Month: February 2006

I see my good friend Matt has a response to my latest comment on this blog concerning the Muhammed cartoon brouhaha, and I think it makes the main point of my original piece: that an atmosphere of hatred is being created in which it will seem not at all unusual or morally deficient for the West to be bombing Middle Eastern cities — Tehran? Damascus? — because, after all, they’re all a bunch of mad-dog fanatics under the sway of an inherently destructive, oppressive, and hateful religion. This is true whether or not anyone intended it.

Considered in the context of the War Party’s larger agenda, the Danish controversy has to be seen as part of the prelude to World War IV.

UPDATE: Oh, and it looks like the Danes won’t be publishing those Holocaust cartoons after all. I kinda thought so ….

From Feingold’s speech to the US Senate:

“The President’s claims of inherent executive authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type of activity, are baseless. …

None of the President’s arguments explains or excuses his conduct, or the NSA’s domestic spying program. Not one. It is hard to believe that the President has the audacity to claim that they do. It is a strategy that really hinges on the credibility of the office of the Presidency itself. If you just insist that you didn’t break the law, you haven’t broken the law. It reminds me of what Richard Nixon said after he had left office: “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.” But that is not how our constitutional democracy works. Making those kinds of arguments is damaging the credibility of the Presidency.”

So there just might be a silver lining after all.

Iranian newspaper: “Bwahahaha, let’s see how they react when we print cartoons about the Holocaust!”

Danish newspaper: “Send us those cartoons when you’re done, guys. We’ll publish whatever you got.”

Iranian newspaper: Steam comes from ears.

Who are the dunces in this exchange?

Remember back in August when Vanity Fair ran that great article about Sibel Edmonds called “An Inconvenient Patriot“?

Part of the story was about how, as part of her work translating for the FBI, Sibel had overheard American Turkish Council types bragging about bribing the Speaker of the House, “Denny boy” Hastert, into withdrawing a House resolution condeming Turkey for the Armenian genocide. (Murderous governments condeming each other for 90-year-old pogroms seems a bit silly anyway, no?)

In any case, Hastert’s office basically just laughed it off at the time, but now 5 months later, for some strange reason, they have decided to defend themselves – in a quite pathetic manner.

BradBlog has the letter from Hastert’s attorney (including David Rose’s response) and Sibel’s complete demolition of of their too little too late defense of his actions.

Sibel Edmonds’ website

Matt opines that Flemming Rose, the provocateur who commissioned the Muhammed-is-a-terrorist cartoons, can’t be accused of double-standards because he’s reprinting cartoons “satirizing” the Holocaust.

Not so fast, Matt: wait until he decides to visit David Irving in jail, perhaps with a file hidden inside a cake.

The point is that this issue has absolutely nothing to do with “free speech,” since the Danish government never tried to censor the cartoons. What it’s all about is hate, pure and simple — the kind of hate that precedes a war. With Rose bloviating about a “culture war” and a “clash of civilizations,” there isn’t any doubt about his intentions. The extremes, in this case, feed on each other. Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is smiling …

If this comes to fruition, then at least Rose can’t be criticized for maintaining double standards on freedom of speech. We’ll see if the same holds true for the various commentators who have hailed his decision to run the Islam cartoons.

I hasten to note, however, that editors shouldn’t have to prove their objectivity/fairness/whatever by appeasing those who shriek loudest. If the point of the Muhammad cartoons was simply to challenge hate-speech laws, then taking on other, bigger taboos is a logical next step. But printing Holocaust cartoons in the name of “balance” is a non sequitur. It implies that, far beyond supporting free speech for both blasphemers and Holocaust deniers, a “fair” editor is obligated to see no difference between the two. If Rose really believes that, then yes, he is an idiot. If, however, his intention is to strike a blow against the thought police, then let’s hear it for those plucky Danes.