the Ayatollah’s own website, which has a handy feature called “Ask the Ayatollah,” for those convicted of”slandering” Allah, “the ruling upon them is death.”

What else can we expect from the Sistani-approved electoral list? Well, here’s some more rulings from the Ayatollah:

Q: (Is it permissible) to play chess and backgammon without placing a bet?

A: It is not permissible to play them.

Q: What is the ruling on playing chess by using the customary pieces? Is the ruling any different in the case where the game is played by computer which employs symbols and shapes instead of the customary pieces?

A: Playing it (chess) is absolutely forbidden even without placing a bet. And there is no difference in this, whether it is (played) with customary pieces or by computer.

Q: Some people play with gambling instruments other than chess and backgammon for enjoyment and without placing a bet.

A: It is prohibited to play with all that is considered a gambling instrument even without placing a bet.

Q: Some electronic games that appear on TV with an apparatus called “Atari” and are played with buttons for enjoyment, without placing a bet.

A: If the pictures that appear on the screen are pictures of the instruments of gambling, then it is not permissible to play with them using the “Atari” apparatus, otherwise, it is permissible.

Oh, wait …. it looks like both anal and oral sex are okay— as long as the participants are married — so maybe the Reasonoids will cut the Ayatollah some slack…..

Stephen Schwartz, self-described “Trotsky-con,” frenzed defender of Uzbekistan‘s brutal dictatorship, and always a barrel of laughs, must be off his medication again, ’cause here he is taking credit for the Iraqi election:

“The group of non-Iraqis in America entitled to exult is tiny: it consists of President Bush himself, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, certain other members of the cabinet and defense establishment, and a highly exclusive media list: Bill Kristol and crew at The Weekly Standard, myself and some others writing on TCS [Tech Central Station] and a handful of other publications. (I won’t be modest about this.)”

That’s right, Schwartz: it’s all about y-o-u. And of course you won’t be modest about it. Megalomaniacs never are.

Is there a doctor in the house? This man needs to have his Prozac prescription refilled right away.