Antiwar.com Blog

Here’s the ugly flag the Iraqi Puppet Council today agreed should replace the current Iraqi flag.

..
.
.

Somehow, I don’t think the transplant will take.

For one thing, it looks like the hated Israeli flag.

“When I saw it in the newspaper, I felt very sad,” said Muthana Khalil, 50, a supermarket owner in Saadoun, a commercial area in central Baghdad. “The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black. Why did they put in these colors that are the same as Israel? Why was the public opinion not consulted?”

Raed gets it right

An explosion happened while US soldiers accompanied with WMD inspectors were trying to break into a chemical store.

WMD inspectors?!
freedom democracy freedom democracy WMD whooaaaaaaaaaa

WMD. You gotta love their persistence.

Two points from today’s War Street Journal opinion section. First, this editorial, “The Fallujah Stakes,” urges precisely the type of overreaction I counsel against in today’s column. Small wonder. But in the middle of their kill-’em-all routine, the editors insert a little nugget I’m hearing more and more these days: “They can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, because for them a peaceful transition to Iraqi control after June 30 means defeat.”

What does this even mean? If the neocons can’t churn out better propaganda than this, why are we supposed to believe they can run the planet? Why does a peaceful transition mean defeat for the insurgents? They could just wait until after such a transition to raise hell. Wouldn’t that be easier, assuming that that’s all they have in mind? The neocons are trying to hide–and the insurgents are fighting against–the reality that there won’t be any transfer of power on June 30.

The second item is a (subscribers only) piece by Jose Maria Aznar called “Appeasement Never Works,” in which the former Spanish PM takes a whizz on his country and its current government. You’ll recall how American “conservatives” shriek every time a politician or other celebrity criticizes Dubya, and how the pitch and decibels soar when the critic is on foreign soil at the time (Dixie Chicks, anyone?). So what to make of this sore loser bashing his country in a foreign newspaper in a foreign language?

No news in the case of the Marine who allegedly humiliated some Iraqi kids, but the following story is part of why I’m already tired of the former.

Marines get suspended sentences for assault

Two Marines stationed at Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station received suspended prison sentences Friday after pleading guilty to assaulting two Japanese women.

Cpl. Joseph P. Benoit received a 14-month prison term suspended for three years, and Lance Cpl. Nathan J. Schuermann’s sentence of one year in prison was suspended for three years, according to a Yamaguchi District Court official.

Benoit and Schuermann, of Marine Wing Support Squadron 171, pleaded guilty Feb. 6 to bodily assault for attacking two 22-year-old Hiroshima women visiting in Iwakuni city on April 12, 2003.

According to the prosecutor’s indictment, Benoit, 22, punched one of the women in the head, knocking her to the ground; he then climbed on top of her and grabbed her neck. Schuermann, 22, knocked the other woman to the ground, grabbed her hair and twice smashed her head into the ground.

Decisions about their future as U.S. Marines have yet to be made, Capt. Stewart Upton, a base spokesman, said late Friday afternoon.

Well, don’t keep the poor things waiting! Continue reading “LCpl. Boudreaux Non-Update”

In his April-25, Antiwar.com blog post, Mr. Epstein does his utmost to misrepresent my argument in "Blame Bush, Not the Jews, For Iraq." (Note that I say "Jews," not "Neoconservatives.") Readers should read the said column and The Jewish Connection . Even if they disagree with me, those with the necessary intellectual honesty will see Mr. Epstein’s caricature-like misrepresentation of my thinking on the issue for what it is.

He claims that I claim that, "No Jews, Israelis, or neoconservatives had anything whatsoever to do with our war in Iraq." Why the distortion, I wonder?

First I do not say that neoconservatives had nothing to do with the war. This is an Epstein concoction. I’ve written enough about the administration’s ideological bent to refute Mr. Epstein’s silly fib. The administration is neoconservative.

I question the significance Epstein and his ilk impute to the ethnic identity of members of the administration. It is the conspiracy component—the kind Epstein and his sort belabor—that I dispute (The evidence is on my side.) Conspiracy theories have their origins not in fact or systematic thinking. Rather, figments are woven by irrational minds into a theory that comports with the biases and pre-existing precepts of their holders, not with reality.

Contra the conspiracy theorists a la Epstein, there is no proof that 1) the administration and the president were converted by Jews to neoconservatism 2) that those Jews who allegedly did the converting are working for the Likud or that 3) the Likud government and its agents are behind the war. In fact, if one is searching for the main ancillary agitators, then the evidence overwhelmingly points toward the Iraqi dissidents. The dissident community was behind the faulty intelligence and was most active in inciting for war. Still, what I termed the "will to war" seems to come from the top: George Bush. (Who’s the Boss, Israel or the U.S. also injects some sanity into the mythical thinking about the Jewish-Israeli control of the American Empire.)

Yet comments from the Epstein crowd about, "A war for Israel and for the Likud; A war to make the Middle East safe for Israel" are tossed about with idiotic abandon. Clearly, Mr. Epstein doesn’t deal in fact. But then a devotion to conspiracy is inimical to fact or reality.

Sincerely
Ilana Mercer

Ilana Mercer often defends Israel, which is fine, but she has also hammered neoconservatism and its proponents. Nothing contradictory about that, since we have pointed out time and again that “neoconservative” does not mean “Jewish.” Why, then, does she now imply just that? Why write “President Bush doesn’t readily consult or even take directions from his Cabinet, much less from his neoconservative minions“? I fully agree that Bush is ultimately responsible for everything his administration does. But why is she suddenly lending credence to the charges of David Brooks and co.?