Month: January 2006

Jim Henley:

My rule of thumb: If Person A says “Israel” and Person B says, “You mean, the Jooooz! Neener Neener Neener!” *at most* Person A should spare the breath to say “F_ck off, Person B” and get back to whatever he or she was saying in the first place.

But that’s more effort than the matter strictly *deserves*.

George Will’s latest, on Tuesday’s State of the Union address, practically sparkles with sanity. On the global democratic crusade:

The success of the terrorist organization Hamas in the Palestinian elections is but the latest proof of what happens when the forms of democracy are severed from what the president, with a cosmopolitan shrug, dismissively called “our own Western standards of progress.” Now comes wishful thinking, and then cynicism.

Regarding the latter, the watery materialism of much thinking — the theory that social structures and economic incentives trump ideas as shapers of behavior — will interpret the Hamas victory in the benign light of the Garbage Collection Theory of History. On Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said: “My hope is that as a consequence of now being responsible for electricity and picking up garbage and basic services to the Palestinian people, that they recognize it’s time to moderate their stance.” Perhaps. But their stance — Israel must die — is, they say, the will of God, who has not authorized moderation in the name of sanitation.

That last line deserves repeating on style points alone. Also worth a copy-and-paste:

Four days after Hamas provided evidence that the United States cannot anticipate, let alone control, events, the New York Times inadvertently suggested this thought: If the Times and the Bush administration each had sufficient self-awareness, they might be mutually mortified by recognizing their similar mentalities regarding America’s power.

On the front page of Sunday’s Times there began a 7,800-word story on Haiti’s descent, not for the first time, into murderous anarchy. The story about the progress of nation-building and democracy-planting in our hemisphere carried a symptomatic headline: “Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos.” The story’s thesis was intimated by its subtitle: “Democracy Undone.” The thesis was that if U.S. diplomacy had been more deft and single-minded, the Times might not now be reporting this about Haiti:

“Today, the capital, Port-au-Prince, is virtually paralyzed by kidnappings, spreading panic among rich and poor alike. Corrupt police officers in uniform have assassinated people on the streets in the light of day. The chaos is so extreme and the interim government so dysfunctional that voting to elect a new one has already been delayed four times.”

Tonight, on the 1,050th day of the Iraq war (the 912th day of American participation in World War II was D-Day), the nation needs an adult hour, including a measured meditation on overreaching, from the Middle East to Medicare’s prescription drug entitlement. But in State of the Union addresses, rarely is heard a discouraging word.

Mr. Statecraft-as-Soulcraft is sounding better to my ears than half the soi-disant libertarians in D.C. think tanks. Who woulda thunk it?

Condi Rice is baffled by the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections:

“I’ve asked why nobody saw [Hamas’ election victory] coming. It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse… I don’t know anyone who wasn’t caught off guard by Hamas’ strong showing.”

Is it really true that the Secretary of State of the world’s most powerful country didn’t have a clue, when a lowly scribbler at the Antiwar.com website saw it coming last summer?:

“What do you do, however, when ‘terrorists’ start winning elections? This is a question American policymakers must confront now that Hezbollah has swept the polls in southern Lebanon. Hamas threatens to overtake the Palestinian establishment at the ballot box; Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has had to postpone the Palestinian elections because of this very real possibility.”
— Justin Raimondo, “The Democratic Delusion,” Antiwar.com, June 10, 2005

Gee, I’d be glad to do free-lance work for the State Department — heck, I can always use extra cash — but, so far, nobody’s called …

If anyone had any doubts about the army vs. settlers “clashes” in Hebron being nothing but a sham (see my latest column), today’s Ha’aretz reports of the so predictable outcome:

The state and Hebron’s settlers reached an agreement early Monday morning under which Jewish squatters would voluntarily leave the city’s wholesale market by Monday night, Israel Radio reported. In exchange, they are to secure the state’s promise to speed up legal proceedings that would enable them to return to the market legally.

And what about the Palestinian merchants, who had used the market until they were driven out as a “security measure” (guess whose security) in 1994, after a Jewish terrorist murdered 29 Arab worshippers? –Forget about them; this game is excelusively for Israelis (and for the media).

Bloomberg reports:

Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper lost a bid to overturn a ruling it libeled U.K. politician George Galloway by reporting he was in the pay of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Galloway, 51, was awarded 150,000 pounds ($263,000) in damages in 2004 over a series of articles alleging he secretly pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds from Hussein’s regime through the United Nations’ oil-for-food program.

The Court of Appeal in London today backed that judgment, saying the newspaper hadn’t merely reported the allegations but “adopted and embellished them.”…

Under U.K. law, the Daily Telegraph may also be liable for the politician’s legal costs, which are estimated at around 1.5 million pounds, according to lawyers involved with the proceedings.

Let me be the first to say that – whatever the merits of Galloway’s claims – this judgment, British libel law generally, and people who sue for libel suck. The ITN v. LM suit, in which a news organization took a small magazine to court for exposing its lies and won, proved once and for all that truth is no defense in the UK. But whether what someone thinks of another is true or not, reputations are not personal property – and if Galloway owned his, he would have an indisputable case against himself for destroying it.

I hope – vainly, I’m sure – that this ridiculous, state-sanctioned gagging of a reliably pro-war media outlet will cool the libel fever of neocons on this side of the Atlantic. Remember this from Michael Ledeen?

On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it “Neo-Conned!” and he posted it on his website and had it distributed as best he could. A considerable part of it is devoted to his version of my writings, and is so inaccurate, so distorted, and so nasty, as to make me wish once again that this country had a decent libel law so that I could at least get some money from him and give him a healthy dose of the public humiliation he deserves. Unfortunately, members of Congress are protected from such suits.

Ledeen concluded his piece in classic middle school 5-paragraph essay fashion:

If we had a libel law worthy of the name, he’d either quickly correct his statements and apologize to those he’s libeled, or find himself looking for the money to pay the damages he has certainly incurred.

Ledeen is always welcome to emigrate. How does Canada sound? The libel laws up there are almost certainly more to his liking, and the resident neocons take full advantage of them. In a favorable profile of Canadian publisher Conrad Black in 2001, Slate writer David Plotz noted in passing, “He files libel suits almost for sport.” Black settled one libel suit out of court last week and has another pending.

Of course, one needn’t leave the good ol’ USA to enjoy all the repressive benefits of libel laws the world over. In 2003, Iraq war architect Richard Perle threatened to sue New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh in George Galloway’s backyard. He eventually wimped out, but only after letting the threat linger until the statute of limitations had expired.

Having been on the receiving end of such bluster myself, I’m quite happy to live in a country whose libel laws are unworthy of Michael Ledeen’s respect. Ledeen and his prissy, authoritarian comrades should either hail Galloway’s victory or shut up about Britain’s “superior” legal system.

Kurdish writer Kamal Karim is to be retried for the crime of defaming Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani.

Karim had been sentenced to 30 years in prison after a trial that lasted one hour. He was convicted in December under a law passed by the Kurdish regional parliament in 2003.

His crime was to accuse the Kurdish political leader of corruption in an article on the website Kurdistanpost.

The reason that the appeal was granted is that such cases usually only draw a 5-year sentence.

Kurdish leaders promised to help deliver democracy and freedom of the press in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, who oppressed the Kurds for decades.