Tuesday, April 11, 2006

A sophisticated point of view

Bruce Bawer begins his article in the Hudson Review entitled The Crisis in Europe with these arresting opening paragraphs.

My learning curve was steep. When I look back, it’s as if one day the whole business wasn’t even on my radar screen, and the next day I understood that it was the most important issue of our time. ... Yet nobody talked about it. Or wanted to.

What it is might be perhaps the most important subject never discussed. Like the protagonist in some mystery novel Bawer discovers what it is. But he finds that apart from the men in the street, no one else can see it. Bawer continues:

To turn from all these books, which illuminate the challenges now facing Europe in a variety of ways, to Timothy Garton Ash’s [book] Free World is to step through the looking glass from reality into fantasy. Most of the writers I’ve discussed here are scorned by the academic establishment for their politically incorrect views; Garton Ash, by contrast, is a professor at Oxford, where he directs the European Studies Centre, and is a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. He is considered a world-class expert on Europe and its future, and he refers frequently in his book to his participation in glamorous-sounding international conferences on weighty topics. In short, he is at the heart of the European academic elite—and his book’s main value, it turns out, is that it is an absolutely perfect example of today’s European-elite mentality in all its arrogance, self-delusion, and folly. ...

As he sees it, the rise of a self-segregating, anti-democratic minority in Europe is not a problem; the problem is that some people are concerned about this development. “The populations of Europe,” he explains, “are aging fast, so more immigrants will be needed to support the pensioners, and these will largely be Muslim immigrants. For this increasingly Muslim Europe to define itself against Islam would be ridiculous and suicidal.”

It's a feature, not a bug.

Europe, he writes, needs “more cross-cultural knowledge . . . How many non-Muslims know when or what Eid-ul-Fitr [a Muslim holiday] is?” ... Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.” He gushes: “That would not be nothing.”

No, Bawer says. It would be something else.


I'm not entirely certain what consequences the large Muslim population in Europe will have. But it seems fairly safe to assert that it should be the subject of rational debate. It can't be some kind of verboten subject banished from political and academic conversation. Yet slowly but surely it has crept into the public view, discussed mostly in coded messages in the way that political campaigns in China were once described by reference to something completely different. "Let a thousand flowers bloom" was never about horticulture.

What convinces me above all that Bawer is onto something is precisely this recourse to orbicular reference and coded speech. The hallmark of a real horror story is that you never want to look into the dark. Even if there's nothing there.


Blogger Ivan Douglas said...

France besides "islam"problem has its
own problem given by "nature" of French people.Deep into history goes "this" torment of country and its citizens.Is there mark giving knowledge who is tormented and who is tormentor?

France Beyond Remedy: Sarkozy a Worthy Dauphin of Chirac
From the desk of Paul Belien on Tue, 2006-04-11 13:13

France is beyond remedy. The country is heading for collapse, and its fate will be well deserved. As expected the French trade unions and the rioting leftwing vandals (aka “students”) in the streets won the fight for political supremacy over parliament and the government. Yesterday the French president Jack Chirac withdrew the French youth labour bill (CPE), approved earlier by a parliamentary majority, while the man he stabbed in the back by doing so, Chirac’s former dauphin and France’s Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, announced that he will not stand for the presidential elections next year.

4/11/2006 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger Dr. Sanity said...

And to complement the psychological denial of the European academic elites, we have the officially sanctioned distortion of language, as documented here.

4/11/2006 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger Ivan Douglas said...

Unbelievable effect.Academy in every state cannot understand what happens in its own country.People from "street" see it,understand and Academy despises theirs knowledge.

This effect destroyes Sumer,Babylon,Egypt,Greece,Rome.....
Now EU and North America?

4/11/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger Ivan Douglas said...

Beautiful example:B.Shaw was surprised that waitress on train so perfectly handles English.

4/11/2006 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...


Rhetoric out of EuroLand is little more than subterfuge. Not to be taken seriously but for the opposite. I expect there to be a great slaughter before too long.

4/11/2006 05:43:00 PM  
Blogger Ivan Douglas said...


I pray you were right,even if all mine familly is there.

4/11/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger Ivan Douglas said...

You might be on to something.
1400 years long war must have many forms.

4/11/2006 05:55:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

From the Doctors link -

"Omar Faruk, a Muslim British barrister who has advised the government on community issues, said there was a strong need for a "new sort of political dialogue and terminology".

Asked about the phrase "Islamic terrorism", he said: "Those words cannot sit side by side. Islam is actually very much against any form of terrorism ... Islam in itself means peace."

4/11/2006 06:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nepal: Malaria, Polio, Monarchy
Nepal: Hamro Nepal: Draft Constitution
Nepal: Protests
Nepal: Nepali Mandir
Nepal: Mero Sansar Video Clips 5
Nepal: Happy New Year 2063
Nepal: Interim Constitution, Revolutionary Parliament
Nepal: Shoot At Sight Order: Dead End For The King

4/11/2006 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...


I see the debate that Wretchard mentions in his commentary being tilted toward the Islamic side. If words are banned, how do you correctly describe the issue? This war is close to being lost on the EU front. Not a "shot" fired from the EU side. Dhimmitude needs to have a spotlight put on it. Now.

4/11/2006 06:08:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

Make that - that you mention... Starting early...

4/11/2006 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Thanks Paramendra for reminding us of Nepal, which has flown under the radar and is reported in the pages somewhere between Scooter Libby and American Idol. What do you think is going to happen in Nepal?

4/11/2006 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

It is incredible to think that people actually propose that the indigent inhabitants of Islamic or other backward nations will migrate to the West, bringing with them their precious culture, and immediately - or even eventually - become prosperous, law abiding, and innovative members of a far more advanced and arguably superior culture.

Some would have us believe that people who have repeatedly demonstrated the remarkable ability - over the past several hundred years - to “cross thread a bowling ball” will slide right in to positions of responsibility and carry on in the manner of their utterly alien European predecessors. Wretchard recently observed that if the Islamic fanatics captured Europe they would have a huge base of advanced technology to work with. Sorry! Ain’t gonna happen! And the night cleaning crew at Boeing will not sit down one evening and design the successor to the 777, either. The inhabitants of slums do not move en masse into neighborhoods with million dollar homes and carry on like Thurston Howell III. Hell, they would not even carry on like Gilligan would.

What will happen is that the inmates will take over the asylum – and then constantly complain that those in charge are too lucid. Today the combined efforts of the Islamic nations are outstripped by that economic powerhouse, Finland. Give them the whole of Europe, and Costa Rica will assume that position.

Eventually they will find the last few ships afloat and make for the refuge of North America. There will be no last helicopter out for them; there will be none left flying.

4/11/2006 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

The problem is difficult to analyze from this vantage, largely because the Europe that Muslim immigrants would presumably be assimilating into is itself difficult to comprehend in the round: the recent anti-EU voting results suggest one thing about the populace, and another about the elites. Given the reach of the beauraucracy, though, and the apparent decadence of the popular culture there (yes, pot/black), in combination with the outright inanity of academic and artistic production, it would seem that even Muslims eager to become "French" would not, in 21st Century France, know exactly how to do that. As the Muslim kids interviewed in the papers say, "How would I be British? Disobey my parents and smoke spliffs in techno clubs and drink til I puke in public trashcans?" I'm sure there's hyperbole there, but not enough. Europe has a European problem as much as it has a Muslim problem; it too has not dealt well at all with the transition from Monarchy to Republicanism. Obviously, the Aristocracy endures despite different names and several revolutions. This is a problem. Muslim/Arab/Turkish culture does have a strong traditional sense of justice, and not just the "you're unjust because you don't pray 5 times a day" kind. Reading that Guardian (!) article about the Afghan kid from Guantanamo who ended up loving Americans was especially heartening when it came to the part about the boy's Afghani village uncles, who decided at the boy's word that the Americans were good because the boy said so - they educated him, they respected Islam, they kept him fed and allowed him to play soccer - and they viewed that as determinative. Now that is some sweet stuff: such a sense of proportion that even imprisonment was forgiven because their dear boy was obviously totally unharmed. None of this decadent suspicion - just men sizing each other up honestly.

But Mohammed Atta chose Hamburg for a reason. The preachers in Finsbury Park know exactly what they are doing. France - as a recent trip to Paris revealed - chooses to deal with the problem dishonestly: I several times - like 4 times - saw French soldiers running down a street after an apparently Muslim guy, in one case detaining one and opening his metal-type suitcase up and rummaging around in it. It's hard not to conclude that these folks are Freaked Out - and I was there during August, when literally 3/4 of Paris is closed all through the day.

Europe was diminished and exhausted by World War II. The Muslims in their midst may want to assimilate, but they probably don't see why - on the level of straight up "is it more noble than what I do already?" - they should do so.

Also, they're often barbarians, so what the hell. Alaric sacked Rome because he wanted to be made Head of the Roman Army - bah I forget the title. Visigoths, Goths - all of them preserved for at least 3 centuries the Roman habits, titles, and so on, despite Rome's obvious decline when they fully arrived. But Rome did not rise again.

4/11/2006 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger The Ayatollah said...

Well, it certainly looks like Europe is lost, but that might be an illusion.

Look, Europe gave birth to Hitler, Napoleon, and the like. There could come a point when the people there rise up and cast off their elite, and then go to town on these Muslim interlopers.

And who could stop the purging? Not the Muslims in Europe. These people are ignorant and strategically isolated. Fact is, the Muslims would all stave to death if the welfare payments stopped.

Controlling the situation in Europe is a lot easier than most people think. All it takes is a little will and some ruthlessness.

and who know, maybe the elite over there are playing rope-a-dope for some reason we just can't quite figure out yet.

4/11/2006 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

The future does not bode well for countries that have lost their soul. Much of Western Europe is in the throes of a Kavorkian episode.

The former Soviet satellites have little breathing space in the vacuum left by USSR's capitulation and are largely ignored (Moldavia).

There is a sign of healthy, pink tissue in places like Poland and the Baltic states but they will need strong support in their efforts toward capitalism with so much disease in their midst.

Yes, Europe is ill. Best-case scenario - five years down the road Western Europe will have the feel of the ME today: Worst case - Mat's "great slaughter".

4/11/2006 06:38:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

And Europe definitely seems to be suffering from a problem of coincidences: post-war (I/II) cultural exhaustion as epitomized by the socialist/revolt impulse; Islamism ascending; the great Demographic Turnover - that is a heavy burden. DUring the time of our own great absorption of immigrants (who dealt with decades of bigotry themselves even when white and Christian and closely genetically related to Americans in many cases), the United States was ascendant: Eric Hobsbawm's economic breakdown shows that, according to things like telephones and steel production and per capita income and foreign investments, the United States was already the wealthiest country in the world by the turn of the century - and obviously things only got better. Europe, on the other hand, is at best in a kind of stasis. That could be an overstatement, but to redeem it Europe would have to rise quite a bit from where it is now, and it just doesn't seem like this Euro-integration melding-of-sovereignties thing is going to pan out effectively except in the "neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire" sense.

4/11/2006 06:48:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

danmyers, 6:08 PM

This was sent to Mika, yesterday.

Re: Makkah

MAKKAH, Jan 10: ('02) "Muslim scholars meeting in Makkah stressed on Thursday that terrorism is alien to Islam, which the West has often associated with terror since the September 11 attacks on the United States.

In a statement issued after a six-day meeting, a group of scholars affiliated to the Muslim World League spelled out their definition of terrorism, saying it applied to '“any unjustified attack by individuals, groups or states against a human being.”'


Those Muslim scholars are a hard audience - "any UNJUSTIFIED attack." Well, like Mr. Bush, I know I'll sleep better knowing that the scholars of Islam speak for the undisputed "Religion of Peace." I do have some reservation about "unjustified."

8:27 PM

4/11/2006 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...


Some who testified at the Senate Committee Hearing on Islamic Extremism believe the current situation is a confluence of the guest worker program, changes in the European structural economy, the rise of radical Islam after the discredit of Communism, maybe with some oil money thrown in creating a witches brew that is part European problem part Islamic problem.

And for whatever reason the confluence touches all the taboo subjects of Europe. It's a can of worms which if opened will leave nothing untrammeled.

But that doesn't make it go away. For that reason Europe is likely to sleepwalk itself into a perfectly avoidable cliff. Can't look, but can't stop walking.

4/11/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

". Imagining “Europe in 2025 at its possible best,” he pictures it as a “partnership” with Arab countries and Russia that would extend “from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok.” He gushes: “That would not be nothing.”

Indeed! It would be the Third World.

4/11/2006 07:11:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

For this increasingly Muslim Europe to define itself against Islam would be ridiculous and suicidal.”
The humor of this of course is that the man -- by saying this--has himself become ridiculous and suicidal.

4/11/2006 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger Yusef said...

“The populations of Europe,” [Garton Ash] explains, “are aging fast, so more immigrants will be needed to support the pensioners, and these will largely be Muslim immigrants."

The unspoken assumptions are staggering.

Is it impossible to even imagine that Europeans might once again begin to form familys and have children at a self sustaining rate?

Is it impossible to even imagine that Europeans might choose to fill some of their immigration needs from regions other than the middle east and south asia?

If we can't imagine it, we can't talk about it. If we can't talk about it, we can't do it.

But what if we could imagine it?

What if we could talk about it?

4/11/2006 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

From www.d-n-i.net

The Self-Proclaimed Other

By William S. Lind

The ongoing demonstrations and riots against a change in French labor laws are as normal for France as snails for dinner. Most Frenchmen agree that France is, and should remain, a mercantilist rather than a capitalist country. Every so often, a French government unwisely ignores this consensus and attempts to fire Monsieur Colbert from his permanent post as Minister of Economics. French workers take to the streets in protest, and after huffing and puffing for a while, the government gives in and restores Colbert to his honored post. It is one of the rites of spring, and no cause for genuine alarm.

But this year is different. A new, Fourth Generation presence has manifested itself. Roving gangs of young Islamics, many of them black, have joined the festivities. They have come not to march shoulder-to-shoulder with French students and workers, demonstrating the Left’s fraternité, but to assault, beat, kick and rob them. The Left, it seems, has a problem.

The European cultural Left, which includes most of the nominal European Right, has for decades proclaimed the desirability of “multi-culturalism.” Religion, culture, race, those basic ingredients of human history, were no longer to matter. Beneath such superstructures, all people were to be seen as the same, wanting material things, sharing warm feelings toward one another, united by class consciousness far more than they could ever be divided by mere accidents of birth. “Diversity” would unite the best from all cultures, while the worst would magically vanish.

In this culturally Marxist world view, the most heinous of sins was to suggest that someone else was “the Other.” That was racism, classism, fascism, and every other ism under the sun. Anyone who dared view another religion, culture or race as in any way unwelcome or even problematic was supposed to look in the mirror and see “another Hitler.”

In the case of the young Moslems who are attacking French demonstrators, however, it is not Le Pen and his followers who are labeling them “the Other.” They are proclaiming themselves “the Other,” and they are doing so forcefully.


4/11/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Related to Trish's post: It's the decadent, secular, libertines who (other than the Jews) will be the first to feel the wrath of the intolerant death cult. It's impossible for a burgeoning Islam to live side by side with hedonists. When Islam feels vigorous enough it will exert itself. That day will come sooner rather than later if the Wahhabists, the Iranians and others are allowed to feed the umma.

4/11/2006 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger fred said...

Anyone else out there besides yours truly who has read Bruce Bawer's recent book? I finished it about a month ago and found his reasoning about how multicultural surrender to Islamic demands, and the refusal of the Muslims to integrate, trenchant. Please, no more vapid Rodney King naivete ("Can't we all just get along?"), as if the immams and clerics can stop laughing at our dhimmi behavior. I have yet to have a conversation with one "intellectual" in my country (the U.S.)who knows as much about Islamic scriptures, history, and theology as I do, but never fails to point out how I overestimate the threat. I include professors and writers as interlocutors on this subject. Why are such people so blind to history and the enemy's intentions? Presumably, these are people whose vision of the future bears little resemblance to that envisioned by our enemies.

4/11/2006 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Wretchard - yeah isn't this issue fascinating? It's fascinating. I envy the future me who'll get to read about it in 150 years.

Hey how's your research into the Communist proxy - Islamist relationship going? What're your resources for that? Speaking of the Euro-Islam experience, these Mitrokhin files have a huge amount of info on the Muslims' in the Stans and Pakistanis' relationships to the USSR via the KGB. Really interesting, considering how it all erupted in the Tudah-Afghan episode & etc. I'd be interested in your analysis, in the continuing spirit of probing the larger Historical evolution leading to the present moment. Apart from Europe, which is interesting, the maelstrom seems to me to be the old Silk Road & Central Asia, about which resources, at least available to me (those $195 scholarly monographs are prohibitively expensive), are scarce.

4/11/2006 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Has anyone read Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia"? Her "Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" was pretty great.

4/11/2006 07:42:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

Seems to me I hear a similiar sound in the Gospel of Bruce Bawer and the Gospel of Judas. Here is a long and very interesting imho review in crosswalk.

Responding to The Gospel of Judas
R. Albert Mohler Jr.

Headlines around the world are announcing the publication of a "long lost" and "suppressed" ancient document, known as The Gospel of Judas. The National Geographic Society announced the publication at a major media event April 6, just in time to boost publicity for its special on the National Geographic Channel April 9.

The announcement led to a frenzy of media coverage, ranging from responsible reports to outrageous sensationalism. According to some commentators, the publication of this new document will force a complete reformulation of Christianity and our understanding of both Judas and Jesus. In reality, nothing of the sort is in view. The document is highly interesting, however, offering an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups who offered alternative understandings of Christianity.

The document purports to be written by Judas, even though it certainly was written long after Judas's death. Nevertheless, the very existence of this document, rooted in the third century after Christ, indicates something of the struggle Christian leaders confronted in defining and defending the authentic Gospel against heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

A quick look at The Gospel of Judas reveals the contrast between this document and the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The English version, edited by Rudolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, presents an accessible and readable version of the portions of the Codex Tchacos now available. The most remarkable feature of this text is its thoroughly Gnostic character. The substance of this Gospel bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity -- a fact which explains why the early church recognized this writing for what it is, and rejected it as neither authoritative nor authentic.

In "The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot," Herbert Krosney explains how the codex was discovered and traces the events that led to its publication in English this week: "In the mid- to late 1970s, hidden for more than fifteen hundred years, an ancient text emerged from the sands of Egypt. Near the banks of the Nile River, some Egyptian peasants, fellahin, stumbled upon a cavern. In biblical times, such chambers had been used to bury the dead. The peasants entered the cave, seeking ancient gold or jewelry, anything of value that they could sell. Instead, among a pile of human bones, they discovered a crumbling limestone box. Inside it, they came upon an unexpected find -- a mysterious leather-bound book, a codex."

The portion of the text that is now translated is taken from 13 pages of papyrus, with the text written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egypt. Most scholars agree that The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic. This was the common history of many Gnostic texts, especially those associated with groups common to the area in which the manuscript was found.

"The Lost Gospel" reads like a suspense thriller at times, tracing the odd and admittedly remarkable story of how the codex was preserved and eventually published. Those familiar with the story of the Dead Sea scrolls and the documents of the Nag Hammadi library will recognize significant parallels in the saga of how the texts and manuscripts were found and eventually made available for scholarly review and publication.

The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as "aeons" and an "eternal realm." Judas is identified as the "thirteenth spirit" who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.

When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: "Judas, your star has led you astray." Jesus continues: "No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and ... sent it ... on the twelve aeons."

The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. The Gospel of Judas purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.

Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of The Gospel of Judas records Jesus saying to Judas, "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The Gospel of Judas indicate in a footnote, "The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within."

Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian Gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners -- willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

This redemptive action is completely missing from The Gospel of Judas. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major Christian figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as The Gospel of Judas as heretical. In his foreword to "The Lost Gospel," Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, "This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn't actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated."

Ehrman, no friend to orthodox Christianity, has correctly explained the problem. Irenaeus rejected the text precisely because it was in direct conflict with the canonical Gospels and with the teaching of the Apostles. Accordingly, it was his responsibility to warn the church about the heretical nature of this document. Still, the very fact that Irenaeus mentions the document with such a specific reference gives considerable credence to the claim that The Gospel of Judas is as old in its origin as its patrons now claim.

We now know a great deal about the Gnostic sects common to the first centuries of Christianity. The particular sect thought to be associated with the origin of The Gospel of Judas was known as the Cainites. The peculiar teachings of this sect included the rehabilitation of many characters presented negatively in the Bible -- starting with Cain. In essence, the Cainites attempted to take the negative figures of the Bible and present them in a heroic light. In order to do this, of course, they had to create alternative texts and an alternative rendering of the story of Jesus.

What are Christians to make of all this? The publication of The Gospel of Judas is a matter of genuine interest. After all, it is important for Christians to understand the context of early Christianity -- a context in which the church was required to exercise tremendous discernment in confronting heretical teachings and rejecting spurious texts.

The scholarly research behind the publication of The Gospel of Judas appears to be sound and responsible. The codex manuscript was submitted to the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions. In the end, it appears that the document is most likely authentic, in terms of its origin from within a heretical sect in the third century.

Nevertheless, extravagant claims about the theological significance of The Gospel of Judas are unwarranted, ridiculous, and driven by those who themselves call for a reformulation of Christianity.

The resurgence of interest in Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas is driven by an effort, at least on the part of some figures, to argue that early Christianity had no essential theological core. Instead, scholars such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University want to argue that, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse -- and fascinating -- the early Christian movement really was." What Pagels and many other figures argue is that early Christianity was a cauldron of competing theologies, and that ideological and political factors explain why an "orthodox" tradition eventually won, suppressing all competing theologies. Accordingly, these same figures argue that today's Christians should be open to these variant teachings that had long been suppressed and hidden from view.

Metropolitan Bishoy, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, dismissed The Gospel of Judas as "non-Christian babbling resulting from a group of people trying to create a false 'amalgam' between the Greek mythology and Far East religions with Christianity... They were written by a group of people who were aliens to the main Christian stream of the early Christianity. These texts are neither reliable nor accurate Christian texts, as they are historically and logically alien to the main Christian thinking and philosophy of the early and present Christians." The Metropolitan is right, but we are better armed to face the heresies of our own day if we face with honesty the heresies of times past.

Simon Gathercole, a New Testament professor at Aberdeen University, defended the text as authentic, but relatively unimportant. "It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new," Gathercole explains. "It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later."

Indeed, those Gnostic ideas did become popular later, and they are becoming increasingly popular now. The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and "rediscovered" even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.

Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.

The verdict of Athanasius, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, still stands: "Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these, for concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'"

4/11/2006 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

But didn't you comment a long while back on this issue that Europe was pretty resilient, that some rump populace of Germans would persist in the new Eurabia? I thought that sounded right. Poor Muslims! I would not want to have a crowd of suddenly aroused Germans at my back. The Muslims would get their asses Kicked - especially since the Volk'd be running all the science, architecture, math, and armaments bureaus. Better to let them their fiefdom of Teutonic wilderness in which to frolick psychotically in lederhosen and rectangular glasses than try to figure out how to deal with them, perhaps. If I were Caliph, that'd be the plan.

4/11/2006 07:54:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

yes in a decade or so christianity will take hold again in Europe imho because the terms are exactly what the professor says they are. someone has to work to pay for the pensioners.

the choice is stark. either they have to reproduce or they have to import foreigners.

it is far more likely that they will reproduce.

but reproduction and more importantly-- holding the family together -- takes profound courage.

this courage comes through religion. it doesn't come through the auspices of the nihilistic state.

with religion will come the reawakening of european historical memory; at that point--they will kick out the moslems.

it is a process that the moslems are already anticipating. they are already insuring that it will be a sick sad process.

but I think that a happy face could be put on it as in the coming years the cost of water desalination and transport will be killed thus enabling all the worlds deserts to be turned green. ... and the habitable size of the planet will be doubled.

who better to populate the blooming deserts of north africa than talented eurabian expatiots recently repatriated in masse.

its a shame someone doesn't mention to Bush that the same thing could be done with the Mexicans.

the USA doesn't need to go down in flames either.

4/11/2006 08:20:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...


a propos this conversation...

4/11/2006 08:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sure wish Euro-Schadenfreud was a cure all for our own ills and blindnesses:

MSM doing a great job of doing DC's heavy lifting for them by Censoring nearly all sight or mention of the Commies and Islamofascists behind the
"Orderly, American Flag waving, peaceful, and etc" demonstrations,
DEMANDING newly invented rights for non-citizens from our fearless leaders.

Of course everybody knows the DEMANDS are just pro-forma:
The Dhimmis in DC are more than happy to oblige on their own accord, ...on OUR bill.
We are ALL 'protected peoples' now, one way or the other.
Dhimmi Shelter!

4/11/2006 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

This will be the sequence:

US bombs Iran;

France supports US;

'Youths' erupt;

French army takes banlieus(?) apart;

Forced integration or expulsion;

French logjam adjusting to 20th century broken;

France lectures the world on its superior culture.

Et c'est ci.


4/11/2006 08:41:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Charles, 8:20 PM.
While I am not yet ready to buy your vision of an evergreen ME, it would certainly be easily within our reach to do that in Mexico, even without new breakthroughs.
...but that is a peaceful, prosperous vision for all, and that isn't in the playbook:

Better to set the lower classes one against the other, to hasten the day that we become Mexico Norte, with the gated rich, and miserable, but ignorant and manipuable, poor.

4/11/2006 08:50:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...


Your vision for the ME is flawed on a technical level. Sand is not soil. And where it's not sand, it's mountains.

4/11/2006 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/11/2006 09:13:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

I'm reading Oriana Fallaci's Rage and Pride (to balance out Bernard Lewis). The vitriol she shows for the Europeans that made her a pariah in her own country is enlightening. I recommend the book, if for nothing else, to see what happens when a real reporter speaks "truth to power".

Couldn't happen in the U.S.? Haven't we seen decades of PC legislation that has effectively quashed any semblence of normal discussion? Don't you scan the room when you are speaking to see if what you are about to say may put you in a courtroom or offend any (to use my new favorite) he/she/sheit? I'm not talking about true racist or bigoted speech, that belongs nowhere in civil discussion or thought. To go there shows your intellect for what it is. The idea that speech is controlled is anathema to democratic society. Truth comes from free speech. Oriana Fallaci thinks (and is an example of) what happens in this day to a free speaker in Europe. Exile.

4/11/2006 09:14:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

Really folks, I just can't get the hang of this... Mind working faster than the keyboard... And my typing is REALLY slow..

should be Oriana Fallaci knows (and is an example of) what happens in this day to a free speaker in Europe. Exile.

4/11/2006 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

They were fired "for standing up for their rights," Herrada said.
That's Newspeak for "Not Showing Up for Work."
Woe be to this employer:
Our Senators will no doubt correct this violation of Human Rights.

The Dupes and the Evil Detroit Meat-Packer
Nothing like being fired for attending a Rally to DEMAND that your meager wages be further devastated in the future by innumerable new arrivals.

4/11/2006 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/11/2006 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Don't you scan the room when you are speaking to see if what you are about to say may put you in a courtroom or offend any (to use my new favorite) he/she/sheit?"
We don't do it CONSCIOUSLY, it's been programmed in over time.

Seems like the younger ones got stronger medicines, though.
Also, of course, the more extensive the "education," the more thorough the programming.

4/11/2006 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Peter said...

My mind is still boggled over the professor's idea that the Muslims will take care of the old and enfeebled Euros. Has he even seen TV of Muslim countries, much less having been to one?

4/11/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

danmyers, 9:14 PM

I love Fallaci and will mourn her passing. She and Christopher Hitchens are the redeemed - leftists who have seen both the light and the danger. Like many new converts, they are attacking the old religion with a vengence.

Hitchens, I believe coined the term "Islamofascism." By the way, "he/she/sheit" is my baby, but fire at will. Do remember, however, that I first used it in the spirit of true conservative compassion and gender sensitivity. Try always to be kind.

4/11/2006 09:43:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

peter, 9:38 PM

You may recall that in the extraordinarily hot European summer of 2003, thousands (possibly tens-of-thousands, but that remains classified) of elderly died of heat exposure?

Goodness, Europeans don't take care of Europeans. And why exactly, I wonder, should the Islamist do so?

4/11/2006 09:49:00 PM  
Blogger Robin Goodfellow said...

The rise of the power of Islam in Europe is only half the story. The first part is the enervation of the western world. It's obvious and nearly omnipresent, and people comment on it and speak of it often, though rarely directly. How many pop songs written in the last 20 years have included lyrics along the lines of these from Coldplay's "A Rush of Blood to the Head"?

He said oh I’m gonna buy a gun and start a war
If you can tell me something worth fighting for

How many ways have sentiments of meaningless, aimlessness, and apathy been expressed in western culture over the last generation (or more)? Much of the western world has lost its focus. The post WWII societal ethic has been deconstructed (as has much of the heart of christianity) yet nothing of similar widespread popularity has come to replace it. Except for apathy. And traditionalist institutions which have not yet been deconstructed from within, like Islam.

4/11/2006 09:55:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

Also, of course, the more extensive the "education," the more thorough the programming. - Doug

Doug, that has always amazed me... I come from a long line of Dr.'s, Professors, etc. (I'm the black sheep), they were not afraid to speak their minds in public. It has only arisen in the last, say 40 years. But, in that 40 years there has been great progress. To look at our current situation - at what expense?


I thought it was yours.. I will forever place "tm - Allen" when I use it :-) Always be kind, well we'll see.... I make no promises for future ignorance - of any kind. The longer I live, the more I realize I'm just not that smart.....

4/11/2006 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"I first used it in the spirit of true conservative compassion and gender sensitivity"
Good on ya, Allen, for that.
I found your 9:00 AM on
"The world outside" comment
to be exquisitely nuanced and sensitive, as well.

4/11/2006 10:06:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...


Living in the south, the "sheit" just rolls off the tongue, if you get my meaning...

4/11/2006 10:06:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

danmyers, 10:00 PM

I hope you do not. Try to remember, though, that I would never wish to be thought of as anything other than kindly "avuncular Al". My, I do like that - thanks.

4/11/2006 10:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The neat thing, Dan, is if we just become sensitive enough to all others, we lose all sense of self.
Doesn't God Help Those who lose themselves?
From the Alan Alda School of enlightenment, I believe.

4/11/2006 10:11:00 PM  
Blogger Spiney Widgmo said...

Those who worship no God will have no problem ruthlessly dealing with the problems in their midst. If there is no judgement other then man, then nothing is forbidden.

Should the day come that fear reignites the the fire of passion in the Europeans, a leader will arise to wield that torch.

4/11/2006 10:12:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

According to Nostradanus, the fiery new leader will be the director of the Bureau of Fiery New Leaders, and his name will be Sheitler.

4/11/2006 10:33:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...


Is it just me, or do you see the same phenomenon...? Everytime I post, I drag the normally educational posters to the gutter..

Then again, you aren't helping....sheitler, indeed...:-)

4/11/2006 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Beware! The Muslims are
"Super Pissed"
that "Family Guy" had a Cartoon depicting the Prophet.
(and upset that it
"Isn't even that funny of a show.")
They've issued a Jihad on Family Guy,
and the "Family Guy Nation."
- SouthPark

4/11/2006 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Why the Muslims hate us:
No Sex,
No Jacking, off.
Sand in their ass.

4/11/2006 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

but, danmyers, you've been on the upswing since you got back from Asghanistan--

4/11/2006 11:00:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Ah, doug, yer joke was a bedouin than mine--

4/11/2006 11:03:00 PM  
Blogger DanMyers said...

Ya know, you make one little mistake in this crowd...:-).

Ladies, Gentlemen, I must retire...

Wretchard, apologies..

4/11/2006 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger Starling said...

The Ayatollah said..."Well, it certainly looks like Europe is lost, but that might be an illusion. Look, Europe gave birth to Hitler, Napoleon, and the like. There could come a point when the people there rise up and cast off their elite, and then go to town on these Muslim interlopers. And who could stop the purging? Not the Muslims in Europe."

How about their co-religionists with nuclear weapons?

4/11/2006 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...


It’s so easy to be cruel, especially in times of trial. That being the case, I always ask, “What would Jane Fonda do?”

Honestly, there is much to commend some parts of Europe. Personally, I love France (really, no sarcasm). The countryside is the most beautiful in the world. The food and wine is without equal. And by cuisine I mean the fare of the average Frenchman, not the gaudy tourist delights served with wry wickedness by some Chefs. The Louvre should be declared an international treasure and protected as such.

As to the citizens of France, your average non-Parisian is as kind a soul as you will find anywhere, his manners equaled only by folk in some pockets of the old American South. Take even a small step at conversing in his native tongue and he will happily help you with pride.

Were it not for the government toads and the crazy Islamists, my dream retirement home would be in the Vosges highlands overlooking precious Alsace-Lorraine. Ah, the joy of Cremant de Alsace is incomparable. Yeah, yeah, if you just have to have REAL champagne, and if you REALLY like blowing money, you can get the real thing just done the road, so to speak. Genetically, however, I try never to pay retail.

Finally, for all the bad press given the French tendency to egocentricy, in fact the French have the most advanced aesthetic sense of any people on the planet, in my opinion, of course.

We Americans tend to see the French as cowardly. Maybe. But we must try to remember the rape of France during the period 1914 – 1918. With sadistic, malignant barbarism the German’s did their best to destroy not only French lives but the heritage of France as well. Without provocation or necessity, to take a single illustrative event, the Huns, using incendiary shells, attacked the magnificent ancient chatheral at Riems, the coronation spot of French monarchs. Whenever possible, the Germans obliterated every architecturally signifcant monument in sight or range of artillery; nothing was spared. Consequently, eastern France was left a smoldering ruin, a vast cemetary for the shattered armies of France.

I have wondered far afield to say that my criticisms of Europe’s elites bear no relationship to my love of her people. But, in the words of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

4/11/2006 11:09:00 PM  
Blogger DomWalk said...

“The populations of Europe,” he explains, “are aging fast, so more immigrants will be needed to support the pensioners, and these will largely be Muslim immigrants."

I like J.P. Smirak's take on it better:

...the future of Europe is “a brown hand pulling a white plug out of the wall.”

4/11/2006 11:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allen, 11:09 PM
My wife's French friend loaned her a video for her "entertainment."
Something about a farmer's valiant struggle to prevail over the disasters visited on him by some evil others that wanted his farm.
The Happy ending occurred when the farmer died, and the evil ones took possession.
...but it was a beautiful farm, of course, like so many.
Trying to think of the writer that lives there and shares you views:
Says people assume all politicians are corrupt, and go on with their daily lives.
Le Monde is not for the people, but the govt. workers.

4/11/2006 11:24:00 PM  
Blogger Starling said...

Robin Goodfellow said..."The rise of the power of Islam in Europe is only half the story. The first part is the enervation of the western world. It's obvious and nearly omnipresent, and people comment on it and speak of it often, though rarely directly. How many pop songs written in the last 20 years have included lyrics along the lines of these from Coldplay's "A Rush of Blood to the Head"? 'He said oh I’m gonna buy a gun and start a war, If you can tell me something worth fighting for' "

Robin, not that I'd ever thought I'd be singing the praises of Duran Duran, let alone to offer their song lyrics as evidence that all is not lost but, do you remember the lyrics from "New Religion" ?

Don't know why this evil bothers me
Take another chance boy, carry the fight,
You can take him if you're fast
So why is he trying to follow me?
Didn't I say if you're holding on
You'd be laughing at the last
How many reasons do they need?
I get along fine with them friends of mine
But you have to make a choice
I might just believe this time
You're singing out of tune but the beat's in time
And it's us who makes the noise

I'm talking for free, I can't stop myself,
It's a new religion
I've something to see, I can't help myself,
It's a new religion

Who can say their cause is lost when Duran Duran is on their side? ;-)

4/11/2006 11:29:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

doug, 11:24 PM

Claire Berlinski?

Want to see an Ann Coulter clone? Go to, http://berlinski.com/looselips/author.htm

4/11/2006 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Starling 11:07 PM,
Southpark's solution to your downer was to truck in 16 tons of Sand in which to bury their heads.
Starting with their children.
The last man Sanding, was of course out of luck, and remained uncovered.

If I ever get out of my Funk over the Immigration Debacle, I've got an idea for your excellent blog.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

4/11/2006 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allen, no, it's right on the tip of my brain, corresponding to where the point in my head would be if I were a pointy-headed type.
Pretty sure he wrote in the Weekly Standard.
Here's two items I came across trying to find his name:
Slaver voyages: France, 4,200;
British North America/United States, 1,500.

Slaves transported: France 1,250,000,
British North America/United States, 300,000.

Slaves delivered to:
French West Indies: 1,600,000,
British North America/United States, 500,000.*

Captain's Quarters
Captain's Quarters
Jews living in france should have their heads examined

4/11/2006 11:47:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The Captain's post was:
The Slow Descent Into Madness, French Style

4/11/2006 11:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

California High School Conservative
Duke Cunningham Election Update

4/11/2006 11:58:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

doug, 11:47 PM

The animals amputated his every finger, I have heard. There is also some evidence that the neighbors (persons of MiddleEastern appearance - now, wasn't that kind?) were not passive bystanders; they participated in the torture.

4/12/2006 12:00:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This one's for you, Buddy:
GI John (kerry)

4/12/2006 12:02:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Yeah, but they weren't inspired by the Prophet, or anything like that.

Probably saw that French Farmer Video my wife watched, and thought they'd do a copycat thing.
Pure Coincidence he happened to be a Jew.

4/12/2006 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...


Re: allen said, 12:00 AM

Strike "animals" and replace with "savages", "devils", "demons", or just plain "Muslims", if you please.

Oh, by the way, welcome to our world.

4/12/2006 12:08:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

doug, 12:07 AM

Some time ago, I don't even remember where, now, I wrote,
It is tough being an Arab warrior, quite apart from being an oxymoron. The unfathomable protozoan impotence must be unbearable. Week-in, week-out, the son of Mohammed must endure the ringing harangue of the imam to go forth in the name of Allah and rid the caliphate of the offspring of pigs and monkeys (these would be the dirty, dimwitted, conniving, cunning Jews). Yet, for 48 years, despite the best efforts of Allah and the promises of Gabriel, he and his brothers have been unceremoniously driven from every battlefield by the self-same cowardly, yet vicious, miscreants; invariably reduced to seeking sanctuary behind the skirts of their ululating women and unkempt wailing children. Yes, the life of the proud Arab warrior is tough. One can readily appreciate the sympathy of the good Doctor and her Department of State.

A day will come again when the vermin, believing their own publicity and standing on all fours, will come against Israel. You know the rest.

4/12/2006 12:21:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

it was Denis Boyles in National Review:
March of the Lemmings
When you see the words “Sixth Republic” in a French newspaper headline, that’s when it will end.
— Denis Boyles is author of Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese.
He is presently working on a book about midwestern politics.
* * *

4/12/2006 12:22:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"A day will come again when the vermin, believing their own publicity and standing on all fours, will come against Israel."
But, but...!
What would THAT do to the
"Peace Process"tm ?

4/12/2006 12:28:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Habu will be happy about Pappy:
(Video Link on Fox)
Washington U. student Senate changes mind and votes to honor flying ace Pappy Boyington and four other Medal of Honor recipients who were alumni of the school
April 11, 2006
Immigration Counterprotest Draws Millions to Job Sites
by Scott Ott
(2006-04-11) —
In a grassroots counterprotest against yesterday’s nationwide rallies by illegal aliens, today millions of documented U.S. citizens took to their desks, factories, shops and other job sites to demonstrate their commitment to U.S. law and the American work ethic.

“It’s pathetic,” said the unnamed spokesman for Somos America (which, in a foreign language, means ‘We are America’).

4/12/2006 01:31:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

It has been awhile since I lived on a farm. I do not recall ever making the assumption or wish that a fox getting into the hen house would morph into a Rhode Island Red. A little violence was required.

Onward Christian soldiers..

4/12/2006 03:03:00 AM  
Blogger Tex said...

robin, re: "the enervation of the western world"

Yes, you can actually see it at times, can't you? The mental weakness manifested at certain moments in physical palsy -- a tremulous, slumping loss of nerved muscle. I believe the enervation afflicts people when they realize, "I might have something to lose..."

And some people, they want to lose. From
Mark Steyn:

"A big chunk of Western civilization, consciously or otherwise, has given the impression that it’s dying to surrender to somebody, anybody. Reasonably enough, Islam figures: Hey, why not us?"

Yes, why not? What's to stop them?

(I don't view most Muslims as antagonists, by the way. I think most are good citizens: only a small minority really wants trouble. Unfortunately it's a barbarous, deadly minority.)

Some people view acts of Muslim opportunism as the unreasoned grasping of barbarians. To my mind these people hold a false belief: that barbarians are incapable of reason. But barbarians can reason, and effectively; certainly in the political realm. Most of the people on Earth live even now under regimes that are at heart barbaric, when you think about it. Define "barbarism" as "cruelty" and by that definition whole continents are still politically barbaric, yes?

Barbarity works, if only for the most barbarous.

And what of Europe? I'm thinking of France foremost: 10% Muslim, 60% Muslim in the prisons. French Muslims have already tested their street-power. They know now how to win concessions. What more can they win?


I'm imagining Ramadan 2006 in Paris, with the juvenile two of France's six million Muslims converged upon the city.

5 AM. First prayers. And then -- flash mob. Half a million in the streets. Shadow knots of young toughs bullying past shocked guards -- knocking the enervated men aside -- to race into city offices, public utilities, corporate headquarters, museums, university research centers. 200 men barricaded in Ecole Polytechnique. 400 in France Telecom. In Musée d'Orsay 800 men -- ten of whom are gathered before a trio of Muslim girls, videotaping.

Al-Jazeera will play the video endlessly. A single frame will one day illustrate the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for the day's events.

The video frame captures the girls at sunrise: three black chadors stark against the dappled pastels of Monet's water lilies.

"The New Graces"


Of course, all the kids claim to have bombs.

300 do.

What happens?

4/12/2006 03:24:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thomas Sowell: People aren't Commodities "

Intellectuals' ability to think of people in the abstract is a dangerous talent in a world where people differ in all the ways that make them people. The cultures and surrounding circumstances of those people are crucial for understanding what they are likely to do and what the consequences are likely to be.

Some free-market advocates argue that the same principle which justifies free international trade in commodities should justify the free movement of people as well. But this ignores the fact that people have consequences that go far beyond the consequences of commodities.
Commodities are used up and vanish. People generate more people, who become a permanent and expanding part of the country's population and electorate.

It is an irreversible process -- and a potentially dangerous process, as Europeans have discovered with their "guest worker" programs that have brought in many Muslims who are fundamentally hostile to the culture and the people that welcomed them.

Unlike commodities, people in a welfare state have legal claims on other people's tax dollars and expensive services in schools and hospitals, not to mention the high cost of imprisoning many of them who commit crimes.

Immigrants in past centuries came here to become Americans, not to remain foreigners, much less to proclaim the rights of their homelands to reclaim American soil, as some of the Mexican activist groups have done.

4/12/2006 03:56:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

So does Iran's having enriched low-grade uranium yesterday, presuming it's true, indicate that the 5 - 10 year estimation for obtaining a nuke is beyond ludicrous, or is anyone still going with that? My friendly NPR pinko-dork White House correspondant just said, "Iran is yeeeEEAAARRrrrs away from getting a bomb."

And yet I was under the impression that once you master the uranium refinement process it's just a question then of degree. Anyone certain, one way or the other?

4/12/2006 05:30:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...


At the siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam prepared to overrun Christian Europe. A thousand year tide of Islamic expansion was temporarily halted. Europe, although no longer Christian in practice, needs no form of Islam. Islam in any form is the anti-thesis of Western European culture, thinking and tradition. The Europeans may not need it and not want it, but guess what. They are stuck with it. How did it happen and where does it go from here?

It started in a most benign way. Muslims, mostly Turks went to Germany, to do work Germans did not want to do. Does that have a familiar ring? The Germans had a temporary work program set up to accommodate the program. Have we heard this tune? It started with mostly young men but for humane reasons, their families were permitted to join them. Similar things happened to France, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. Today the very future of Europe is in the hands of foreign guests, an alien culture and unplanned consequences. The eventual outcome is unclear, but not encouraging. The one clear picture is of a continent sold out by politicians concerned about their personal career and blind to history and the legacy of future Europeans.


We have ten million to twenty million illegals in the US. If the Democrats are successful in rolling over Jorge Bush, as seems likely, these illegals will find their way to become citizens. You can bet the farm that each of these new citizens will find at least three to five family members who will join them for humane reasons. That will include elderly parents and family members. American politics will be shifted leftward. The demand for social services will be awash in new applicants without commensurate revenues from the group demanding the benefits as their right. The states of California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio will never again be Republican. Georgia and North Carolina and Virginia will shortly join them.


There is strategy to stop the process. All Americans, regardless of party, state their intention to their respective representatives that they will vote against incumbents that do not enforce the law. That is a naïve hope. They could demand one simple thing. Enforce current laws. Close and police the borders. Do not listen to the nonsense of a 3000 mile border be unenforceable. Do this:
1. Break the border into one-mile increments.
2. Lease the increments to corporations and private individuals and allow them to hire private contractors to secure that mile. Allow the investor to take a 200% deduction for all expenses and capital expenditures on the newly secured border.
3. The power of the IRS and form 941. Every employer must report and submit this report regarding employee wages and social security taxes. The employer must remit the payments or be subject to severe penalties. Require every “undocumented
Immigrant” who seeks legal status to account for every employer in the US. Failure to comply negates the application. Supply this information to the IRS and state workers compensation boards.

Citizenship requirement should be left alone, but the start date begins when and only when an official recognition is given to legal statues. Seven years begins then, not when the illegal arrived. If we do not do this, we will join the Europeans in leaving our legacy to be decided by unelected, uninvited, undocumented law breakers.

4/12/2006 05:47:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Look, Europe gave birth to Hitler, Napoleon, and the like. There could come a point when the people there rise up and cast off their elite, and then go to town on these Muslim interlopers.

And who could stop the purging? Not the Muslims in Europe. These people are ignorant and strategically isolated. Fact is, the Muslims would all stave to death if the welfare payments stopped.

Controlling the situation in Europe is a lot easier than most people think. All it takes is a little will and some ruthlessness.

I said this months ago...

4/12/2006 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

If the story of the Little Boy and the Wolf were written today the moral would be that wolves do not exist and even if they did that wolves would have equal "rights" to advance their particular lifestyle, which after all, is as natural and beyond prejudicial criticism as any other lifestyle.

I think that we are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment. When the logical consequence of Rationality is cultural suicide we can probably conclude that it has reached its apogee. Having destroyed the Church and most, if not all, the social institutions that fostered individual responsibility and morality along the way it's a guess what shall be found to replace them, if anything.

Welcome to the Dark Ages 2.0.

4/12/2006 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

France needs two more immigrants: Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

4/12/2006 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/12/2006 06:50:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Well now, as to Marine Generals speaking falsehoods for self serving interests, how about Sec of State speaking afresh.

Speaking to Robert Sheer, a well known person of the "left" Mr Powell is reported to have said.

"... On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the President followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us. ... "

" ... truth is that this President cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. ... ... the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the US nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd. ... "

" ... "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment." ... "

" ... the National Intelligence Estimate that it "accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose." ... "

Now there is a lot of spin in Mr Sheer's writing, but if Mr Powell does not claim to have been misquoted in the Nation then the Generals claims of
" the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, "
seems ever more accurate.

Or, perhaps, Mr Powell has sunk to speaking selfserving parodies of the truth, himself.

4/12/2006 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

It's amazing the transformation in manners. Sometimes Emily Post needs an edge. Un amendement deuxième--USA-style--would damn sure aiderait la France.

4/12/2006 07:01:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

That does it, Rat. Bush lied, people died. I won't vote for HIM agin, nosiree.

Let's let Mr. Powell guide Iran policy. Wait for certain confirmation--when the mushroom clouds rise from Tel Aviv (and maybe Riyadh). By God, then we'll show 'em a thing r' two!

4/12/2006 07:12:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...


not all that informative, but.

4/12/2006 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Robert Scheer

4/12/2006 07:18:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

imminent nuclear threat was not part of the package. although enough about its imminent re-forming of its program and other hints could allow the press to make such an inference. the "mushroom cloud" image was offered to illustrate the intolerableness of the vulnerability, not as an actual capability. the "imminent nuke threat" was a press distortion from the beginning, so powell's not believing it is not news, and Cheney has been the agent of exaggeration throughout the entire thing. at least that's how i remember it. this has been the modus operandi of the left since the beginning: a story breaks with little fanfare, then it's resuscitated with huge fanfare months later. like today's mobile bioweapons labs: this was the first specific article of Powell's UN speech to be debunked. period. that i know for sure. it's all BS: the weapons were transported with Russian help, as I and others have said. for obvious reasons, there will not be confirmation of that until the next era, if ever.

4/12/2006 07:20:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

peterboston i agree with you: the Enlightenment is definitively over. But that is quite a large subject. Europe's lite-socialist holding-pattern... if were the pilot and not too busy adjusting my coiffure in the mirror, i think i'd be gazing at the fuel gauge and getting a little bit nervous...

4/12/2006 07:26:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Well, buddy, the Iranians are enriching Uranium. Mr Cheney has said, more than once, it's unacceptable.

Well, is it?
When do the bombers fly?
Did they take off last night?


War or Retreat,
we'll retreat, just watch.

Lots of rhetoric, bang the drum.

Where's the beef?

The vaunted CIA sticks by their 10 year schedule, or not?

Remember that past, Generals, Sec's of State, and anyone that disagrees with Bush/Cheney are selfserving spewers of falsehoods.

Give it a break, buddy.

4/12/2006 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I said the Mr Sheer was a leftist, buddy.
The important thing is this.
Does Mr Powell deny the quotes, yea or nea?

It is not Mr Sheer, nor I, that is at the crux of the story.
It is General Newbold and Colin Powell. They were there, as well.

Slam dunk!

4/12/2006 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I've been hearing good things about Ask.com (esp. the little binoculars icon that allows a preview pane of the listing), but until just now, when I compared Ask.com with Google, on Robert Scheer, I wasn't convinced of the criticism of Google's political bias. Am more so, now, tho.

4/12/2006 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Slam dunk!
Remember that was Mr Tenent's line, the one that set US off to War.
That was all it took to convince Mr Bush, according to Mr Woodward, whom, I guess, was there as well.

Got the "Medal of Freedom" or some such for making that call, Mr Tenent did.

4/12/2006 07:35:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I wasn't criticising you, Rat. Robert Scheer and The Nation are just flaming propagandists, is all. It's not a matter of degree, that they're to be taken with a grain of salt. It's more of, you might as well quote Tookie on capital punishment.

Give what a break? Fleshing out the discussion?

4/12/2006 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

It was the
"That does it"...

Used to hit somebody right after I said that.

I realize the Nation is slanted, as would anyone that read it. I realize tha Mr Sheer may not be someone I'd invite to dinner.

But when people degrade a General Officer of the Marine Corps as selfserving, people, many of whom have not sacrificed a day or a dollar in defense of the Republic or the Constitution, it irks me.

Now General Newbold could be wrong, Mr Powell could be wrong, but then again so could Mr Bush.

But for sure, the bombers are still on the ground and the Iranians a gearing up production of enriched Uranium.
For themselves and Mr Chavez.

War or Retreat, nows the time to decide.

4/12/2006 07:51:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

This whole discussion is off-base. Like Tookie's career as an author of children's books. A president has a charge, a portfilio. At the top of the list is dealing with enemy attack.

But, yes, open discussion. After Scheer & The Nation, let's hear some selected quotes from Saddam and Ba'ath, with a sentence somewhere that they are said to be involved in middle eastern politics.

4/12/2006 07:53:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


How many Cindy Sheehans are there? What portion of the electorate pie does she represent?

Here's another lightweight question for you, d'Rat. What did metuselah finally die of? Hint: It wasn't excitement.

4/12/2006 07:57:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I haven't criticised Newbold, or Powell, ever. And the "that does it" was play, giving "The Nation" the hoped-for reaction. And, I know you're a combat vet, and that it gives you gravitas, rightfully. I'm just covered with poison ivy from the weekend, and grumpy. Ignore me.

4/12/2006 07:58:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Was it poison ivy?

4/12/2006 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Sheehans may have 15% or so, mat. Another 25% are anti-war or anti Bush, but not Sheehan extreme. Gets you to the 40% that have consistently been anti Iraq intervention.

Support for Mr Bush and Iraq topped out at about 60%, It is now down to under 40%, give or take.

That 20% may breakdown to 5% "centrists" whom have moved "left".
With 15% or so who now disapprove of Mr Bush from the "right".

If the Iranian Challenge is not met, that number, the 15% from the "right" will begin to move up.

Bang the drum, kick the can.
Lose the House or Senate in November.

4/12/2006 08:06:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I apologize, buddy, I misunderstood, which is easy, now that the sun's radiation has the temp here in the low 90's and my tolerance for it has dropped, considerably, from my youth.

Soon the poor folk walking North will begin dying in the desert, again.

4/12/2006 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I'll let d'Rat figure it out. No "help" please.

Here's another hint: He was was getting to be very Old.

4/12/2006 08:11:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

I will seriously dispute that, d'Rat.

4/12/2006 08:12:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Well then, mat, what is your breakdown of the Electorate, from your vantage in Canada?

4/12/2006 08:14:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Has Mr al-Jaafari stepped aside, or is he standing pat?

4/12/2006 08:18:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

's ok, Rat--I know your acerbic style by now--misunderstanding is my fault. Betcha a dime to a dollar the Mukhabarat agree with the 40% anti-Iraq intervention. Oil-for-Food would be past the point of no return by now, instead of John Bolton, we'd have Tony Soprano. Fine with me, I like HBO. Good production values.

4/12/2006 08:19:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


Support for Mr Bush and the Iraq War are NOT one and the same. Neither is support for Mr Bush and the Iran War. Mr Bush knows that. So do his political opponents. That is why they use the charge of managerial incompetence, and all the while position themselves to the Right of Mr Bush.

4/12/2006 08:24:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

buddy, learned another word today, acerbic, thx.
I try.

4/12/2006 08:24:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Jaafari, Schmaafari, there'll be another and another and another, they can step aside like a Busby Berkley dance line, it won't matter as long as the black gold is pouring into the Mullah coffers.

4/12/2006 08:26:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

And as corollary, absent the Mullahs, the current Jaafari will probably evolve, and turn out to be a sterling enough companion to the free world.

4/12/2006 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

You'd find, mat, in speaking to US citizens on the street in AZ, at least, that support for Mr Bush and the Iraqi adventure go hand in hand.

As aristide linked to, yesterday, there is majority support for action against Iran, but only a sliver of a majority.

If Victory is neither easy nor cheap, against Iran, those numbers will slide, as well.

The fat is in the fire, Iran is Nuclear capable, which the Bush Team has said is unacceptable.

If we do not move, quickly and with decisive force, we will not be moving at all.
Presented with a fait acompli the Iranians bet, with some confidence, that the US will retreat from it's Public Position.

If the bombers stay on the tarmac the Iranians will be selling enriched Uranium within a year, IMO.

4/12/2006 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

It does matter, buddy, in that standing up an Iraqi Government is the US's stated Goal. If no Iraqi Government stands, we lose.
That is the PR War we continue to lose. re:Rumsfeld.

Your attitude assures it's continual loss, if that is the feeling of US.
That all others, other than US, are unimportant to the process is the attitude that will cause our defeat, politically, in the Region.

4/12/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Mika, "That is why they use the charge of managerial incompetence", exactamundo.

"Incompetence" went around as fast as email, no sooner than admin-supporting corroborative info reached dispositive tipping-point.

As with all false memes, there is a truth in it. In this case, the truth is that the admin has been incompetent in persuading unpersuadable people.

4/12/2006 08:48:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


I've said it before and I'll say it again. If President Bush is presented with a "fait accompli" it will not be by Iran, but by Israel. Israel can manage Iran's nuke program on its own. But Israel can not manage what happens in the Gulf afterwards. That's where the US comes in.

4/12/2006 08:49:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Well, mat, the enrichment cycle is in gear. The Iranians are moving ahead.

Israel is a soveriegn State, it can do as it pleases, it has in the past. re: US Liberty
The Israeli planes are still on the tarmac, as well.

We have been stomping and yelling, 'stead of walking softly.
I keep hearing about the stick, but it is still in the closet.

4/12/2006 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Rat, my attitude is that a federal Iraq--a real one, not a cassus potemkin exit--may be beyond the talents of competence, so long as the Mullah's are rampant.

While we're pointing out each other's attitudinal flaws, please allow me to point out that it seems that in your judgement, an admin's foresight should be indistinguishable from its hindsight.

4/12/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

I criticized Newbold. His opinions, if fleshed out, might hold some truth, but what he wrote in Time was vacuous.

Personally, I like Powell. I think it was unfortunate for him that it was he who had to give the Iraq presentation at the UN. Since his resignation as Sec. State, he has been trying to distance himself from that. Right on. Understandable.

I don't understand the position that says, "I make criticisms, therefore anybody else who makes criticisms vindicates me." Criticisms are a category of intentional language; they have no inherent value. The value of a criticism lies in its accuracy and its relevance. Therefore, it should be so judged.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand the team mentality that inevitably adheres to criticism. After a while, a dichotomy forms--supporters and critics. Both attack the other as categories: critics are lambasted as such, and the same goes for supporters. The merit of the argument is ignored. The only thing compared is the conclusion.

Of course, it will always be so. Unfortunately.

4/12/2006 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

The only problem with the Time Magazine presentation is that there wasn't another nearby, offering the other POV. Say, a word from Tommy Franks.

4/12/2006 09:06:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Admin seems to have little hindsight, publicly.
Mr Tenet's Medal of Freedom is proof enough or that.
What is said behind closed doors, I have no knowledge, but the Public announcements are plain enough to see.
Few errors, all ahead full, stay the course.
As to foresight, the Israeli's rumored they'd attack Iran in March, came & went.
Perhaps Mr Sharon's disability shut them down, perhaps not. If it was essential to Israeli Security the new fellow, Mr Olmet(?sp), would have fulfilled the responsibility, I'm sure.

It's been well known the Iranians were on this path. Mr Cheney's remarks were not spur of the moment nor off the cuff. He was stating the US Policy position. It was said it to me and the World.
If we now retreat from that position, whom can be blamed?

I have oft read of calls of Trust in the decisions of Mr Bush & Company. I trust them to speak the truth.
If a nuclear Iran was unacceptable to US last month, what as changed except that now there is a nuclear capable Iran?

4/12/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


I'm fairly confident there's much coordination between all the parties involves. I can understand Iran trying to rush the schedule, believing the US is off balance. But Iraq is pretty much done. The Sunnis are on the defense. Soon enough Iran will be dealt with to correct that. And with Saudia's blessings.

4/12/2006 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

It's a chess game, with both sides ready to kill not the other symbol, but the other player. Rat, your observation that we here don't know what's being done in secret, is the whole point of contention here. We're all on the train (like it or not), the tracks are laid, we await the whistle, we know where we want to go, we hope we don't jump track.

4/12/2006 09:17:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

soon enough?

Any predictions, mat, on just how soon that'll be?

When will soon enough be to late?

4/12/2006 09:18:00 AM  
Blogger The Apologist said...

drat, I don't get your angle here. Bush doesn't want to further alienate the Euro's so he let's them go punch for punch with Iran in negotiations until they throw in the red towel. He knows Mr. A & Co. aren't going to give up the dream, but let the Euros take some punches and maybe they'll sober up.

We still retain the capacity to strike, we bide our time trying to get Iraq as stable as we can before we hit Iran and the whole world starts spinning.

What's hard to see in that?

Who's suggestiong we retreat?

4/12/2006 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

well, buddy, unlike some Brokers, I believe that past performance is a future indicator.

Past performance, by US, has been spotty, at best.

One returns to General Casey's comments, yesterday, on Baghdad, still being unsecured, three years in.

4/12/2006 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


It wont. Have faith. ;)

4/12/2006 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Now take this assertion:

"No Iraq Government stands, we lose."

Let's flesh that out. What do we lose?

We lose the near-term possibility of a peaceful, pluralistic democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I agree, that would be costly. However, some think it was never possible to begin with. You can't lose something that never existed. Or maybe it's the game. We call out our wager--democracy in the Middle East--and our winnings or losings are judged accordingly.

But simply saying "We've lost" ignores many other things that might mitigate. For instance, what to make of this (the 1946 Intelligence Review on the global threat of Islam)? Here we see the kind of hard-nosed, pre-PC analysis that many here espouse. The article is mostly descriptive, but the few prescriptive passages it has seem to argue that an Iraqi civil war, split down the Sunni-Shia faultline, would be the best possible outcome--assuming, as the paper does, that the problem is with Islam. Divide and conquer. Set them at each other's throats, stand back. Repeat as necessary.

If the core threat is really Islam, and not the virulent politics of the Middle East, then it is to our advantage for Iraq to fall into an interminable sectarian slaughter-house. The rest of the world will gloat at American failure, but they will also secretly know that America tried something good, and that America is not all powerful. Both memes are to our advantage.

I don't particular agree with that, but the point is this: the situation is beyond complex, our premises themselves are questionable, and our conclusions are basically wild guesses. Only hindsight will tell us the truth. Luckily, we're strong enough to get there.

4/12/2006 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Enemy Propagana machine, which has been kickin' US ass, is going to trumpet Iranian success and US lack of resolve. re Rumsfeld.
Read Mr Rumsfeld on the Propaganda Wars. We are portrayed as weak and undecisive. Mr Cheney's remarks and US lack of Action play into that.
If it is to be a "Long War" than propaganda and shifting thought process's are all the more important.
The US threats will be seen as empty.
Unless we fill them with Action, sooner rather than later.

4/12/2006 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...


We lose credibilty & respect.

We have stated our Goal, defined our terms of Victory in Iraq, as standing up a Government, as long as that does not occur, we are losing.
In the "long" run it may matter slightly. In the short term, though, it is all important.

The imagery of the strong horse must be kept in mind as we move forward, or the Mohammedans will never be shown as spewing falsehoods, to their own people.

4/12/2006 09:35:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

That's a good way to put, Aristides. If past performance-as-future indicator is to be the debate, then why judge the unknowable when we have the knowable right handy? Was the Saddam Regime tolerable or not? Those who properly engage that dialectic, and yet come to an affirmative, must either be totally fatalistic, or able to leap from the deductive "past performance-as-future indicator" reasoning, to some variation of the inductive. Doing so, then obligates the same rule of logic be applied to any party to that debate.

4/12/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Of course, even that picture is not complete. Iraq's value is not derived from its geography or its religion alone. It also has vast quantities of oil, the continued flow of which is a short to medium term strategic necessity.

And Iran has its foot on it. The Strait of Hormuz is not the only vulnerable choke point within reach of Iran's missiles. Abbassi, Iran's chief strategist, has recognized 26 pressure points for the West, most of them economic, all of them vulnerable. We can expect assaults on many if not all of them if we go to war against Iran.

I'm of the mindset that, because the Mullahs think this way, they are an intolerable threat. Their disconnect from the world economy grants them options that, say, a China does not enjoy. That plus the eschatological language emanating from the leadership supplies all the casus belli I need. Adding nukes to the equation just makes it dire.

If we let Iran play chicken with the West and win, we will have taken our first step towards all out world war. A strong, defiant Iran will lead to poorly conceived behavior elsewhere. Russia will misread the situation, and begin to make even worse miscalculations. China will do the same. An Iran, Russia, China, Latin America axis would be imminent. The world will become outlandishly dangerous. We would have approached the point where one misstep could send it all spiraling into chaos.

Or we can invest a tiny bit of power in an unapologetic punitive attack on Iran. Let our power work for us, and grow. Otherwise, what is it for?

If we do not stop Iran from becoming nuclear, our problems will metastasize. Then it's once more into the breach.

4/12/2006 09:46:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

IOW, if Saddam was tolerable, then it must be that he could've changed (unless all is God's will, preordained, and the future is always already in place).

If so, then OIF's concept needs judgement. Also if so, then past performance must be not a dispositive future indicator.

4/12/2006 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

But the debate, buddy, is not about Saddam anymore. He's been gone for years now.

The debate seems to revolve around Mr Bush and his judgements.
Not the relaitve merits of Mr Saddam.

I have always agreed that Saddam should have been dealt with. In that Mr Bush had 60% approval or support.
It is in the aftermath of the Victory in Iraq, against Saddam, that is where folk have lost faith, for a variety of reasons.

That neither Defense, State nor our Iraqi allies could secure the peace is the now the challenge, in Iraq.

The only reason General Newbold or Mr Powell's remarks have any bearing today, is in judging the Administration's statements concerning Iran.

4/12/2006 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Yes, I agree. We lose credibility if we don't pull through in Iraq.

Interestingly, with Iran, we have a way to lessen that loss of credibility, to bound it, if you will, into a manageable area.

If we fail in Iraq, but still knock the snot out of Iran, the question of credibility will once more focus on our will to act. That is, in my opinion, where it should be--nations must know that America is unbelievably powerful, and is ready to use that power to protect her people.

Of course, our credibility in nation building will have been soured, but that may be a good thing, and if not a good thing, not altogether a bad thing. "America said they would build a democracy, and they couldn't!" is much more manageable than "America said they would turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, and they didn't!" or "America said they would stop Iran from getting nukes, and they didn't!"

Credibility on the last two is much more important than credibility on the first.

4/12/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

James Fallows at The Atlantic Monthly OnLine (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200605/fallows-iran):


About Iran’s intention to build a bomb, there is no serious disagreement among Russia, China, France, and the United States. Iran has dropped its pretense of benign intent. It refused the compromise that Russia formally proposed late in 2005 (though a new round of negotiations was announced early in March). Last year’s elections, the most democratic in that nation’s history, transformed the leadership—by making it more anti-Western and harder-edged. The attainment of an Iranian bomb might provoke Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other neighboring countries to begin nuclear programs of their own, and might make the terrorist groups Iran supports throughout the region feel they can attack with greater impunity. Dealing with Iran is now considered an international crisis.As it has watched Iran’s evolution, the United States has delivered more and more studied warnings that “all options remain open”—code to the Iranians that they should worry about an attack. In different ways, George W. Bush and two aspiring successors, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, have expressed this view. Government officials in Israel have been more explicit still, with the defense minister saying that Israel “will not accept” Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Intellectuals, activists, and out-of-power politicians from Newt Gingrich to Benjamin Netanyahu have all urged their leaders to stand firm.

The biggest change has been in what Soviet strategists used to call the “correlation of forces.” Every tool at Iran’s disposal is now more powerful, and every complication for the United States worse, than when our war-gamers determined that a pre-emptive strike could not succeed.


Perhaps the American and Israeli hard-liners know all this, and are merely bluffing. If so, they have made an elementary strategic error. The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices. The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.


"Excess demand for military action."

Remember that.

4/12/2006 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Again, trish, you find smart people that can carry the water.

That is what I've been trying to say. Mr Cheney and Team have put US, through their public statements in a bad position.

We have to attack or retreat.
Neither is a good place to be.

"Excess demand for military action."

Selfimposed, at that.

4/12/2006 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Rat, "But the debate, buddy, is not about Saddam anymore. He's been gone for years now." is a change from this morning's list of quotes pertaining to precisely that. I must've misunderstood your direction, sorry.

Trish, Fallows is another permanent Bush critic, as is "Atlantic Monthly". Their portrayal of bumbling into a showdown begs the question of alternatives, as in, what would Mr. Fallow's have been at the particular crux points?

The truth may be closer to: we are in a deadly serious war, have been for years (5? 10? 30? 1000? 5000?), and there never HAS bewen an easy-out. One necessity for ending it is a showdown, and one necessity for a showdown is knowing where everyone stands (AKA "smoking 'em out"). Everyone, from foreign nations to ourselves (re Gitmo).

The deep source of discomfort for all of us--besides war itself--is just that, the clearing of the field, the forced removal of the nice fence we've all sat on for as long as the enemy we didn't provoke--except by our being--would let us.

4/12/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Yes, and I agree with most things in that article. However, I think that there are some details that have been left out.

One, I would say that starting in 1979 there has been an inadequate supply of military action. 9/11 was the turning point, the most obvious effect of this inadequacy. Since 9/11 there has been an increase in demand, sure, but how much is "excessive" I simply don't know. I do know that the supply pre-9/11 wasn't enough, so that may help calibrate the equilibrium point.

Two, being "realistic" and throwing out any plans to bomb is just another way of saying that we should accept a nuclear Iran, and all the downstream consequences that would attend it.

Given that, I don't think the demand for military action, while high, is excessive. While it is true that the administration may have boxed itself into a corner, whereafter military action becomes unavoidable, it does not then follow that military action is, in fact, wrong. It just may be that our electoral reality is working in our favor, here.

4/12/2006 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I mean, have we, or have we not, always been willing to call it a day and go home?

4/12/2006 10:21:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

just as the horrible planning disaster of Dieppe in '43 made the '44 Normandy operation more successful, OIF has informed us of the reality of toppling the Mullahs. the analogy is not perfect, but, it must be indisputable that the reality of whatever lay in wait in Iran, is now far better appraised.

4/12/2006 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Mr Sheer's piece, today, was an attempt to defend General Newbold's position, vis a vie the preWar Intelligence, as I thought he was soundly savaged the other day, without much cause.

Sure, buddy, Mr Fallows is a long time "leftist", but Mark Steyn, WF Buckley, Pat Buchanan amongst others, are not.
They are falling away from Mr Bush's position. There must be some good reasons why.
Beyond a hatred of Mr Bush and Republicans.

4/12/2006 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Also, something else to think about. Everyone agrees that non-proliferation is a worthwhile objective. Complainants focus instead on the fact that it doesn't have any teeth, and that it is therefore ineffective.

Well, if you are inclined to agree that the spread of nuclear weapons should be constrained, then enforcement should be your number one priority. Without enforcement, we are relying on an honor code in a world with no honor.

The undeniable fact is that enforcement means America. Of course, we must still act in a way that avoids forcing ethical fence-sitters from defecting from cooperation. But we must enforce.

4/12/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Contact with an enemy changes everything, as has been oft-observed. Until OIF, we had no way of knowing what the Mullahs would do. OIF gave them every reason to rapproach with the west. And they didn't. But we didn't know that, we could not know that, until the event.

4/12/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...


Absolutely, Rat.

4/12/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Are they falling away from his position, Rat, or are they being portrayed--due to squabbles in the detailia--as being against the general position, too?

4/12/2006 10:36:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sure, buddy, Mr Fallows is a long time "leftist", but Mark Steyn, WF Buckley, Pat Buchanan amongst others, are not. They are falling away from Mr Bush's position. There must be some good reasons why.

Buchanan. Since when?
Buckley. Since when?
Steyn. Since when?

4/12/2006 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

They, like me, fall away on the tactics, I think, but not on the general idea of Mohammedan Wars.

They differ in whom the Enemy is, or should be.
They differ on the tempo of the War and whether the slow motion mode the US is in, will, in the end, be successful.
The also differ on the definition of Victory.

The entire "End Game" crowd, which thinks we should win the War before rebuilding Nations. As opposed to those in the Admin that believe rebuilding a Nation will win the War. With that technique we got "Catch & Release" etc. as Policy.

Even today, you began to fall away from the professed Admin Policy, as your 8:26am post indicates.
Good recovery, though. I agree about Mr al-Jaafari sin Iranian Mullahs.

4/12/2006 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I can already see the outline of any campaign to answer a Bush success in Iran. It will be first to assay the wreckage, human and materiel, and then to ask "Did All This Happen Because of Unfortunate Rhetoric?"

This is why it's good that we think about where we are now, so we can help people remember it later.

A suicide terrorist cult with (near to) nukes, harbored in a vast nation the size of two or three Texases, with a population % demography similar to Mexico's, bent on dominion over the mideast (and more later), dominion over the planet's scarce and vital fuel, and dedicated by sworn oath to having a war to the death with Israel.

4/12/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Mr Buckley, about 2 months, democracy is a lost cause in Iraq, to paraphrase.
Mr Steyn about the same, read his article linked to yesterday. That is NOT the Admin's position.
Mr Steyn rejects the Religion of Peace argument the President makes, as do I.
Mr Buchanan, since we did not invade the KSA.

4/12/2006 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

buddy larsen, 10:27 AM

Wasn't there also a training accident that cost the lives of about 900 sailors and soldiers, pre-Dieppe? I am doing this on the fly, but I seem to recall the Germans caught us with our pants down. Would this be considered bad luck, an act of G-d, an unavoidable risk of war, or incompetence?

I am perplexed. When, as a society, did Americans come to demand the sacrifice of the good on the alter of the perfect? It used to be a hard fast rule that the use of constructive logic was impossible before the age of thirteen. The country is glutted now with octogenarians who've never been startled by an original thought. Fluoridation?

___dan - Continuing from yesterday, I vaguely recall that 75%+ of Germany's MDs joined the Nazi party; followed closely by lawyers. Professional credentialing does not immunize against lunacy. My doctor, lawyer, and accountant have their respective missions; the mission is not messianic. I tell you this, not paternalistically, but as an old man hoping to help a young man stay afloat in the Alphabet Sea.

4/12/2006 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

So, anyone who read the pertinent post, then, rat, and came away from the text thinking that those three guys were against Bush and the GWot, would have been mistaken?

My own "fall-away" at 8:26AM, then "nice recovery" next post, implies that I have a "line" on all this (and the corollary, that it would be the "Bush" line), when truth is, that series was based on human nature, that Jaafari is being string-pulled, and that with no more string-pullers, he wouldn't be string-pulled.

I don't follow the admin's daily atmospherics, nor the fine points of the various debates. I just orient around what can be known about the evils, what is lesser, what is tolerable, vs what is political and discretionary, and what is intolerable. What is useful, what isn't, and the like.

I dovetail with Bush a lot, I'll admit, and probably look like a Pub partisan, but you, rat, also look pretty deadset to oppose, which is also partisan. But I know you're not a Kos plant, tho, so, please believe me, too, that I'm not a Pub sheep.

4/12/2006 11:17:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Allen, that was Slapton Sands, and happened in between the other two events. And I agree--perfectionism is a horrific self-wound.

4/12/2006 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

desert rat, 11:00 AM

Mr. Buckley and Mr. Stein disagree with some of Mr. Bush's key premises, as do many conservatives, as does some expanding percent of the public. That is the price paid for trench warfare. That said, with the recommencement of hostilities, I believe the vast majority of Americans will rally round the flag. At least initially, the Dems will too, if for no other reason than self-interest informed by polling.

If Mr. Bush's attack has the requisite audacity (killing the Iranian leadership swiftly and completely) he will be, at least initially, haled as a hero. President Kennedy knew the public well. Mr. Bush should heed his take, "Success has a thousand fathers. Failure dies an orphan."

4/12/2006 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

If the Mullahs are too dangerous to fool with today, what will they be tomorrow?

4/12/2006 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

If we knew the Mullahs would evolve into cold-warriors, I'd say, no don't war on them, because they're crafty and will do us great harm (I'm sure they'll try, and perhaps succeed here and there--but many cells *should* dishearten quickly if the first strike is hard).

But the suicide motif is the Lord's own language--our senses--telling us not to expect, on the strength of there having been a peaceful end to the Cold War, that it will happen that way again, and so we should avoid the harm the Mullahs can do us, and merely wait out the fore-ordained peaceful denouemont.

4/12/2006 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

Buddy, it is not that the mullahs are too dangerous to deal with it is the resulting quagmire we are bound to face if we attack. There is no quick in and out, bomb and leave. Once initiated we are committed for a very long time if for no other reason to protect the Strait and the ships that pass through it. Unless you are willing to abandon Iraq, then you will be essentially 'in country' already after a major attack on Iran. Iraq's 'q' would be very close to an 'n'. No easy borders to seal there. Come to think of it, isn't there another border we have to worry about, more letters though.

4/12/2006 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Everything you say is right, Ash. We are in a very sucky position. Bad sonzabitches are after our heads. Do we fight 'em and get hurt, or not fight 'em and wait and see what happens? keep the brass ring in sight, tho--the outside but real chance that a month of air strikes will cure the whole jihad. Risk/reward, cost/benfit--now and future.

4/12/2006 11:45:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...


I had the impression Buchanan and Buckley were never behind the Iraq war. And I'm sure Steyn has always rejected the Religion of Peace argument. As do I. All of us, it seems, are to the Right of President Bush. Mr Bush may not be such an incompetent politician after all.

4/12/2006 11:48:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Buddy, 10:57 AM -
The Muzzies in general far outstrip Mexico in growth rate, I think, don't know what the figures are for Iran, do you?
I'd guess lower than average.

4/12/2006 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Wonder what Tommy Franks thinks?

4/12/2006 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Doug, both countries have 90-100 million population, skewed way, way, young.

4/12/2006 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

...and in light of this sucky position would it not be wise to try and herd the international cats into a somewhat coherent stance even if it entails sanctions and such spread out over time? There is time, the sky has not fallen. All this 'Great Satan planning attack on Iranian progress' does not help the fledging push for democracy yearned for by the youth of Iran.

4/12/2006 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

If they blow up thirty USA cities on D-day, then we'll have to outlaw Islam. but, if they *can* blow up thirty cities this year, but we don't press them, and just stand aside, what is the life expectancy of those thirty cities, then?

Honest question. It's Buchanan's question--and it's a good one.

4/12/2006 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

You're right, Ash. The whole thread--i thought--is based on the premise that the no-nukes-for-you talks will go nowhere.

Waiting for the Europeans, they're *already* in with what they've got--UN votes.

Past that, we can expect to have to rescue the sailers of the de Gaulle a few miles out of port, as it tries to steam to a position off the coast of Lebanon.

4/12/2006 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I'm certain, tho, that we're already getting to the second echelon of Iranian leadership--and presenting them with two pictures: one with the Mullahs gone and lots of Iran messed up, and another with the Mullahs gone and very little of Iran messed up.

4/12/2006 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thought I heard this somewhere:
If anybody knows why Mexico so low compared to those in US, would appreciate, don't have time right now.
Mexico Population growth rate - People
Flag of Mexico. Mexico Population growth rate. Home > Mexico > People > Population growth rate. 1.17% (2005 est.)

----- Iran Population growth rate - People
Flag of Iran. Iran Population growth rate. Home > Iran > People > Population growth rate. 0.86% (2005 est.)


After the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the subsequent war with Iraq, Iran's radical Islamic regime explicitly sought an increase in the population of Iran and succeeded too well. In the decade from 1976 to 1986, the population if Iran increased by 50 percent.

At that rate of growth, Iran's population would have reached 108 million by 2006. But, in fact, through a variety of measures, Iran has managed to check its population growth with the population projected to only reach 71 million in 2006.

How did it achieve this rapid decline in growth? Through a combination of methods...

4/12/2006 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

I was going to say that it never ceases to amaze me that so many here are convinced, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the admin, and Bush specifically, actually WANTS war with Iran and intends to get it.

But it shouldn't amaze me. That was my own assumption (a not at all unfavorable one) until sometime shortly before the beginning of OIF.

It wasn't the correct one then. It's not the correct one now.

4/12/2006 12:54:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

And that goes back to the issue of "creating excess demand for military action".

4/12/2006 12:57:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

"Haled" should read "hailed", although I do hope the Iranians will have the chance to hail the hale of hell.

4/12/2006 01:07:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

"Haled" should read "hailed", although I do hope that the Iranians will have ample opportunity to hail the hale from hell.

4/12/2006 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

doug, 11:49 AM

Spengler at the Asia Times has a raft of articles addressing the sorry state of the Iranian demographic curve. See,

4/12/2006 01:18:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

And that is what puzzles me. The administrations propensity to "creat(ing) excess demand for military action" leads me to think either they are really not very bright or they really want to go to war.

4/12/2006 01:25:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

The demand was there always. It's the supply that was the problem. Bush is just triangulating, like any good politician.

4/12/2006 01:43:00 PM  
Blogger Frogbiter said...

It's a mistake to think that 10% of the French population is Muslim.
The truth is that maybe 10% is of North-African origin, but most young descendants of those immigrants are second or third generation, and no active believers, even if their name is Mohammed.
Also, many immigrants are from so-called "Black Africa" (Senegal, Niger, Mali, etc.), and many of them are originally Christian believers.
The real issue is that those immigrants are housed in ghettos, away from where the "whites" live, and in a situation where they have no access to employment.
In other words: France's problems are not religious or racial, but social.
Your scenario may not be impossible, but I don't believe in a mass Islamic uprising in France.
We may see more riots, originating from the suburbs, but they are not religious by nature, but the result of (justified) frustration, anger, and a sense of hopelessness.

4/12/2006 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

trish, 12:54 PM

From the perspective of the Iranians, we are in a shooting war, and have been since 1979. Despite the fact that the Iranians have assiduously pursued the war with vigor, dispatching proxies around the world to commit murder and mayhem, during which the citizens of at least a score of countries have been killed, including the loss of the lives of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Israelis, and during which hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage has been done, when has the US launched a retaliatory response? You now know why Iran feels as smugly confident as the Japanese in pre-war China.

General Robert E. Lee was right, "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." Those who have "tasted their own blood and ashes" are well aware of the reality. However, no matter our distaste or regret, the Iranians are hell bent on winning a war, as they have repeatedly demonstrated. The chance that they will be sated by the acquisition of nuclear arms is nil. Their ultimate goal is an Islamic caliphate with Teheran as its center; one that owns most of the world's known petroleum reserves and, most importantly, guards the Straight of Hormuz. Thus ensconced, they, like the Sultans of old, will arbitrarily and capriciously reward and punish with utter contempt for the infidels.

Just what further provocation by the Iranians would be necessary to convince Ash and you that the game is afoot? Just how long do you think a Nile crocodile can be placated with finger food? It does not matter what mistakes Mr. Carter, Mr. Reagan, Mr. H. W. Bush, or Mr. George Bush have made, the Iranians are at war with the Great Satan and no amount of wishful thinking indulged by the gentlemen above, for the past twenty-nine years, has changed by one iota that fact. Risk assessment, cost/benefit analyses, and war-gaming are exercises in futility, whistling past the graveyard. WE ARE AT WAR! We die or they die. What is your preference?

4/12/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...


Allen, WE are not at war with Iran. That's a fact.

4/12/2006 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

frogbiter, 1:57 PM

Do you attribute anti-Jewish violence to youth unemployment? I may have misspoken; do you attribute anti-Israeli violence to youth unemployment? Sorry, I have again misspoken; do you attribute anti-Zionist violence to youth unemployment?

4/12/2006 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

And what do MY, or ash's, preferences have to do with it?

What matters is the administration's preferences.

We don't make foreign and defense policy here at Belmont. We merely observe it.

4/12/2006 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

trish, 2:24 PM

"Allen, WE are not at war with Iran. That's a fact."

Was the US ever at war with Iraq?

4/12/2006 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

trish, 2:29 PM

"We merely observe it."

Silently? I have not noticed any reluctance to be judgmental by the correspondents on this site.

4/12/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

If you read my 12:54, allen, you'll see that I stated that three years ago I favored military action against Iran.

The administration did not. What will it take to convince them? I don't believe they're looking to be convinced. Not at all.

Maybe they're just looking at keeping the IAF on the ground.

4/12/2006 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I know Achmadinejad may be just moody, just shooting off his mouth re "death to America" and "wipe Israel off the map", but what if he gets moody with his hand hovering over the Red Button?

What will just the existence of the Iran Bomb do to Israeli self-defense against Pali terrorists?

"Oy, it vas just a (busload of commuters), (mother and children hiding under their bed), (square block of downtown Tel Aviv), let it go, ve don't vant to piss off the crazy Iranians."

Israel has zero strategic depth, in geography *or* population. Iran Bomb carries the seed of her death--the Mullahs have so said.

The Mullahs prevent the wearing-down of the jihad.

HOW can any self-respecting jihadi quit, so long as the Revolutionary Islamic Republic is charging ahead, carrying the flag of the prophet?

4/12/2006 02:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I don't know what Powell is thinking but I question why he would even give Scheer and interview. I believe in the old saying that we're known by the company we keep and Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department has turned out to be a real hum dinger.

From the Guardian UK:,

"Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, singled out Mr Cheney in a wide-ranging political assault on the BBC's Today programme.

Mr Wilkerson said that in an internal administration debate over whether to abide by the Geneva conventions in the treatment of detainees, Mr Cheney led the argument "that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".

Asked whether the vice-president was guilty of a war crime, Mr Wilkerson replied: "Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well."

Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department has said that Vice-President is a war criminal; a terrorist. For good measure he throws in the following smear:

Mr Wilkerson, a former army colonel, also said he had seen increasing evidence that the White House had manipulated pre-war intelligence on Iraq to make its case for the invasion. He said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicised? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns."

But wait, here is the coup-de-gras:

Mr Cheney has been under fire for his role in assembling evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Mr Wilkerson told the Associated Press that the vice-president must have sincerely believed Iraq could be a spawning ground for terrorism because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard".

I had been wondering where Mr. Powell had been lately? Then he turns up echoing Wilkerson's talking points. Something is going on here and it doesn't smell very good.

4/12/2006 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Whit, it's called "blunt the Saddam papers"?

4/12/2006 03:18:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

wait for it. the chain of custody must be smeared.

4/12/2006 03:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is going on with Powell? Why would he be playing this game?

The argument that Bush cherry picked the intel to justify invading Iraq is ridiculous to any except those whose BDS has affected their memory of the circumstances surrounding pre-OIF invasion. For years our intelligence agencies and politicians of all stripes warned that Saddam had WMD and would use them. Now, those who oppose Bush for whatever reason, choose to "cherry pick" this calumny.


4/12/2006 03:33:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thanks for the Wilkerson reminders.
Not to mention Scheer, one of Dave Horowitz's showcase Villains/Inveterate Liars from way back. ...and a Phony, Limousine Commie to boot!

Rat got on his high horse about being offended by criticism of a 4 star, but I remember being offended by his stale "Military Intelligence being an Oxymoron" comment some time ago.
Also, 'Rat, I haven't noticed a great reluctance on your part to criticize other members of the admin, from POTUS on down! ;-)

IMO, if ANYONE of similar stature deserves criticism, it is the back-stabbing, self-protecting, holier than everyone, Powell.
If he cared for historical accuracy, he would be busily correcting all the BS of his attack dog Wilkerson.

4/12/2006 05:42:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Compliments--if that's the word--to Doug on being mistrustful of the Powell State Dept, all the way back to Belmont's salad days. The more I hear, the more I tend to agree, that admin policy had a rough time straining through that crowd. However, in his defense, Colin Powell did have a DOS fresh from glory under fave-rave Bubba, the demi-antichrist, fouler of all things righteous and decent.

4/12/2006 06:05:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...


4/12/2006 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Papa Ray said...

If you really want to " look into the dark" of what an Islamic [e]urope will be, you need to read this online book (published a chapter at a time).


Hatred of the Angels, Chapter One: Faith Square

Hatred of the Angels, Chapter Two: Ground Zero Mosque

Hatred of the Angels, Chapter Three: Christian Quarter

Hatred of the Angels, Chapter 4, Brotherhoods (NEW)

Additional chapters will be released in the near future.

Don't read it if your prone to nightmares.

Papa Ray
West Texas

4/12/2006 10:11:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...


I do think that a Modified Ledeen is what's going to stick.

4/12/2006 11:07:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

But, in the meanwhile, the admin has to stop making space for its opponents.

4/12/2006 11:17:00 PM  
Blogger Tex said...

charles: in the coming years the cost of water desalination and transport will be killed thus enabling all the worlds deserts to be turned green

That's a very cheerful thought. We could use more of those around here. :-)

It's a big job, though. Could you fill us in on some of the technical advancements that give you reason for optimism? Thanks!

4/12/2006 11:50:00 PM  
Blogger Tex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/13/2006 01:00:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

Modified Ledeen = The encouragement of political change within Iran by external agents.

4/13/2006 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...


4/13/2006 06:58:00 AM  
Blogger Tex said...

dan: Has anyone read Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia"?

I'm reading it right now, actually. Thanks for the heads-up. At first glance Ye'or's line of argument does make psychological sense, and the references seem strong -- at least to me.


1. Do you think the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) has been as influential as Ye'or believes?

2. Through Ye'or I'm seeing more synergy between the passions of EUreaucrats and the passions of the would-be caliphs of Europe. Passions like:

- historical resentment
- need for control over others
- anti-Semitism
- anti-Americanism

Not every EUreaucrat is afflicted by such passions -- and "passion" may be too strong a word for career policy wonks -- but I think we'd agree that these motives are at work in the halls of EU power, yes? And this makes me wonder if perhaps EUreaucrats mightn't be tempted to forge a joint power bloc with the extremist Muslims.

If that's their plan for continued political dominance, they're playing a very dangerous game. For surely where a EUreaucrat sees "alliance", an imam must -- really must -- see "dhimmitude".

Your thoughts?

4/13/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Tex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/13/2006 02:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger