Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:09:00 PM (Archive Link)
Remember, if you have any feedback or comments on what you read here, feel free to e-mail me at danman78ks@yahoo.com. I’d love to hear from you.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:09:00 PM (Archive Link)
Plenty of stuff today… enjoy.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:07:00 PM (Archive Link)
The U.S. is again introducing a “final” resolution to the UN Security Council in order to disarm Iraq. Is this necessary? Absolutely not. The language of Resolution 1441 clearly states that Saddam is in material breach of previous resolutions and that serious consequences would follow if he didn’t immediately fall into line. So from a legalistic standpoint, a new resolution isn’t needed. I tend to think that this new effort is more for Tony Blair than anything since British public opinion is strongly opposed to a war not blessed by the UN. I also doubt that all the military pieces are quite yet in place and so Bush is content to go back to the UN once more. I’m hoping that once the armed forces are ready, he won’t hesitate on sending them in because of UN stagnation.

I also find the nature of the draft resolution interesting in that it’s very direct and concise. It doesn’t reiterate Powell’s speech to the Security Council, it doesn’t go into great detail, it just ticks off each of the 17 resolutions passed in the last 12 years and declares Iraq in violation of them all, especially 1441. Then it simply says Saddam has already used (and squandered) his last chance. It almost seems as if the document was meant to be thrown into the faces of the other countries with a mocking question of, “Here’s what he’s done, whatchya gonna do about it?” In other words, it’s a challenge to France, Germany, and Russia, as much as anything else.

Concerning those three countries, they released a memo today that essentially called for more inspectors instead of military action. This is absurd. Resolution 1441 (which you can read here) clearly states the requirement of immediate compliance with all resolutions, for the inspectors’ unfettered access to whatever sites they choose, the ability to freeze all activity around said sites, that Iraq take no hostile actions against any member state acting to uphold any council resolutions, that inspectors will have the “free and unrestricted” use of surveillance aircraft, and that inspectors may question relevant persons without government minders and that these persons and their families may be transported out of Iraq for questioning. Do you see any problems here? Activity isn’t frozen around sites, Iraq fires at aircraft patrolling no-fly zones and that are supporting council resolutions, we have to constantly negotiate the possibility and use of surveillance aircraft, a total of three scientists were interviewed without minders (and at least one was scared spitless Iraq would throw him in a dugeon afterwards), and we can’t take anybody out of Iraq. It’s perfectly obvious for all to see that Iraq is not obeying 1441 and he is, in fact, doing everything possible to hinder inspections. It’s seems that the dictates of the resolution were a guidebook to Saddam on just how to disobey. The inspectors will never find anything that Hussein doesn’t want them to find. More and increased inspections just mean a slight increase in deception and effort on the part of Iraq. More inspectors also means greater security risks… the more people who know a secret, the less chance that it’s still a secret.

One more note on the Franco-Deutch-Russo memo… it contains this line, “The Security Council must step up its efforts to give a real chance to the peaceful settlement of the crisis.” “Give peace a chance,” anybody? Even the diplomats are resorting to platitudes.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:05:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read this article from the Omaha World-Herald concerning a speech Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel gave at Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS. He claims that on the issue of Iraq he is neither a hawk nor a dove, but the speech makes it very clear that he’s anti-war. At one point, he said, “We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?” And elsewhere: “Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is shortsighted and dangerous… Today, America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency of the use of force to disarm Iraq. In Europe and in many corners of the globe, America is perceived as determined to use force in Iraq to the exclusion of world opinion or the interests of our allies, even those allies who share our concerns about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. America must balance its determination with patience and not be seen as in a rush to war.” So, he’s opposing war on the basis that the U.S. wants to do it “alone.” Considering that many more countries have come out in support of America’s position than against it and that the majority of European nations also support us, this idea is completely false. It’s a pernicious falsehood, however, that many cling to as truth.

Another aspect of Hagel’s speech that’s often seen elsewhere is that America is the country wrecking alliances. That largely assumes that the other countries are already correct and we are coming from the incorrect position. I’d rather take the view that we are correct and other nations, such as France, are the ones who are damaging the various coalitions by their misguided obstinacy. The difference, however, is that America is always much more willing than other countries to adopt the blame for when things go wrong. I guess it’s because we’re so arrogant as the French like to say.

As another way to support his point of unilateralism-is-bad, Hagel also, “brought up his own experience in Vietnam, which he described as a well-intentioned war that went wrong. Hagel said Vietnam was the only time that the United States acted militarily on a large scale without wide international support.” This is a horrible comparison. I’m no fan of comparing wars in different time periods and this is an example. I don’t think any respectable historian would ever say Vietnam went badly because the U.S. went it alone. Additionally, in the coming action against Iraq, the stated purpose is the overthrow of the regime. Defeat of North Vietnam was never the purpose of that war.

This also brings up the point that a war is only successfully executed if the enemy government is overthrown and replaced with one that is more amenable to the victor. This has been true throughout history. A limited victory that allows the warring enemy to remain in power nearly always means that the war is not finished, just interrupted. The enemy will use the peaceful interim to rebuild power and again be a threat. The Roman Republic suffered two wars against Carthage before finally destroying the city in the Third Punic War. More recently, North Korea was never defeated and is again becoming a problem and Iraq has been an international thorn for 12 years because Hussein was allowed to stay in power. Aggressors cannot be contained, they cannot be dissuaded, they can only be destroyed. It’s time to finish the job in Iraq.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:04:00 PM (Archive Link)
I was thinking recently about the anti-war protestors and how many left-leaning commentaries gushed about how the demonstrations harkened back to the days of Vietnam protests. No surprise… that was the last time protests were effective and doomsayers had any prescience. Where are all the bad things that were supposed to happen during or after the Cold War, Gulf War I, or Afghanistan? Where are the millions slaughtered? Where are the Muslim uprisings? They didn’t happen. Some like to call these folks Cassandra’s which is incorrect since the reverse is true. Cassandra made accurate predictions that nobody believed (that’s what you get for rebuffing Apollo!), these people, though, make false predictions that many believe.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:03:00 PM (Archive Link)
Much has been made lately of affirmative action and its legality and morality. It should be done away with. Affirmative action is essentially the forced preference of one racial group on the assumption that without it, preference will be unfairly and prejudicially bestowed on another racial group. My view on affirmative action is that it was once necessary in that government, institutions, and companies favored whites over minorities. Affirmative action forced integration of these entities and has changed managerial attitudes towards these groups over several generations. The evolution and efficacy of law in defending equal opportunity has also come a long way and the courts are therefore an effective recourse in the event of actual discrimination resulting from removal of affirmative action rules. Now that the law and institutional practices have evolved to sufficiently ensure non-discrimination in the workplace and admissions processes, there is simply no need to create or maintain rules that assume such discrimination still exists and will run rampant unless otherwise counteracted. In other words, this isn’t the 1960’s and we need to stop acting like it is.

Now given that there are still rules in effect that dictate minority hiring, contracting, admittance, etc., I think they’re a shame and work most against the minorities themselves. Affirmative action leaves the minorities in a state of feeling inferior to whites, engenders an attitude in government and elsewhere that is exactly the opposite of what it’s supposed to generate, and it gives the illusion of successes which create an attitude of complacency when real progress still needs to be made.

If you have a group that believes it must depend on governmental intercession to ensure their representation in government, schools, companies, etc., then it automatically puts them in the position of feeling inferior because that’s what it assumes. Affirmative action encourages a victimization complex among those it’s intended to supposedly benefit. By its very nature, it states that group A is inferior to group B and must therefore be given preferential treatment. An individual who is constantly told that this is the way of things will feel resentment toward group B, will feel as if true merit-based achievement is unattainable and non-existent, and can produce a feeling of despair in the face of an unfair world which produces inaction in the quest for self-improvement. In short, affirmative action constantly tells the minority that they are not good enough on their own and this breeds contempt, bitterness, and despair. It is an utter psychological assault that civil rights leaders commit upon those who they claim to hold dear.

Affirmative action doesn’t result in negative attitudes among just the minorities, but in government and companies as well. Since it assumes that minorities need help in advancement, then lawmakers and the managerial class necessarily looks down on minorities as inferior. This is essentially the flip-side of the previous argument. The minorities see themselves as underprivileged and in need of help and now the “privileged” look down on them as well. There’s the nannied and the nanny. So instead of the idea that minorities are able and capable on their own, the powers that be see them as inferior and needing constant help. The entities that are supposed to aid in advancement are inhibiting actual growth in the minorities.

Also, while there are certainly innumerable minority achievements that are well-deserved and well-earned, affirmative action mandates that there are many false achievements. If there are less-qualified individuals who are being admitted to post-secondary educational institutions or who are being promoted, it creates the illusion that real progress is being made; it makes it seem that highly qualified individuals are earning their accomplishments when they actually are not. As such, the degree of success is not, in reality, occurring. Since it is only the illusion of merited progress that exists, real progress remains elusive. The illusion, though, creates complacency where real efforts still need to be made. There are still strong reasons to improve education at the basic level and to improve communities and cultures. Only by doing this will real progress be made.

Affirmative action now does the opposite of what it originally set out to accomplish. Instead of advancing minorities, it now holds them back; instead of empowering, it weakens; instead of building respect, it builds pity. The war for equality is not yet won; the battle for attitudes was successful, but the battle for real merit-based equality is still being waged. Affirmative action, though, works against a real meritocracy. It kills spirits and puts a poor gloss on an unfortunate reality. It’s an idea whose time is past.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:03:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve noticed recently that those on the liberal side tend to pride themselves on championing the common man. At the same time, however, they abhor him. They believe themselves to be of the working class, but they’re also shining intellectuals. They think they’re representative of the average joe, but they denigrate him should the real Joe disagree. What you wind up with is the liberal elite on one side and a bunch of dolts on the other. If you’re the common man and you agree with the liberal elite, then you are considered to be some poor, dumb, kind soul they must benevolently lead and enlighten. If you’re the common man and you disagree with them, then you’re a poor, dumb schmuck who is too intolerant/bigoted/uneducated to treat with any respect. As such, you have only the liberal intellectuals at the top who must crush the stupid opposition and bring light and hope to the stupid support… to the uneducated proletariat. Wait… maybe there is a little Marx at the heart of all good liberals.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
Lots of stuff going on lately. First, let me point you to a couple of really great articles in NationalReview.com.

The first is by Jonah Goldberg in which he makes a terrific argument about the negative consequences of current French appeasement.

The second, by Rod Dreher, concerns to good Reverend Jesse Jackson and his connections to the deadly club fire in Chicago. Yet another example of Jesse being a first-rate huckster, liar, and opportunist who long sold out African-Americans for some green.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
On to war matters. I’m sure you are familiar with the anti-war demonstrations that occurred last weekend. Earlier today, I was watching on C-SPAN recordings of some speakers at the London rally. It was interesting because it was one long stream of speakers who were playing to people’s emotions, issuing poor arguments (if issuing an argument at all), throwing out wild unsupportable figures, and using a great deal of Marxist rhetoric. Something I’ve noticed about these people is that many of them are incapable of putting forth cogent arguments in favor of their position. They instead bleat tired old slogans or call Bush a fascist without having a clue what it means. If challenged with reason and logic, they will resort to a safety position by accusing you of being a corporate stooge or the like. As the uninformed will do, they smack on a label that elevates them and their opinions by no virtue except that the label has been placed.

Among the oft said slogans is “No Blood For Oil.” This is the notion that the U.S. wants to attack Iraq only to secure its oil supplies. Of all the arguments to make against the war, this is probably the absolute worst for several reasons. First, Iraqi oil makes up only 2% of America’s usage. That’s not too much. We seem to have pretty stable gas prices with very little Iraqi oil. Second, with more oil supplies coming online in Russia and South America, the importance of Middle Eastern oil has slackened considerably. Third, if all America was interested in was oil, we could get at it a lot more easily than war. Long ago, we could have told Saddam we’d support the lifting of UN sanctions if we get fat oil contracts. Fourth, world oil prices are at good levels right now and have been (the current price spike is due to striking Venezuelan oil workers, not Iraq). Good prices mean good profits for American oil companies. If more oil comes into the market, prices and profits go down. Fifth, an attack on Iraq will probably result in Saddam torching the oil fields and the infrastructure which will require billions and years to rebuild and that’s not all that appealing to many companies. And finally, sixth, if we only wanted Iraq’s oil, then we would have taken over the oil fields in the first Gulf War. People conveniently forget that.

Another aspect of the protests that you can read about here and here on TheNation.com is that the antiwar crowd is of the opinion that the demonstrations were of monumental, historical importance and that practically the whole world is against an Iraq war and that makes them right. A few million folks getting together and chanting does not make a majority. What’s also frustrating is that these demonstrators are all full of moral self-righteousness and they think they’re being courageous by opposing their government’s view. These are people who are protesting in a free and democratic country where such things are allowed and encouraged. It doesn’t take courage to pick up a sign and walk a few miles while yelling and then go home again. I can’t help but wonder if anybody at the rallies took the time to consider what would have happened to Iraqi crowd protesting against Saddam Hussein’s policies. They most definitely would not be peacefully going home at the end of it all. The demonstrators also believe that rallies indicate that they are right. They would never entertain the idea that so many people could actually be wrong even though it’s happened in the past. I do wonder, however, when years from now after Iraq has been liberated, the Iraqi people are happy, and all of Saddam’s evil-doing is brought to the light of day, if these people will admit to their children that they protested to keep the man in power.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:53:00 PM (Archive Link)
Since I already mentioned The Nation earlier, I’ll point out two parts in one of the articles. “Well, here we are--in our millions, yet each of us a visible individual, carrying an individual sign, often homemade (in New York, one read, My Planet, Right or Wrong), as if some global schoolteacher had given us all the following assignment: ‘Say what's wrong with the war on Iraq in ten words or less.’” This goes back to my previous comment about how slogans take priority over logic. I don’t even state my reasons for going to the grocery store in ten words or less. And yet, that’s what it should take for demonstrating the proper course on a huge international issue. The second part reads thus, “When terrorists attacked the Pentagon and knocked down the World Trade Center on September 11, everyone marveled that nineteen men had coordinated their actions for evil with such efficiency. On February 15, 10 million coordinated their actions for good. February 15 was the people's answer to September 11.” I’m sometimes amazed at how some people will admirably portray the actions of these terrorists.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:52:00 PM (Archive Link)
For more on the protesters and their inaneness, go here and watch the video. It’s quite amusing.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:51:00 PM (Archive Link)
If you want some evidence of the nature of the man the protests are trying to protect, check out this site and this site and learn about and see the results of Saddam’s gassing “experiments.”

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
An interesting article concerning Carl Bernstein. In it, he criticizes the media for laziness and “abandoning the search for the best obtainable version of the truth for news that sells.” He uses the demonstrations as an example saying they were presented poorly on the news. What I read into this is that the media isn’t being liberal enough. Personally, I would prefer that the media not present a “version” of truth to me.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
Here’s an article discussing starts protesting the war. What I like about it is that a few celebrities mention that’s there’s a backlash against them publicly expressing their views. Here’s how they explain the phenomenon:

“‘There's already a backlash,’ Farrell said, dismissing it as an ‘organized attempt by the right wing.’

Garofalo said a backlash against antiwar celebrities is a creation of the media, which purposely focuses its attention on Hollywood activists in order to marginalize the peace movement.”

They just can’t seem to imagine that perhaps they’re catching flak because people either disagree with them or simply don’t want to listen to their opinions. No, no, it can’t possibly be that… there’s a conspiracy afoot.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/20/2003 11:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ll end with a Clinton comment. A while back, I mentioned how Bill is trying to declare the Agreed Framework with North Korea a success because NK now has one or two nuclear weapons instead of the “50" it would now have otherwise. He said that… “50.” On Larry King the other night, he made the same attempt, except now NK has one or two weapons instead of “100.” Yep, old Bill saved us from ever-increasing disaster.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/14/2003 10:30:00 PM (Archive Link)
Short Clinton comment.... first read this mock satire article on TheOnion.com. It jokes about how North Korea is like a little kid who is just trying to get some attention from America in whatever way it can. Then read this CNN.com article about a speech that Bill Clinton gave. In it, he said of NK, "They feel that the only way to get our attention, and the rest of the world, is to misbehave." Either Bill is using The Onion as a news source or we now have proof that his view of the world (and his foreign policy) is a joke.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/11/2003 11:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
Check out this article. These people have got to take the prize for the world’s stupidest individuals. Not only are they intentionally putting themselves in death’s way, but they’re doing it in order to preserve the reign of a megalomaniacal dictator who himself has never had any qualms about killing people in some really horrible ways. He stands for everything that I’m sure they oppose. Here they are, though, playing right into his hands. If Saddam ever giggles like a little girl, then he probably does so when he thinks about these folks.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/11/2003 11:50:00 PM (Archive Link)
Sometimes, ya gotta love old John McCain. Read this speech he gave to the European parliament in which he blatantly chastised the French and Germans for their positions on Iraq. He’s a straight-talkin’ man indeed.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/11/2003 11:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
I recently read an article (for once, I don’t remember where), that accused France and Germany of unilateralism and it’s true. That’s usually the charge laid against America, but it’s losing its force. In fact, I can’t recall hearing it too much recently. As Australia and the majority of Europe have publicly stated their solidarity and agreement with the U.S. position, we can no longer be honestly called unilateralist. Rather, we have now become multilateralist. France and Germany, however, are consistently opposing our resolve and our proposals in the UN. As a result, they are now the ones acting unilaterally.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/11/2003 11:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
Speaking of Old Europe, you should also read this piece from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. It’s written by the former head of Iraq’s nuclear program and he describes not only how inspections is a truly fruitless process but he also details how France and Germany sold Iraq much of its WMD technology. Many are starting to speculate that the two countries are so anxious to keep the U.S. from invading Iraq because the governments would be extremely embarrassed by what skeletons will turn up in Saddam’s closet. It would reflect rather poorly on Chirac and Schroeder if it were discovered their respective nations knowingly sold Iraq illegal weaponry and technology that circumvented UN sanctions.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/05/2003 10:03:00 PM (Archive Link)
Some reactions concerning Colin Powell’s briefing to the UN Security Council… I think it’s now more obvious than ever that Iraq poses a massive threat to the world community. What I find astounding is the reactions of other countries. For over an hour, Powell factually demonstrated how Saddam Hussein has flouted and is flouting every UN resolution put against, how it is actively concealing its weapons programs, how the inspectors are being hoodwinked, and how it is linked to Al Qaeda. Then countries such as France get the podium and say we should give the inspectors more time to find things, we should strengthen the inspection force and we should consider passing new resolutions. It’s really quite embarrassing. The UN is actively turning itself into the League of Nations through its absolute passiveness; by its utter unwillingness to put its money where its mouth is. When Hussein has openly mocked the UN for 12 years with no real consequences, what reason does he have to believe the UN will ever follow through its constant threats? It’s as if a murderer on parole commits another murder and the parole officer sternly warns him not to do it again or he’ll go back to prison… and then this scene repeats itself multiple times. Why should the murderer stop killing?

Powell was right when he said the inspectors are not detectives. They are not meant to hunt around the country trying to find Iraq’s dirty secrets. They are supposed to verify Iraq’s destruction of its WMD and the associated programs and Iraq is supposed to assist the inspectors in this endeavor and prove that it has been accomplished. By all reports, though, and by everyone’s admittance, Iraq is not doing that. Hans Blix himself said that Iraq’s non-cooperativeness and its deception is glaring. Security Council resolution 1441 starts with the precept that Iraq currently exists in material breach of previous demands and resolutions… it assumes guilt until Iraq can prove its innocence. However, the attitude of the UN is the other way around. Everybody wants to say Hussein is innocent until the inspectors come across a cache of prohibited weapons. They don’t even abide by their own resolutions.

As far as the effectiveness of the inspectors goes, I think the nature of its weapons program is most telling. After the Gulf War, Iraq insisted it had no biological or chemical weapons programs. It said this for almost five years and the inspectors never found evidence of either. In fact, the inspectors were prepared to declare Iraq in compliance with disarmament resolutions. Then Saddam’s son-in-law defected and gave us all sorts of interesting intelligence that led to the discovery of very developed biological and chemical weapons programs. For almost five years, the inspectors knew nothing about this until an Iraqi with high-level knowledge told us. Hussein and his forces are experts, absolute professionals, at concealing material and information. To put faith in the inspectors is absurd.

Something in the responses that I believe is telling is that nobody is really rebutting the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They’re concentrating only on the weapons issues. I guess they don’t have anything to say against this rather potent justification for action.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/05/2003 10:02:00 PM (Archive Link)
How out of step can the Democrats be? The big news of the day, obviously, was Powell’s speech to the UN. So long about 1:30 PM Central Time, Fox News announces they’re going to a Tom Daschle press conference. Excellent, I thought! I wanted to hear the Democratic response to Powell from the party’s Senate leader. What was he talking about, though? Judicial confirmations in the Senate! Not that it isn’t important, but it was utterly out of place. In fact, after a minute or so, Fox cut away because it had nothing to do with the big story and was taking away from their analyzation of the big story. It’s as if the entire world is talking about oranges and Daschle, grinning, says, “I like apples.” It was one of the silliest things I’ve seen and loses for the Democrats whatever little credibility they had in the foreign policy arena.

To add on to it all, Daschle was discussing the possible filibuster of Hispanic judicial nominees and he had other Hispanic politicians behind him to support his cause saying they didn’t like the nominees either. Nobody plays the race card like the Dems. Imagine if the Republicans had done that.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/05/2003 10:00:00 PM (Archive Link)
I’ve decided I really don’t like Nelson Mandela. The man may have helped end apartheid in South Africa but his foreign policy skills are terrible. Check out these two news items here and here. Before Powell spoke at the UN, he said, “We are going to listen to [the inspectors] and to them alone. We are not going to listen to the United States of America. They are not telling us how they got that information.” This, of course, is nonsense. As part of the UN Security Council, the U.S. partially oversees the inspectors and has authority over them. Also as a member of the Council, the U.S. has a vested interest in things and can declare things aren’t working. The inspectors don’t have authority over the UN, it’s the other way around. Also, why in the world would Powell tell the whole world exactly where, how, or from whom they got their intelligence? That’s a sure fire way to never being able to obtain any more information. Mandela went on to say, “What I am condemning is that two countries (the U.S. and the U.K.) should go out of the United Nations and have their own separate program, should actually undermine the United Nations.” Every country has a right to their own national self-interests and the currents ones of the U.S. happen to coincide with world interests whether the world realizes it or not. Additionally, I believe America and Britain are the only two nations who are willing to support the legitimacy of the United Nations. All others are perfectly happy to stand by while the world body slips into irrelevance.

Of course, Mandela wasn’t full of hot air just today, he was also blowing smoke a couple of days ago. He said that America is “one power with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.” Apparently, if you don’t agree with the great Mandela, you can’t think properly and that’s what this amounts to. He also said, “if there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America.” He didn’t bother to back up this comment and he wouldn’t have been able to. You want some more? Here ya go, “Mandela said U.S. President George W. Bush covets the oil in Iraq ‘because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil in the world. What Bush wants is to get hold of that oil.’ In fact Iraq contributes to only 5 percent of world oil exports.” 64 percent?! Talk about plucking numbers out of the air (or other places). But wait, here’s the best part: [Bush and Tony Blair] do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations (Kofi Annan) is now a black man?” C’mon! Mandela is just flat off his rocker! I mean these are Harry Belafonte-type comments coming from the great Nobel laureate. It’s actually rather unfortunate that a man of such import would make these sorts of unsupported, factually incorrect statements and wild, slanderous accusations. I would like to think he’s lost some respect, but knowing how things work, I doubt it.

Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/03/2003 11:25:00 PM (Archive Link)
If you’ve never watched any coverage of the British House of Commons on CSPAN, you should. At least once. It’s quite entertaining. The MP’s address their questions to the House Speaker but they’re really intended for the Prime Minister who’s sitting right there. An example, “Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the Prime Minister can explain such and such…” Then Tony Blair will step up to his podium and respond. Also, they always refer to each other as “Right Honorable Gentlemen” or “Right Honorable Friend.” If the MP’s agree with something that’s said, they’ll stand up for a second or two and then sit down. If they disagree, they’ll make a grumbling noise. It’s a constant Q&A of the Prime Minister, though, like some extended cross-ex. Blair’s up to the challenge and it’s impressive to see just how nimble he is at answering questions. It’s also odd to see a foreign government openly debating American policy. I’ll also say that Tony Blair is a true friend of the American people and the best ally we have.

Speaking of, you might find this article interesting. It discusses England’s relationships to America and to the EU and the choices it must make in how close to be to each. Personally, I think the more distance it keeps from the mainlanders, the better. Any country that joins the EU will increasingly lose its own autonomy. What’s good for the EU is not what will be good for Britain politically, militarily, or economically.