Is it Patriotic to Oppose the Bush Administration Policy on Iraq?

Actually, no. It's not. Not now.

The debate over Iraqi policy lasted more than a year and was the central issue of the November elections in which every Congressional seat was decided. The result was a historically rare mid-term victory for the party in the White House.

The debate is over and the Bush Administration won it.

It won the debate on the global level a few weeks later with a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council endorsing the Bush policy on the use of force against Iraq.

Further debate now begins to cross the line from loyal opposition to unreasoning extremism. After all, what could possibly be the goal of the “peace activists” who disrupt traffic and take part in violent civil disobedience? Do they seek the immediate halt of our soldiers’ advance? What would be the consequence of that? Certainly not peace.

Would ending the war now increase the security of Americans at home and overseas? Would it resolve the violence and injustice that plagues the Middle East? Would it signal to would-be tyrants around the world that there are consequences if they fail to respect their people and their neighbors? Would it demonstrate the superiority of democracy as a political model to emulate and strive for?

Or would ending the war at this moment to at risk the lives of innocent American soldiers, not just in Iraq but in Korea, and Bosnia? Would it give comfort to our enemies who are so desperate to hold on to power that they force their fellow countrymen into battle at gunpoint? And what about the long-suffering Iraqi people, will they welcome an immediate halt of our military advance?

The “peace activists” are in practice supporters of fascism to the extent that their activities strengthen the resolve of the fascists in the Iraqi Ba’ath Party to resist our troops, to kill them when they surrender and gleefully photograph their punctured bodies.

The Iraqi crisis had a hope of being resolved peacefully as long at the junta in Baghdad sensed that they only alternative to voluntary capitulation was certain military defeat. But instead they saw frivolous people take to the streets of San Francisco, London, Madrid, and Paris and concluded that the threats of certain defeat were hollow.

Now that war has begun, the Iraqi junta has pinned its hopes on growing “anti-war’ sentiment in the democracies. It seeks to encourage that sentiment through propaganda, murder, and in time, genocide. It seeks to demoralize the troops marching against them by spreading the lie that their cause is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate.

The “peace activists” echo and amplify these lies and therefore play an important role in defeating and killing American soldiers. They encourage the junta to resist. They discourage the oppressed from rising up. They give aid and comfort to our enemies.

Let’s be honest. The “peace activists” do not support the troops, they support the enemy seeking to kill our troops. They are promoters not of peace but of a prolonged conflict and they are unreasoning extremists who do not tolerate opposition. They advocate no coherent policy and they evade lucid debate by labeling their challengers as racist or ignorant or immoral.

They are certainly not patriotic in any commonly understood definition of the word.

The time for civil debate has come and gone. Today there are lives on the line and the only way to secure peace is to ensure that the Ba’ath regime in Iraq collapses as soon as possible.

More French Villainy

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin spoke today at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on his first visit to the UK since the outbreak of war in Iraq.

At the end of de Villepin's talk, he held a question and answer session. One cheeky British reporter asked him "Who do you want to win this war?"

de Villepin refused to answer.

Bomb the DJ!

This comes from a reliable yet highly unidentifiable source:

The Saddam Fedayeen are receiving combat orders from Iraqi government-sponsored radio broadcasts.

The broadcasting of certain songs is a coded order, my Iraqi sources say. This is the means by which the central government can issue mass orders to these terroristic elements, without the Fedayeen fighters needing special radio equipment.

If so, the U.S. should destroy all Iraqi broadcasting assets, and replace them with Commando Solo broadcasts, which I understand that ordinary Iraqis are not receiving.

Hopefully this message has been conveyed word for word to General Franks at the Southern Command. If not, feel free to drop him a line.

With Duke on Our Side

If this report about Apocalypse on the Euphrates is to be believed, then the commander of the 3rd Squadron of the U.S. 7th Cavalry is tooling around in a Humvee driven by a guy named Duke Nukem.

That's the best news I've heard all day.

Supporting the Troops? Yes, But Not Ours

There are reports now that some American soldiers captured by Iraqi forces have been disarmed and executed by their captors. Murder of unarmed combatants might suggest a bit of a moral issue for most people. But not for the loyal opposition at the Democratic Underground:

HawkeyeX (3594 posts)
Mar-23-03, 11:34 AM (ET)
6. If the US POW's are being executed
then I'm sorry, but the Iraqis does have legal right to do that, after all, it is THEIR country we are invading.
Hawkeye-X

Think about that bit of nastiness next time one of these peace-fascists claims to be "supporting the troops but opposing the war."

Saddam Still Dead

As much as there is to dislike about The New York Times, they do happen to have some great reporters. John Burns is the best of the lot and in a just world would be on track for the first Iraqi Freedom Pulitzer. Today he reports on the strange behavior (or more accrurately, the lack of behavior) of the late Butcher of Baghdad:

But what has added to the mystery since Thursday is that Mr. Hussein, normally inclined to issue long, grandiose statements at times of crisis, has simply disappeared.

All he has left to Iraq's 24 million people at a time of crisis is the five-minute, disjointed, hand-lettered denunciation on Thursday of the "criminal little Bush," and his vow to Iraqis that "these days will add to your glorious history."

Today, attempts by reporters to gain some elucidation met with a blank wall. At a news conference, an American reporter asked when Mr. Hussein would be making another address on the war to the Iraqi people.

"Next!" the information minister, Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, said sharply, beckoning to another reporter for a new question.

Moments later, a different reporter tried again. Had the minister seen Mr. Hussein in person at any time in the last few days?

"Next! Next!" Mr. Sahhaf replied, still more testily, then demanded: "Please ask something reasonable."

Saddam, or Not Saddam?

First of all it’s not pre-recorded. If it was done in advance the production values would have been better, he wouldn’t have been reading from a notepad and he wouldn’t have needed to wear Janet Reno’s glasses. And why the hat covering his hairline?

Second, if it was the real Saddam in real time he would have spoken to the camera without hesitation and extemporaneously . . . after all, why would he need to be careful about his words now? No need for carefully crafted talking points.

Presumably he wrote the words himself just a few moments before going on the air. So why waste that precious time . . . when commanders are waiting anxiously for proof that he’s still alive . . . writing out your text? Saddam knows what to say . . . he would have said it without a draft.

Third, would he say “Bush”? Didn’t Saddam correct Dan Rather a few weeks ago and say that he should be called “President Bush” out of deference to his office? A small point and perhaps unrealistic under the circumstances. But Saddam did seem to be rather pleased with himself in the 60 Minutes interview by staking a claim to the gracious high ground. Would he throw it all away now just because the shooting has started?

My guess, the remarks were written by one of the hotheads who was lucky to survive the attack but was unsure of how Saddam would behave in such circumstances.

Saddam is either dead or not in any condition to appear on television. Someone else wrote “Saddam’s” words and did a poor job of capturing his tone and manner. And yet another non-Saddam read those words for the first time when he stepped out of wardrobe and directly on to the “Good Morning Baghdad” program.

Either that or I’m totally wrong.

Peace Doesn't Have a Chance

Either through blunder or design the Bush Adminstration has manuvered much of the world to the point where peace with Saddam Huseein is no longer a rational option.

President Bush has focused so much attention to Iraq and applied so much pressure on is allies and to the UN that war cannot be avoided now without inviting a greater conflict later.

The Iraq issue has become a simple question -- after six months of threatening Saddam Hussein’s fascist regime with sternly worded UN resolutions and the possibility of military action is it more or less prudent to do nothing.

Frankly, the case for standing down now cannot be made with a straight face.

What would happen if the US/UK coalition fails to act in the next three weeks? It will leave behind a far more entrenched and dangerous threat with a newly energized regime, and a deeply demoralized and cynical opposition.

Surely, Saddam Hussein would calculate that the momentum in this ongoing conflict with the United States rests with him and he will likely capitalize on it. In other words, if he wasn’t an imminent threat to the US before, he sure as hell is now.

He sees how nuclear-armed North Korea is treated with care while Iraq is subjected to threats and indignities. Saddam will redouble his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Even if he gave up the ambition in the past, these past months have certainly rekindled the flame. And what if he’s caught importing restricted materials . . . so what? There will never be a moment when the will to act against him is greater than it is right now and if conflict isn’t triggered at this moment he can safely assume it never will be.

In a culture where revenge is a high art, the Hussein dynasty will find its purpose in life by living up to the myth of the unassailable Saddam, the scourge of the infidels. His prestige will eclipse bin Laden’s in the suicidal fanatic world and, unlike Osama, Saddam has a sovereign country to operate from.

If Saddam is not the focus of disorder and violence in the Middle East and the world today, he certainly will be from now on.

An apt analogy might be using antibiotics against an infection but stopping before the treatment has run its full course, the result is a temporary remission of the infection followed by a more rampant and dangerous expansion. Dangerous because it is now untreatable.

Even if the Bush Administration has pushed the crisis to this point because of oil, or familial revenge or some other peripheral concern, to back away now without finally deposing the Ba’aath regime in Iraq would be an unconscionable mistake that will mean far more danger, violence and war in the future than acting now.

Peace now means greater violence later. Time to give war a chance.

Activists in Love

Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein was broadcast this evening and Saddam came across as decidedly Stalinesque (I mean that in a good way) and looked surprisingly lifelike for a dead man.

So how did he play with the peace at any cost cohort? Well the Democratic Underground has some predictably unhinged commentary. According to one "peace activist:"

Saddam came across as a reflective,knowledgable (sp) person and Bush,who I had seen earlier,came across as usual as a kick ass,smart aleck, mindless moron who does not even know the meaning of empathy and soul searching and whose solution to any problem is to cut taxes on dividends and bomb Iraq.

Yes, "empathy" is the word that comes to mind when I think of Saddam. Empathy and the wisdom not to cut taxes capriciously.

Another imbecile for peace was positively dazzled by the Butcher of Baghdad:

He spoke of honor,patriotism,and history and they somehow seemed more than just rhetoric as we would get from Chimpy but seemed as if these are things he has reflected upon at great length.

Yes, Saddam is more authentic than Bush in many ways. Take repression for example. Sure John Ashcroft seems a bit heavy-handed at times but he's not in the same league as Saddam. I'm sure Saddam has reflected at great length upon the efficacy of physical torture vs. psychological torture.

And it's not just rhetoric . . . he's a reflective, knowledgeable person when it comes to tyranny. You can tell, he wants to do this the right way. No half measures. It's a matter of honor. I think we can all respect that.

Sit On Your Fat Ass for Peace

Don't forget today is Virtual March on Washington Day. Be sure to call your representatives frequently today to register you wholehearted support for the demolition of the Saddam Hussein regime.

Click here for a handy listing of the relevant phone and fax numbers.

Nothing but Bush

Steven den Beste honored me with a link in one of his prolonged essays on the conflicting aims of the United States and some of its European allies. He says that the anti-American Europeans are motivated by quasi-religious longing for a Marxist future.

Perhaps. But I think their actions are a bit more simplistic . . . and parochial.

Unfortunately, I have little empirical evidence to base this on . . . except that there is the New York Times letters section, and that is often a good cross section of the current lunatic fringe wisdom.

My theory is this: antiwar protesters are animated by a deep dislike of George Bush. They don’t like his mannerisms, his haircut, his use of the word “evil.” In short, they dislike his style . . . and for this they are willing to march in defense of fascism incarnate, chant infantile rhymes in public, and chain themselves to Iraqi military installations.

Now, I’m not saying this in not heroic activity. After all, who am I to judge? One man’s peace activist is another man’s useful tool in the service of repression. But I do think perhaps these guys are letting President Bush get under their skins just a bit.

Take Brooke Stevens, from Kent, Connecticut. Observing from the comfort of her idyllic New England refuge, Stevens believes Bush has offended everyone on Earth.

Since the war drums began last summer, the Bush administration has shown contempt for diplomacy, often resorting to taunts and name-calling, and has made innumerable specious arguments for war.

Stevens appears to have awoken refreshed from a long summer vacation (or a coma) to the news that Iraq invaded and looted it’s neighbor, had to be dislodged by United States forces (but not until unleashing the largest environmental holocaust in recorded history) and then spent 12 years violating the terms of a U.N. brokered ceasefire.

Surely you can understand the hesitancy of Europe and the rest of the world when it comes to adopting a resolution that would not only condone the Bush administration's bellicose behavior but encourage more of it in the future.

Yes, how dare the cowboy Bush force the international community to back its copious words with meaningful actions. Why to cave into such pressure would set a dangerous precendent whereby nations would have to actually live up to their admirable rhetoric about peace, justice and human rights.

But what really gets Ms. Stevens is Bush’s ‘bellicose behavior.” How gauche . . . how not well brought up.

On the same page, Donald Marritz chimes in from Gettysburg, PA:

The huge antiwar demonstrations that took place all over the world on Saturday show, above all, that people have a deep-seated, visceral understanding that war should be the last resort to solve a problem.

The key word here is “visceral.”

People like Marritz came to their understanding of the futility of war not through any intellectual rigor but through feeling. They feel it is wrong. After all, how could a thinking person -- living in Gettysburg of all places -- conclude that war is unlikely to solve any problem. Perhaps he’s a slave owner.

Another of the visceral generation, Britta Anderson of Webster, NY, has dabbled in geopolitics and come to this remarkable policy perspective:

Rather than starting a war with Iraq, the United States should focus on an initiative, through the United Nations, to deal with the dangers to world security posed by a North Korea with far-reaching nuclear capabilities.

So let me get this straight . . . rather than confront Iraq now before it acquires nuclear weapons, let’s focus on a some strongly worded UN resolutions that will disarm the atomic-powered Blofeld regime in Pyongyang just as effectively as the ones that disarmed Saddam.

Wow, this is stupid on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. Best leave her alone to wrestle with this little brain teaser in solitude.

The earnest activists who marched with such earnestness seem hurt that President Bush has not yet acted on their earnest demands to back down in the face of Iraqi contempt for the UN.

Jim Bristow of San Francisco is upset that President Bush dismissed him and his hardy band of Bush haters using the offensively corporate term “focus group.”

As a very narrowly elected president, he should be listening carefully to this country's voters.

Suzanne Russian of Metuchen NJ appears to be cribbing from the same talking points:

We are not deciding on a name for a toothpaste but on a policy that will change the world forever. Mr. Bush, as the president, elected by the people of this country, could at least feign interest in what we have to say.

Well, at least they admit Bush was elected.

The next step might be to actually check on public opinion rather than the mood of a mob armed with paper mache and pointed irony. A cursory look at the Gallup website shows that nearly 60% of Americans currently support invading Iraq with US ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

That means well over 100 million Americans are even more pro-war than President Bush who has stated that his policy is to use force if necessary to enforce UN resolutions.

But why let a little thing like overwhelming public support stand in the way of deeply felt opinions? Susan DeMark of the Naked City comes right out and tells it like it is:

. . .many antiwar Europeans are not anti-American but anti-George Bush, and they have explicitly expressed the distinction.

They sure have. The Bush=Hitler posters where particulary cogent. And here’s a delightful echo from DeMark’s fellow New Yorker, Mary-Ellen Banashek:

On a trip to Dublin two weeks ago, I met with an old friend, now an Irish senator, who said, "I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-Bush." To which I replied, "I'm an American and I'm anti-Bush."

How loverly. I think if you corrected the typo you would find she was talking with an Irish Setter.

So there you have it. Rather than agreeing on a coherent point of view on the defining issue of our time, instead of challenging the world’s leading violator of human rights and the man responsible for environmental damage hundreds of times worse that the Exxon Valdez, rather than drawing the line at true misogyny, racism, and intolerance . . . the self-identified keepers of the flames of justice have decided what they really don’t like is that George Bush is so damned popular.

No wonder no one takes them seriously

What’s Bugging the Europeans?

It’s becoming clear (to me at least) that the reasons Europeans are so stridently opposed to forcing Iraq to disarm itself have little to do with the substance of peace and justice in the Middle East and much more to do with the style of Americans. It's not so much a reasoned debate as it is a visceral reaction to Americanism.

The views of the leadership in Paris and Berlin are a bit more methodical. President Chirac gave it away yesterday when he made resistance to American influence a precondition for membership in the EU.

The International Herald Tribune analyzes why Iraq has become and existential issue for France and Germany and concludes that its because France and Germany (as they see themselves now) cannot exist without successfully blocking the U.S. and U.K. on Iraq. If the governments in Paris and Berlin cannot project their influence in Europe, they have will no influence whatsoever overseas.

In effect, Europe becomes a fractured collection of small states with France and Germany no more influential than Belgium or Denmark. Indeed, by ignoring France on Turkey, NATO has already demonstrated Chirac’s impotence.

That’s why Chirac blew a gasket in Brussels using undiplomatic, dare I say “cowboy-ish,” rhetoric.

As for the demonstrators filling the streets of Europe, their concerns seem to reflect a discomfort with George Bush. It seems odd that when matters as important as war and peace are in the balance reasonable people would be focused on such superficialities as President Bush’s habit of pointing his finger when he talks.

This poll seems to indicate that while the overwhelming majority of people in France know Saddam is a threat to peace what really irritates them is that that means they have to agree with Bush. If Bush does eventually act and force regime change in Iraq, these arguments will linger but remain as now entirely inconsequential.

This dislike of Bush is somewhat understandable when you realize that most Europeans have had little exposure to Bush outside of some sound bites and film clips. They have no comprehension of his sense of humor, they can’t neatly categorize his politics, and they are alarmed at his use of the word “evil.” The average Frenchman in Lyon doesn’t recognize that to an American audience, “evil” is a Reaganesque word designed to separate George Bush Jr. from other American politicians including to some extent his own father George Bush Sr.

Of course, Americans have just as wildly skewed views on European leaders. Few people in the U.S. know that Chirac once worked in a forklift operator in St. Louis.

The difference is, few Americans would presume to know anything about the French President, his background, his views, tastes, eloquence, or intentions. Europeans as far more likely to believe they know the United States. After all, they’ve been deluged with American movies, music, images, sounds, and tourists. Surely this amounts to some sort of insight. Well, yes but it’s the same sophisticated insight Americans have about Europe from driving Volkswagens.

I don’t mean to be dismissive of Europe but the U.S. is talking about war and peace while the Europeans are talking about cowboy hats and the future of the EU. For once the Americans are focused on issues of substance. That’s why they are leading the agenda and why Europe remains reactionary.

For what it’s worth, this won’t be resolved through talking.

Strange Name for an Innocent Venezuelan

Like most people I was relieved to learn that the man arrested at Gatwick airport with a hand grenade was, in fact, Venezuelan. Thank goodness it wasn’t some Islamic martyr-wannabe. That would just feed into the unfair stereotype of Muslims being suicidal murderers.

I guessed the heightened alert status had simply swept this South American grenade guy into the net and I wondered how many other people must carry grenades and other personal explosive devices through international airports without arousing suspicion.

Well, now it turns out this innocent Latin American tourist’s name is Hasil Mohammed Rahaham-Alan.

Perhaps he was born Alan Rodriguez and then got the old time religion but I wonder if anyone else has noticed that Hasil Mohammed Rahaham-Alan has an oddly un-Venezuelan ring to it?

Wisely, the media has chosen to all but ignore this screamingly obvious news headline.

Give Police a Chance

Frankly, I was concerned about the prospect of worldwide demonstrations in support of brutal fascist Dictator for Life Saddam Hussein this past weekend. Would such gatherings convince the undecided that the Coalition of the Willing is on the wrong side of history? Would the public tune out The West Wing and watch the Courtship of Uday’s Father instead?

Fortunately you can never underestimate the demonstration-prone to be their own worst messengers. Al Sharpton speaks out . . . Ken Livingston holds forth . . . Susan Saranwrap entertains the unwashed . . . and the signs, thousands of homemade signs just like these, and these,and this, and this, or costumes like these.

Just like the word "classy," these people cancel out their own meaning. They're not marching for peace . . . they’re pleading for help.

An appropriate chant: "The Whole World Is Watching . . .And Your Fly is Open."

The View From Switzerland

A new poll finds that 71 percent of Swiss people believe the Bush Administration is responsible for the September 11th attacks. How could such an educated and cosmopolitan sample of European society be so completely deluded? I think it’s because they want to believe it.

I have several friends in Switzerland. They grew up in New York but have pretty much gone native in Europe. They sometimes provide interesting insights into global events because of their American background and European perspective. On issues of Israel, Iraq and George Bush we are at total odds.

The most striking difference I’ve noticed between Europe and North America is that anti-Semitism, like chain smoking, is far more acceptable in polite company in Europe than it is here. Over lunch, a Swiss acquaintance of one friend once offered up that “yes, it’s a shame that Israelis are being murdered . . .but they are so, you know, aggressive.”

More recently I’ve heard what must be the mainstream Swiss view on the American response to Iraq as filtered through my friends. According to this view the US is deeply concerned about being isolated in the world and as a result Bush is acting from a deep sense of insecurity having backed himself into a corner.

Of course, to anyone who truly knows America this doesn’t ring true. This is a European perspective.

The United States has always taken pride in being the exception to the world order. Indeed it is the basis of our national identity. Regardless of whether it is the US or a part of Europe that is increasingly isolated, the United States is far more comfortable being the odd man out, more likely to view self-reliance as a virtue, more likely to see isolation as validation.

As for the idea that the Bush Administration is acting out of insecurity, well that’s a dangerously parochial misinterpretation of reality. Dangerous because this government is at war and any misreading of intentions is likely to have deadly consequences. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that anyone familiar with Donald Rumsfeld would think he suffers from insecurity.

I think the Europeans still don’t quite understand that French and Belgian intransigence resistance makes George Bush more popular and more determined . . . not less. They don’t quite get it that the United Nations has never had much prestige in the United States and today is close to being viewed as an instrument of conflict rather than peace.

The New York Times carries a quote today that bears this out and while it specifically refers to France, I think it’s fair to assume that it applies to many Europeans. “Equality,” says the French author Phillippe Roger, “is as important, if not more important, than freedom to the French.”

Americans understand that there is inherent conflict between liberte and egalite and taken together they certainly don’t produce fraternite . . . they produce The Terror.

While American governments work to create equal opportunities, European politics is about ensuring equal outcomes and that is at odds with freedom. Equal outcomes do not occur naturally . . . they must be enforced.

With any hope, Act Two of Operation Enduring Freedom will jolt naïve Europeans into the 21st century when they realize they were not just wrong about American intentions . . . but spectacularly so.

But I doubt it.

Follow the Duct Tape

One thing about the current crisis is certain. Sales of duct tape are going through the roof.

And who benefits from this revenue windfall? You don't have to look far. The owner of DuckTape® brand adhesives is Manco which is in turn owned by the Henkel Company . . . a German chemicals conglomerate whose employees have frequently supported Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrat Party ( I would imagine).

Another profiteer is none other than 3M Corporation which proudly boasts that it is a "global" corporation with "more than half of our sales outside the United States."

What's the glue holding these companies together? Brown Brothers Harriman, of course, the same merchant bank that Prescott Bush used as cover for his global puppeteering throughout the 20th Century.

And guess what is the key ingredient in duct tape . . . PETROLEUM!

Now it all begins to make sense doesn't it?

Repeat after me -- NO BLOOD FOR DUCT TAPE!

The French Connection

“The French prime minister, Jacques Chirac, had visited Baghdad in December 1974 amid much pomp. Vice President Saddam offered to take care of Chirac’s visit and in their several meetings the two men enjoyed an unexpected rapport, much to the surprise of the traveling French entourage. At the end of the visit the French prime minister warmly embraced Saddam, calling him ‘a personal friend’, a returned home with a sheaf of lucrative contracts (for weaponry) worth 15 billion francs. One of them was the deal to supply the brand new reactor.”

“Brighter Than the Baghdad Sun,” published in 1999, page 74

Why does the anti-war left cite U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein and overlook France’s much deeper roots? The current administration certainly doesn’t support Saddam now, why wouldn’t the left welcome this change of heart? More importantly, why isn’t France’s more obvious interest in protecting Saddam more widely publicized and criticized?

Is there evidence of greater collaboration between Chirac’s government and Saddam’s hidden in a file cabinet somewhere in Baghdad? Perhaps something that would damage Chirac’s long political career just as he gets ready to coast into the history books?

Certainly this would explain why France is going to such extraordinary lengths to avoid coalition troops from exerting any kind of control over a post-Saddam Iraq. Damage the prestige of the U.N? Cripple the NATO alliance? Paint yourself into a diplomatic box with no apparent exit strategy?

I wonder what’s worth all that effort? I guess we’ll find out pretty soon.

Dennis Miller on Donahue

By mistake I tuned into MSNBC last night around a quarter to ten and become one of a handful of people watching the Phil Donahue show.

But I was richly rewarded. Dennis Miller was the guest and he was tearing into Donahue like a hungry wolf a PETA demonstration.

He had quite a few good lines in the remaining 2 minutes of the show that I happend to catch.

Regarding France Miller said. "The only way we'd get them to help us invade Iraq is if we showed them evidence of truffles there."

On Hillary Clinton's career he said, "She's ridden her husband's coattails. She's had to since there no room left on the front of the garment."

No transcript yet but you find it here when the time comes.

Maybe Donahue has finally hit on a formula for boosting his ratings . . . book sharp-tongued conservatives to rip apart the host and his sycophantic audience.

I'd certainly watch that.

Germany Comes to the Aid of Brutal Fascist Dictator

To the chagrin of Joschka Fischer, there’s nothing like the endorsement of a totalitarian police state to burnish your diplomatic credentials.

Today, Deutsche Welle relays the thanks of a grateful military junta to Germany for refusing to defend its fellow NATO member Turkey and obstructing the foreign policy of its most important geopolitical ally, the United States.

Would you say Germany’s political opposition against a war in Iraq has helped the Iraqi government?

It helps Iraq, both the government and the people.

Fischer must be quite proud to see that his Chancellor’s foreign policy freelancing is bearing such abundant fruit. But there’s plenty of credit to go around.

And the Iraqi fascist regime would also like to give a big shout out to all those rubes who are marching for “peace” in San Francisco, Paris, and Gaza City. You’ve helped convince the maximum leader that the International Coalition is completely surrounded and that the wisest course of action is to invite military conflagration.

The U.S. says that Iraq is not complying with U.N. resolution 1441 and that it will be disarmed by force. Do you still think a war can be avoided?

I think we can avoid the war because the expression of peace is bigger than the expression of war, the global resistance to war.

President Bush has said the game is over for Saddam Hussein. What will you do in the case of war?

We don’t care about what they are saying about us because all the world is with us. It’s not easy to start a war against us because of this resistance. You can see that in statements from all countries throughout the world.

Yes, with friends like these the need for jackbooted thug enemies seems to just whither away on the vine.

Still there seems to be some slight disagreement about the Iraqi police state’s cooperation with the United Nations regarding invading and plundering neighbors, developing biological weapons that cause liver cancer in children, using poison gas against ethnic minorities, and concealing evidence of this from the rest of the world.

Currently most countries say that Iraq hasn’t cooperated fully.

No, this is just what you hear from the United States of America and Britain. No other third country says that.

U.N. Chief Weapons inspector Hans Blix has also said that Iraq hasn’t yet fully cooperated.

No, he didn’t say that. He said something different. You have to listen to him again. And we expect him to say something different in his report in two days also.

This is like that skit where Michael Palin argues with John Cleese about whether or not they’re actually having an argument:

“This is not an argument.”

“Yes, it is.”

“No it’s not”

“Yes it is.”

Well, in the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt even to representatives of heavily armed regimes ruled by vicious tyrants, let’s listen to what Hans Blix is saying. Yesterday’s sound bite included something about a “change of heart” in Baghdad. That does indeed sound hopeful. This report expands on that a bit. "We are not at all at the end of the road," Mr. Blix said. "But nevertheless I'm bound to note, to register, nuances, and this I think was a new nuance."

That sounds like complete and total cooperation to me. I’m convinced. Saddam Hussein is clearly the voice of reason in this manufactured conflict.

I wonder if they award Noble Peace Prizes posthumously?

Fashion Industry Dresses Down the French

Whoa . . . even the fashionistas are annoyed at the French! Check out this editorial lambasting the Franco-fashion industry for rudeness to Americans above and beyond the norm.

This is serious. The French have certainly overplayed their hand if they’ve lost the support of haute couture.

I for one do not believe the French are cheese eating surrender monkeys. As Mark Steyn has so eloquently pointed out, the French are not afraid to deploy military force unilaterally when it's in their interest. Note the petit affaire unfolding the the Ivory Coast. France sought a U.N. resolution authorizing force . . . a week after France invaded in the country.

Rather, the French are playing geopolitics to win and ensnaring the Anglo-Saxon world in NGOs and treaties is simply part of the strategy. They are not burdened with any idealistic notions of building a world safe for democracy. They've seen that movie and it has a bad ending.

The French or far more like the Israelis . . . they no they know that in a crisis they can't count on anyone but themselves. They think in terms of survival. In their view the Allies landed in Normandy not to liberate France but to defeat Germany.

The French have no permanent friends . . . they have no "special relationships." They are cooly objective when they scan the horizon.

No one should ever underestimate the cynicism of the French. It's their most endearing trait.