Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Hurray for infidel magic!
I'm blogging from a train in central Italy via my Blackberry.

Spectacular day but the train is hot and unairconditioned. The windows open but as Europeans are oddly afraid of wind, all the windows remain closed . . . Except for mine

Ciao for niao.

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

How Did the USA Become a Warmonger?

Europeans have disliked Bush from the very beginning. Since his election they've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about what they hate about him.

The accepted wisdom, useful when waiting on line to see an old Michael Moore movie, is that Bush is a moron who is way out of his depth in the White House.

"Bush's first problem is to deal with the problems that are coming at him from every side. He had never been able to take the long view of things, rather has always made his plans from one day to the next. That is not possible in a war.

He is the worst sort of amateur. Politically clever, but otherwise weak."

Of course, now events are catching up with him and the weight of the burden is beginning to show.

"To see Bush on television and hear him over the radio, he is no longer an arrogant president, rather a broken man with a flat voice who was no longer master of the situation he had brought about."

Europeans like to think that they experienced elders to Americans. They are calm and reasoned pacifists because they know first-hand the horrors of war. They believe that some day the Americans will have to come around to the European way.

"Americans who believed that they would never even know a war was going on now have to start thinking like Europeans. They will have to pay taxes like we do.

We began by noting that Bush's government had presided over a catastrophic economy. When he took office his predecessor had left a balanced budget. He immediately began to spend money. He promised that his policies would restore economic and social health. In fact, however, the Bush policies threw billions of dollars out the window."

Europeans also believe the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror that began when Islamofascists attacked the United States on September 11.

To listen to them you'd think that it was all part of an effort, designed by neoconservatives, to distract American voters from the dire condition of their economy.

"Bush's election promises forced him to introduce new economic policies to stimulate the economy. Driven by his advisers he wasted countless billions in stimulating the economy, but could not end the crisis. Instead, the crisis in the United States intensified.

Once again driven by his Jewish advisers, the only remaining way for Bush to deal with the economic situation was to become a world warmonger. To prevent a domestic catastrophe, he created a world-wide catastrophe."

And now that the war is going badly, which even America's one-sided and superficial news media cannot conceal, the people confused and beginning to ask troubling questions.

"The natural result is that the war is not as popular as the American government would like it to be. The invasion of Iraq was greeted in the United States with remarkable indifference.

In the weeks and months thereafter, the American press tried to build enthusiasm for the war through every possible method. But the average American could not understand that he was in a war that was a matter of life and death. The press and government try daily to fight popular attitudes.

Although they do not understand what they are supposed to be fighting for, it is gradually dawning on them that they face years of sacrifice."

Eurpoeans saw this one coming. They spotted Bush as a problem early on and now they have nothing but contempt for the slow-witted American electorate.

"That is how naive the Americans are. They are like children playing with fire, who do not think they might be burned.

Their complete political immaturity is the only explanation as to why a sick man was elected president even though there was no doubt as to the dangers of his policies."

Of course, I'm not quoting Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, or Romano Prodi.

These are excerpts from "Amerika als Zerrbild europischer Lebensordnung," published by Der Reichsorganisationsleitung der NSDAP in 1942.

Basically, all I did was substitute the word "Bush" for "Roosevelt."

Scary how some things never change.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Islamic Public Relations Coup

You have to hand it to the Islamofascists. Just when we begin to question whether we in the West have sunk to their level of barbarity, they remind us what true barbarity looks like.

Since the news media is suddenly squeamish about publishing disturbing images that might provoke American outrage at Muslim terrorists, I have posted a link to the video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg here. And still photos are here. Interestingly, you won't seem them in the European press.

Beware, these sounds and images will stay with you for a very long time. The video was produced by our enemies. Next time someone says George Bush is the enemy, remind them that to our real enemies your head is the same as Nick Berg’s. Regardless of what the United States does or doesn’t do, these people would murder you just as enthusiastically as they did Mr. Berg.

The New York Times, which restrained itself from publishing a picture of the Berg beheading above the fold or from even describing it in anything but the most antiseptic terms, ran a long story today about a prisoner of the Americans who was mistreated in captivity. He was humiliated, deprived of sleep, he may have even been forced to wear women’s underwear – an unspeakable torture for a proud and stylin' jihadist.

Yet, as of the interview, he was alive. His head was firmly attached to his body. In fact, we wasn't even in prison anymore.

A double standard? Thankfully, yes.
With Support Like This Who Needs Opposition

The New York Times has make a science of the "faint praise" approach to journalism. In its coverage of the Bush and Kerry campaigns the Kerry camp definitely gets the short end of the stick.

President Bush sweeps into a rally of 10,000 supporters and Kerry rouses about 500 of his folks with incoherent lines like "(Bush) doesn't have a record to run away from" . . . Whatever that means.

One African-American Kerry support who admits he doesn't much like his candidate is sitting at a table inconveniently marked "white ticket holders only."

Kerry supporters. When not conflicted, sound downright confused.

His wife, Terri Forrest Reed, nodded from beneath a straw sun hat. "I'm a Republican," Ms. Reed whispered. "Don't tell anybody."

Not only that, she said, but as president of Thomas Jefferson Butler Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, she is tired of the Bush administration claiming it stands for Southern values.

In fact, Ms. Reed said, Mr. Bush reminds her of no one so much as a president who she said once betrayed the Constitution.

"That's right," she said. "Abraham Lincoln."

Bush is like Abraham Lincoln . . . and that's bad.

George Bush may be a vulnerable candidate but I'm still glad I'm not a Kerry supporter.

Why We Must "Lose" in Iraq

David Brooks makes an excellent point this morning. For the Bush Administration’s visionary policy for implanting democracy in the parched heart of the Middle East to succeed, the United States will have to be defeated.

Confident nations need a compelling birth legend. For the United States it is a ragtag band of citizen-Minutemen rising up to defeat the most powerful military power on earth. For France it is the people taking to the barricades to unseat the dynastic monarchy. In Switzerland it is three fiercely independent cantons joining together in confederation.

No nation can create an enduring birth legend based on outside assistance. The American Revolution legend tends to ignore the pivotal role played by the French Navy. The French legend filters out allied invasion and elevates the resistance fighter. The Swiss almost never mention the important role played by Japanese cavalry officers in overcoming the recalcitrant Appenzallers.

The Iraqis need a birth legend.

To date the defeat of fascism, the gunning down of the happy-go-lucky Hussein brothers, and the capture of Saddam all occurred because of the United States. This is unacceptable.

To lay the foundation of The Iraqi Birth Legend, the United States must be defeated in some symbolic way. The Iraqis must be able to say that they were in control of their destiny. A bitterly contested election might do the trick.

Would the Bush Administration be willing to risk even symbolic defeat in Iraq. Yes, if it meant the successful closure if the Iraqi theatre of the War on Terror.

Would that make it more difficult to address other failed states such as Syria, Iran or North Korea? No. If anything, Iraqi Freedom proved that the United Nations and the Coalition of the Unwilling, no matter how vocal in their opposition, are largely impotent and inconsequential.

The Kims and Osamas of the world are the audience. And the prospect of an independent and confident Iraq would be undeniable loss of them regardless of the legend.