Tag: Antiwar movement

This Ann Coulter parody in the Weekly Standard made me chuckle.

Of course, the dragoness is more or less correct about one thing (McCarthy)–the only reason the neos have it in for her.

The Spectator’s Paul Robinson suggests another group to blame.

“Jacksonian rhetoric has spearheaded America’s recent wars. The word ‘honour’ is rarely used, but substitutes such as ‘credibility’ abound in official speeches. Nato had to bomb Yugoslavia because the ‘credibility of the alliance was at stake’. Coalition forces had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was ‘undermining the credibility of the UN’. Saddam was not a threat to the USA, but he was a living insult to its honour. Despite all the efforts of the most powerful state on earth, he had for ten years continued to survive and defy America’s wishes. For an administration driven by sentiments of honour, such an insult could not be permitted. Just as the South could not allow Lincoln to become their President, so George W. Bush could not allow Saddam to continue humiliating his country. Only war could satisfy honour.”

Interesting but unfortunately unexplored is the hormonal difference between Southerners and others mentioned in the first paragraph.

Continue reading “Blame Dixie?”

But at least he isn’t a liar. Writing in Reason, Bailey describes one effect of intelligence-tampering:

The American public and the rest of the world will be understandably skeptical when U.S. intelligence agencies next claim there is a looming crisis somewhere. Unfortunately, there might be a real wolf lurking in the future, but after hearing them cry wolf in Iraq, how can we trust our government agencies either to know that for sure or, more darkly, to be telling us the truth?

Somehow, this doesn’t register with him as an indictment of the ongoing war, but whaddaya expect from a liberventionist? My prewar critique of Bailey’s “libertarian foreign policy” can be found here.

According to Ha’aretz, U.S. military honchos are visiting with the Israeli Defense Forces to learn about occupation techniques. Interestingly, these meetings began a full year before the war on Iraq. What country were they planning to occupy then? And for how long?

Would they please explain it to Americans?

From the AP:

Public support for Poland’s role in Iraq appeared to be eroding, with a poll published Monday showing more than half of those surveyed disapproved of sending troops.

A growing number of Poles also feared that Polish participation could lead to attacks at home.

Against the backdrop of daily attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, 68 percent said they feared Poland would become a target if the government sends troops as planned to command a stabilization zone, the independent CBOS polling agency said. That was up a full 15 percent from a survey in June.

And no one’s laughing? A great article on a global delusion:
The Day Irony Failed, by Gary LaMoshi.
The US State Department weighed in on the Makati crisis by backing “the legitimate civilian government of the Philippines”. The US cleverly avoided use of the word “elected”, but any comment on the Philippines from the Bush administration registers big numbers on the irony scale.

Presidents George W Bush and Arroyo (of the Phillipines) each took office of the same day, January 20, 2001, with dubious Supreme Court decisions substituting for electoral mandates. Each of these offspring of former presidents has deployed the “war on terrorism” as a cover for their failures to mend their national economies.

During the fighting over the last presidential election, The Onion ran the following headline:
Serbia Deploys Peacekeeping Forces to U.S.:
Serbian president Vojislav Kostunica deployed more than 30,000 peacekeeping troops to the U.S. Monday, pledging full support to the troubled North American nation as it struggles to establish democracy.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the humor in this should be barred from holding public office.