A look at the photo retrospectives out there, one year after the start of the war.
It's... interesting... to compare the photos selected by Iraqi bloggers:
To those chosen by the mainstream media:
If you come across photo galleries from other sources, please send links and I'll put them up.
This is just the wrong time to be saying things like this. Regardless of the merit of the underlying sentiment, this looks like is wavering resolve in the face of terror.
Facing an enemy who now seems to be thinking much more strategically, Poland has just advertised itself as the next weakest link in the chain.
If he misbehaves, whack him on the snout.
Patiently explain what is expected of him.
If he behaves, give him a treat.
Now we'll see if Zapatero earns his obedience school diploma.
Much as I'd like to see him say "In that case, we'll leave our troops in Iraq," it isn't going to happen. The best thing he can realistically do is point out that he's been talking about pulling out of Iraq during the whole election and the fact that the terrorists got what they want is an unfortunate accident, rather than a direct effect of the bombing.
If he's as dumb as I think, Zapatero will use this letter as yet another excuse to rant about Bush and Blair. If he's even dumber than I think, he'll use it to pat himself on the back for "making Spain safer" or some such, thus strengthening the notion that countries can, and should, accomodate themselves to terror.
Update: The authorities are skeptical of the letter. Maybe Zapatero will just ignore it, which would at least not make things worse.
Berthomet said France had already hiked its security precautions up to "red" level, the highest it could do without unleashing draconian measures in the top "scarlet" level.
Every voter takes a personal constellation of priorities into the booth with them, and most votes are a compromise and inherently ambiguous. To label the entire Spanish electorate or population as cowards or appeasers is an unfortunate slur.
To call Jose Luis Zapatero a fool and an appeaser is, on the other hand, completely appropriate.
The election result itself was ambiguous, and had Zapatero just focused on domestic policies until the wounds from the 3-11 attacks weren't so raw, he could have softened the connection between the bombings and changes to Spanish policy. Even if he later chose to remove the troops in Iraq the link to the bombings would have been tenuous enough that some doubt would always have remained.
Instead, Zapatero wasted no time resolving any ambiguity with his short-sighted and disastrous grandstanding. By immediately promising to remove troops from Iraq and very publicly spewing bile at Bush, Blair and Aznar, Zapatero made it crystal clear that he would dance to the terrorists tune and that his victory in the election was a triumph for the murderers who carried out the attacks and for terrorism in general.
The people of Spain did not choose appeasement, but Jose Luis Zapatero did.
Innocent victims around the world will be paying the price for his choice for years to come.
Update: This is what I mean. Don't blame all Spaniards for the folly of a few.
Kerry: "I've been hearing it, I'll tell ya. The news, the coverage in other countries, the news in other places. I've met more leaders who can't go out and say it all publicly, but boy they look at you and say, you gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that. So there is enormous energy out there. Tell them, wherever they can find an American abroad, they can contribute," a reference to donations, prompting laughter from the crowd.
Having lived in Europe for years I have no doubt that there are plenty of expats who would happily "pass along" donations from locals who want to unseat Bush, but that doesn't make it legal or right.
It's fun to speculate about Kerry's imaginary friend the "World Leader," but to me it's at least as bad if his claims are actually true.
What exactly does Kerry think that world leaders are telling President Bush in their "private conversations"? That they hate him and hope he loses?! I'm sure that any world leader that talks to either of the candidates is schmoozing for all he's worth, just to keep the bases covered (except maybe Zapatero, who seems to be channeling Chavez and who wasn't a leader yet when Kerry made his claim).
Is Senator Kerry naive enough to genuinely accept statements like that at face value, without considering the possibility that he's being schmoozed? Or is he politician enough to know better and just assuming that the American people are dumb enough to blindly accept that sort of assertion?
If he's coming to a "town hall" near you, could you do me a favor and ask him for me? It doesn't look like he'll be in my neck of the woods (greater Seattle) any time soon, or I'd ask him myself.
I've been getting that itch again, though, and time is loosening up enough that I should be able to sneak in a few hours here and there.
The Guardian is collecting obituaries of people who died in Iraq for a "Memorial" page. I suggest that anyone who has stories about Saddam's pre-war victims send those in as well so the "memorial" isn't so one-sided.
I spent two hours arguing more-or-less this topic with four Europeans today (Spanish, German, Italian and Ukrainian - there just has to be a joke in there somewhere), and they seem to be constitutionally incapable of considering in any way, shape or form any harm that isn't caused by war. In their world, "Not War" is always better than war, even if "Not War" leads to far more death and suffering or even mass graves full of children.
It's a point of view I find incomprehensible and it was a disheartening experience -- these are genuinely nice, intelligent people who I like a lot, but they have blind spots you could sail an aircraft carrier through. Including Saddam's victims in the Guardian's "memorial" is one small way to make it harder for them to ignore the suffering caused by inaction.
A 13-year old in Munich who lives in a home for troubled youth and is "well known to the police" stabbed a retiree with a "weaponized" kitchen fork so hard that it stuck in his skull. He was caught at the scene and has openly confessed, but (according to the S�ddeutsche Zeitung) due to his age the police were forced to release him at the scene and he has absolutely nothing to fear from the courts. He is literally unpunishable due to his age.
Unbelievable.
10 11 things I learned from the Eurovision Song Contest:
Do you find it hard to stay ahead of the tin-hat crowd? Don't have the time to wade through DU or Indymedia to find the latest paranoid conspiracy? Don't have the stomach for Ted Rall? Have I got a blog for you!
Horst Prillinger (The Aardvark Speaks) seems like a smart enough guy who reads a lot and makes lots of connections (he is a librarian, after all). He also seems to have a blatantly paranoid anti-American streak.
What that means to you, dear reader, is that you now have a bellwether for the tin-hat crowd -- a resource who will comb through the news and the nonsense to find the most spinnable pieces, from which he constructs clever and interesting conspiracy theories.
When he isn't engaged in flights of fancy, he provides an interesting window into the kind of paranoid anti-Americanism that's being spoon-fed to the European public. When his imagination kicks in, you'll be treated to some of the more interesting and superficially plausible anti-American conspiracy theories on the web.
His track record for spotting the theories with legs is pretty good:
Unfortunately for Horst, his track record for theories that, say, correspond with reality is less than stellar. The looting of the Baghdad Museum turns out to have been much less serious than originally reported and was likely conducted by members of Saddam's people. The Pfc Lynch "Wag the Dog" smear campaign is a fantastic concoction even further from the facts than the Museum story was and will likely die a quick and painless death.
But not quite quick or painless enough. Blogosphere fact-checking can kill a story within days, but a prebuttal like Jaed's can spike it before it emerges. And that's one good reason that it's useful to monitor blogs like "The Aardvark Speaks."
I expect that sanctions will be lifted quickly," said Schr�der. "In the end, this is about the people of Iraq, who must be helped as soon as possible."
Schr�der and company seem rather put out, though, that the administration isn't friendlier. They'll just have to get over that -- Bush won't take any substantive actions against Germany (base closings are sensible, not punitive), but he's not the kind to forgive and forget. Relations will remain proper but cool for as long as Schr�der (and Bush) are in power. That said, Bush probably shouldn't be flirting quite so openly with the Union -- It's improper and it's likely to backfire.
Now we'll just have to see what France and Russia are up to. Russia is quietly belligerent but seems to be hinting that it will accept bribes. France is just freaking out, which could have several causes:
ever any time soon.
Time (i.e. the next week or two) should tell.
It's perfectly appropriate for countries that opposed the war in Iraq to suffer some consequences now that the war is over, but it's extremely important that those consequences are reasonable and appropriate. Petty snubs or heavy-handed revenge would backfire badly.
I outlined some appropriate responses some time ago, but I have to confess that I never expected this (despite actually suggesting something similar).
It's perfect -- simultaneously unassailable and galling to the weasels, and it establishes Poland as a serious player in intra-European politics.
The Franco-German Axis of Weasels is nearing its end. I expect Germany to leave the Weasel-bloc during the looming UN showdown over removing sanctions against Iraq; Unless Chirac is exceptionally clever, Bush is exceptionally clumsy and Schr�der decides he has nothing to lose, Germany will stay on the sidelines this time around.
Germany now has more to gain from mending fences with the US than from poking Bush in the eye again and Germans are waking up to that fact. It's also true that a genuine pacifism (cynically exploited) was the primary force behind German opposition to the war, and it will be much harder to incite a pacifist frenzy to leave sanctions in place, particularly if doing so means further deprivation for the Iraqi people.
Chirac, on the other hand, is as staunchly anti-American as ever and he's getting awfully chummy with Putin's Russia. For his part, Putin isn't sounding much like Bush's soulmate these days. It also seems that they're taking turns drawing attention -- when Chirac sucks up, Putin starts growling and vice-versa. Is it coincidence or coordination?
Chirac and Putin make an odd couple and I'm not sure exactly what they're up to, but their interests might align better and for longer than it first seems.
France wants to be a player but doesn't know how to function in a unipolar world while Russia nurses a bruised ego and pines for its lost empire. Chirac's project to forge Europe into a French-led opposing pole is looking doubtful (in the short term, at least, and even to me). If he had the opportunity, Chirac might just promote Russia as a counter to the United States, in the hope that France could resume its accustomed cold war role of amoral profiteer neutral "power."
If it plays out exactly right for Chirac, geography, economic ties and internal bureaucratic inertia could knock all of Europe out of America's sphere.
On the other hand, it could backfire -- cozying up to Russia could well spook already nervous "new" Europeans into even closer alignment with the United States.
This theory fits Chirac's pattern of raising the stakes after each loss, and his clear obsessesion with constraining the United States. On the other hand, it seems like a dangerous (hence unlikely) proposition for Chirac. I don't have a better explanation for Franco-Russian amity and their continuing opposition at the UN right now, but the next few days should be ... illuminating.
And diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
France just adores NATO according to Chirac. So I'm sure there's a nice innocent reason that France is seeking close military cooperation with Russia.
Given Ritter's known proclivities, what are the odds that his "reward" wound up sharing a cell with one of Uday's discards in the Children's prison?
It would certainly provide a more plausible motive for Ritter's five years of silence then "it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."
This sort of thing is why I think it's premature and dangerous to declare the Franco-German alliance dead. Blair seems to be betting that he can link up with like-minded leaders from both old and new Europe to contain the Franco-German axis, but that's a very dangerous bet.
For one thing, the Franco-German stance is pretty much in line with European public opinion, which places limits on how far leaders who genuinely value the transatlantic relationship will go. Berlusconi has already retreated to the sidelines and Aznar's party looks to be in trouble in Spain, which leaves only Denmark and the Netherlands in "old" Europe. The picture is perhaps a bit better among the accession countries, but none of them sees any alternative to joining the EU. If they were forced to choose between Europe and the US, they would almost certainly choose Europe - even at the cost of ceding their foreign policy to France.
Perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that the EU is undemocratic in the extreme. Real power rests with an unaccountable bureaucracy and a byzantine committee system, both of which are populated by the very EUrocrats and activists that have been gleefully fanning the flames of European anti-Americanism for the past year.
And it's only going to get worse. The large and small countries don't trust each other, so the constitutional convention is constructing a system with competing organs of power, each controlled by one of the warring factions (at last count, there's a council, a commission, a presidium and a parliament, if I'm not mistaken) and given, for the most part, vaguely defined powers. The obvious outcome will be perpetual gridlock, which hands even more control to bureaucrats and unelected committees. A system like that will grind to a halt if it attempts to take any significant action, but it'll be very effective at preventing members from acting "unilaterally."
The US needs to build real, lasting ties to its friends in Europe. Reconstruction contracts are getting all of the attention right now, but they're fundamentally short term and politically charged. Long-term structural commitments like TAFTA are far more important, even in the short term, as they provide a counterweight to the "EU membership at any cost" mentality that currently prevails among the accession and candidate countries. They will (and probably should) eventually join, but they are far more likely to fight Franco-German domination of the EU if they don't feel backed into a corner.
Update: Somebody give this man an alternative!
