Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The wait is on | Main | 10 books with a positive influence »

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Touché

Scott Reid appeared on Mike Duffy's Countdown this evening, defending the indefensible:

Duffy: Well, what do you say to the accusation that your group has been causing more crimes than it's been preventing?

Reid: Oh Mike, I'd be lying if I said my men weren't committing crimes.

Duffy: (pause) Mmm, touché.

Obviously, I paraphrase.

Posted by Rob Huck on May 31, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83447731453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Touché:

Comments

Rob did u get a load of that law professor who wouldnt say anything nasty about the liberals he could only repeat over and over that Mr Grewal should be careful about entrapment, blah, blah, blah. Its obvious now that the press is going to sweep this under the carpet.

Does anyone have any connections to Fox News. Kevin, Ezra?? Get Bill O'Reilly to do a piece on this. Kevin you could get him to interview you and you can give him the lowdown. How about it??

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-31 9:31:42 PM


Further through the show, Stan Keyes and Deb Gray were invited to talk about Gomery, Grewal, etc., and Duffy and Keyes couldn't get enough of each other, jostling and laughing while Gray attempted to make a serious point about the ethics and legalities involved with the Grewal tapes.

It was pathetic.

Posted by: Rob Huck | 2005-05-31 9:46:09 PM


I just watched that bit too and Duffy at the end rather than let Deb finish her thought, condescendingly blows her a kiss. You are right, absolutely pathetic.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-31 9:52:08 PM


Towards the end of the 'Countdown' program, Duff held up his Blackberry and said that someone had just then e-mailed him to remind him that that professor had, not long ago, been a member of the National Governing council of. . . (wait for it). . . the Liberal party.

Hands up all those people who were surprised.

Posted by: JM | 2005-05-31 10:12:35 PM


In my view, Duffy's show is a deliberate propaganda tool of the Liberal Party. Even the name 'Countdown' is revealing; countdown to the next election.

It's pure blatant Liberal Propaganda. There's the whitewashing of Chretien. They are going to tell us, more and more frequently, incidents of ordinary citizens seeing Chretien on the street and rushing up to show how much they love him. That sets a scenario where, if you, the viewer, dislike Chretien, then, you are 'unCanadian' and guilty of some personal foul psychic neurosis.

Other incidents of pure corruption by the Liberals will be dealt with by the 'reductionist to commonality' technique. Oh - you say the Liberals attempted to bribe someone? Ah yes...did you know that the Conservatives, in 1905, did exactly that as well? Ahh...politics. Heh heh.
That's going to be a common tactic on Duffy's show - reduction of actions to commonality.
Other tactics will be reductionist as well.
(1)Reduction of incident to irrelevance by showing that 'others have done it' even if years ago.
(2)Reduction of incident to irrelevance by denigrating anddiverting effects. (No-one lost their life in this interaction, so, what's wrong with bribery?)
3)Reduction of incident to irrelevance by diversion (Oh, it's far worse in the US/Zimbabwe/Far Space).

It is pure open propaganda, not paid by the Liberals, but it IS Liberal. Don't think it is news, that it is informative, that it is objective. It is propaganda and has ONE agenda. To brainwash the Ontario voter in particular to Vote Liberal.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-01 7:47:42 AM


From my vantage point, it appears the entire Ottawa sycophant MSM clique is in full damage control mode running interference for the Martinite regime on this one...I mean this is a criminal act....they certainly seem uniform in attacking the Conservatives and Grewal for a number of petty irrelevancies while down playing the implications to the government should Grewals charges prove accurate. Even Wells is guilty od CPC sniping on this issue.

Conversely, I see this issue playing big in BC and Alberta news and political chattering circles....another indication to me that the two solitudes in this nation are not definded by linguistics but by political culture...east and west have never been more devided in mindset.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-01 10:56:42 AM


East West solitudes. Nice try.

Is that why John Ibbitson, Ontario journalist and frequent commentator on TVO and CTV, wrote a condemnation of how Martin is playing politics? Because the east just doesn't get it?

Wells was saying the delay on releasing the transcripts was making the CPC look amateurish. He's right.

Why the delay? Nail Martin. Even if Grewal looks bad. Who cares. The pressure has got to be maintained.

Most op-ed writers in Canada have been piling on the Liberals. Why? Because Liberal corruption is proving an excellent story. One with legs. It sells papers.

Reporters want to write stories that will get read. That sell papers. It's not a conspiracy, it's capitalism.

With Gomery this dynamic works to the CPC's advantage. The Liberals understand this and are working hard to change the dynamic to their advantage. What do you guys do? Ohh, boo hoo, the Globe reported that Christians are taking over a few conservative nominations.

Yeah, complain. But that's news. Just as if Musliims were taking over nominations for the Liberals or the NDP. The Globe reported on Martinite attempts to steal nominations. Remember Shiela Copps and her Hamilton riding? She made it onto Mercier. (As did Deb Gray)

Will Gomery get the CPC elected? Probably not alone. But stop crying over every setback. Wells point was stop whinning about how you want to run the country and act like you're ready to run the country.

Oh, and learn basic spelling.

-- Rotten out!

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-01 11:19:08 AM


Right WLM - it's a divided country.

But what's going on right now on the MSM and in the Liberal agenda is a political campaign. For Ontario.
The Liberals have given up on Quebec. They are no longer interested in it. They aren't interested in Canada as a unity either. And they aren't particularly interested in the west. It's Ontario. It's politics.

No, that's not right; it's not about politics, if by that term we mean any attention to the rightful governance of a society. It's about one thing and only one thing: Power.

What we have set up in Canada is a governance that has removed itself from political obligations to the electorate and become committed to one thing: Power. Its own power.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

It has all the means to ensure its continuity in Power. It has all the taxpayer money to use to bribe whole sections of the population. It controls the media. It controls the courts, it controls the upper house, it controls the heads of public corporations, it controls everything.

- remember - the Canadian system has only ONE SMALL SECTION of its infrastructure that is elected. The House of Commons - and we have just seen, in the past few weeks, how the Liberal Party has ignored the will of that House. That House, the only part of our parliamentary system that is in the control of the electorate, is crumbling in power. Because the party in power, the Liberals - is ignoring its decisions.

Canadian governance is almost ALL appointed. How's that for democracy? The upper house, the courts, the deputy ministers, the heads of public corporations, on and on and on. All of it is appointed by ONE office, the PM's office. Without review. Without accountability. Without vote.
It's like handing the country to ONE person on a silver platter.

The only way this system could work with integrity, is by the notion of 'honour and duty'. But, thugs and thiefs feel such emotions only to themselves and their Cartel. Not to the electorate.

Result? The electorate has no control over its governance.
The electorate is kept passive by the redistribution of our high taxes - our money is flung back to us to keep us passive and centrally controlled.

At the same time, the population is brainwashed to ignorance and guilt. The citizen is made to feel guilty if he ever criticizes The Party. The citizen is kept ignorant of all reality because The Party controls the media, the journalists, etc.

Sounds like N. Korea, like China, like the Soviet Union, like Nazi Germany? Yes indeed.

Contrary to those above states, Canada is an oligarchy (controlled by a group not an individual) but not a military oligarchy or dictatorship. The military is not needed to repress the people from confrontation - the media propaganda is all that is necessary - and bribes to the people to keep them 'fed'.
The reason no military is needed is because our economy functions without the need for guidance from a government. Whatever we produce, the US will consume it.

And, no military is needed, because, although we denigrate and demean the Americans, we still feel that it is Our Right that they should defend us if we ever needed such defence. And of course, the Americans can keep the world and us safe from terrorism. We are perpetual adolescents, secure in mocking our parents yet certain of their support.

The West? There aren't enough seats to concern the Liberals. All they expect is to keep a Minority Government. Indeed, that is all that they need. They have learned that they can completely ignore the House of Commons; they can bribe its members, they can even ignore its votes and statements. The House has no more power. If the Liberals have learned anything in this past year - it is that they can destroy the ONLY elected governance of our country - and get away with it.

They can set up inquiries and reject the conclusions of those inquiries, or lose the documents, or reduce the mandate of the inquiry such that all it can do is state its Name, Rank and Serial Number.

The Liberal Gov't has learned that it doesn't need an elected majority to maintain its power. All it needs in the House is that elected minority. Why? Because the unelected sections of our government are all appointed by these Liberals and these sections have become far more powerful than the House.

The Liberals are focusing on one thing only. Ontario. Getting the vote there, so that they retain their Minority. They don't give a damn about the rest. Or about the country. Or about integrity, political duty. Just power.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-01 11:42:48 AM


The Americans are keeping the world safe from terrorism?

Lately the seem mainly to be making the middle east safe for Iran. Thanks a lot George. Good to know you thought that one out.

As for the rest. Bullshit. Canadian politics has always been about regionalism.

Here is your definition of propaganda: Anyone who is not a conservative party activist or who dares criticize conservatives in any way is a liberal stoogie. Anything that detracts from this model ET ignores. If the Globe writes a piece critical of Paul Martin, the Liberals, it doesn't exist.

This is beyond stovepiping intelligence, this is stovepiping reality.

Careful, don't let ambigiouity cloud your thinking. Just like a good ideologue.

You seem agressively against politicians who lie and manipulate and steal. Good for you. So am I. That's why I think the Liberals don't deserve power. I'm not as sure of the alternatives though.

But, question: How should Canada react to the latest series of memos? Those that clearly demonstrate the Bush administration and Blair lied to bring about war?

-- Rotten

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-01 11:56:38 AM


Johnny Rotten
My analysis of the Middle East situation is that Bush/the USA were 100% right to have taken out the Hussein regime and thus enabled the emergence of democracy in the whole ME area. It is Canada's shame that we refused to help free millions of people from tyranny; that we stand by and watch people murdered and abused by dictators..and we pontificate and sneer when other nations say 'enough'..and go in.

The reasons for my approval is that the tribal method of governance operating in the ME for centuries was the key factor fomenting and enabling Islamic terrorism, because it disenfranchised the majority of the population in that area, is functional only in a no-growth peasant agriculture economy of medium sized populations (and is kept in place in the modern era only by dictatorships). The transition to an industrial economy, and an exponential growth in population in the 20th century, particularly in the last two decades, in these areas was not followed by an equally basic change in political structure. This imbalance led to the explosion, rather than implosion, of asymmetry in power (economic and political) of the population - and this asymmetry forms terrorism. Asymmetry of power is a reality in all living systems, but when the proportion becomes too large, 'disease' sets in. That's exactly what happened in the ME. It happened in the West in the period beginning, around..1100 AD.

My analysis is based on ecological data (% of arable land, % of resources, % of urban population etc), demographics - population statistics - growth, deaths, changes, mov't from rural to urban, and analysis of the comparative nature of population size, political systems and economic systems. There's a very close link between those latter three.

So, yes, the American freeing of the ME from dictatorship is basic to the end of terrorism. By the way, people don't change their mode of life in a month. It took the west over 400 years to move from a tribal governance to a democratic mode. What's your analysis based on?

Bush and Blair did not lie. Hussein DID have WMD (remember, he used them on his own people) and the UN gave him enough time to get them out of the country before the Coalition went in. What you are ignoring is the basic infrastructural reasons for going in - freeing people from a repressive dictatorship (that doesn't bother you?) - and thus, enabling them to move into the ONLY political system that can function in a large-size population with an industrial economy - i.e., democracy. Democratic regimes will not produce terrorists. Asymmetrical ones, trapped within modes of governance that repress the majority, will produce terrorists.

What does 'Canadian politics has always been about regionalism' mean?

Please provide proof of my 'definition of propaganda'.

My conclusion remains valid. The majority of the commentary in our national media is pro-Liberal. It is either explicitly so, or implicit, in that it reduces in importance, the faults of the Liberals and increases in importance the faults of the Conservatives. Your one example of a G&M critical editorial of Martin is, statistically, not relevant. What is relevant is - the statistical average - and it can be shown that this average is heavily weighted in favour of the Liberals.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-01 12:52:38 PM


Spare me your psuedo-economic blather about peasantry. Next you'll be quoting Spengler.

That might impress the nit-wits who post here, but knowledge of some semi-relevant historical cycle that may or may not mean fucking anything in this context isn't going to impress me.

Democratic regimes don't produce terrorists? What? Surpressing the majority? I'm not even answering that. That's the most retarded reasoning I've ever seen.

Iran? Why is Bush so insistent on helping Iran? That's what is happening.

Do you read the news? Or only right wing spin?

What weapons? Where are they? Oh, they've been spirited out of the country. How convienent. You sound like Paul Martin insisting he had no knowledge of what his staff is up to.

Refusing to face reality isn't a virtue. Conservatives should know that.

You should be a Liberal spin doctor. Except you'd be incompetent at that as well. So they'd never hire you.

The UN gave Hussien time to spirt them out of the country. Okay. Prove it.

THE ONLY PLACE THOSE WEAPONS EXIST IS IN YOUR MIND.

I assume you refer to the 1980s gassing of the Kurds. Where the gasses used a weapon of mass destruction? No. Who helped Saddam cover this up? The US. Who was the envoy? Rumsfeld. Now you want to use this as an excuse for war? Nice try.

Bush and Blair lied when they said they were only interested in war as a last resort. That they were pursuing all other options. That they were taking the case to the UN.

Their is documentation that they weren't sincere. That they were lying.

They only settled on Weapons because of expediency. This is laid out in a memo delivered to Blair's cabinet.

Thus they lied.

They lied in their public statements.

They lied in their rationales.

They knew they were lying.

Franks has admitted they upped their air attacks to try and provoke Hussien. Because they were despertly trying to find a rational for war.

Do you live in a bubble?

You can still support democracy in the Middle East. You can still support the idea of invading Iraq.

My question was what to do about leaders who lie. Specically what should Canada do toward a leader who we know lied to us.

Blatently. Remember the pressure to get Canada's agreement?

In the abstract. How should Canada's national leadership react to a leader how lies to us about something as important as war?

Regionalism has always had a strong pull in Canadian politics. Canadians it seems vote as much according to their preceived 'tribe' and/or 'region' and the interests they percieve for that tribe and'or region as they do for a distinct political ideology.

OH, I there was a study done by McGill University which found the opposite. Canada's media is more critical than the Liberals than any other party. This makes sense. Since the Liberals have been in power throughout the 1990s (thanks for Stockwell Day guys) there is more to stuff to criticize them about.

I suppose you'll say the study is biased. Do your own. Keep your methodology transparent please.

2 journalists tried to do one measuring journalists attitudes. But it flopped. They were shown to be hopelessly biased.

Way to declare your conclusions valid. Who do you think you are?

-- Rotten

(I'll even do your work for you)

"INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY"

....THE TIMES OF LONDON HAS GOTTEN HOLD OF THE MINUTES OF A SECRET MEETING BETWEEN TONY BLAIR AND HIS STAFF THAT WAS HELD ON JULY 23, 2002 AFTER TALKS WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. AN EXCERPT (ITALICS MINE):

C REPORTED ON HIS RECENT TALKS IN WASHINGTON. THERE WAS A PERCEPTIBLE SHIFT IN ATTITUDE. MILITARY ACTION WAS NOW SEEN AS INEVITABLE. BUSH WANTED TO REMOVE SADDAM, THROUGH MILITARY ACTION, JUSTIFIED BY THE CONJUNCTION OF TERRORISM AND WMD. BUT THE INTELLIGENCE AND FACTS WERE BEING FIXED AROUND THE POLICY. THE NSC HAD NO PATIENCE WITH THE UN ROUTE, AND NO ENTHUSIASM FOR PUBLISHING MATERIAL ON THE IRAQI REGIME'S RECORD. THERE WAS LITTLE DISCUSSION IN WASHINGTON OF THE AFTERMATH AFTER MILITARY ACTION.

CDS SAID THAT MILITARY PLANNERS WOULD BRIEF CENTCOM ON 1-2 AUGUST, RUMSFELD ON 3 AUGUST AND BUSH ON 4 AUGUST.

THE TWO BROAD US OPTIONS WERE:

(A) GENERATED START. A SLOW BUILD-UP OF 250,000 US TROOPS, A SHORT (72 HOUR) AIR CAMPAIGN, THEN A MOVE UP TO BAGHDAD FROM THE SOUTH. LEAD TIME OF 90 DAYS (30 DAYS PREPARATION PLUS 60 DAYS DEPLOYMENT TO KUWAIT).

(B) RUNNING START. USE FORCES ALREADY IN THEATRE (3 X 6,000), CONTINUOUS AIR CAMPAIGN, INITIATED BY AN IRAQI CASUS BELLI. TOTAL LEAD TIME OF 60 DAYS WITH THE AIR CAMPAIGN BEGINNING EVEN EARLIER. A HAZARDOUS OPTION.

....THE DEFENCE SECRETARY SAID THAT THE US HAD ALREADY BEGUN "SPIKES OF ACTIVITY" TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE REGIME. NO DECISIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, BUT HE THOUGHT THE MOST LIKELY TIMING IN US MINDS FOR MILITARY ACTION TO BEGIN WAS JANUARY, WITH THE TIMELINE BEGINNING 30 DAYS BEFORE THE US CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.

IN OTHER WORDS, BY SUMMER OF 2002 BUSH HAD ALREADY DECIDED ON WAR REGARDLESS OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S ACTIONS; DEMOCRACY PROMOTION WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN PASSING AS A REASON FOR THE WAR; POSTWAR RECONSTRUCTION WAS AN ISSUE OF NO CONCERN; AND, AS ANDY CARD TACITLY ADMITTED EVEN AT THE TIME, THE "MARKETING CAMPAIGN" FOR THE WAR WAS DELIBERATELY TIMED TO COINCIDE WITH MIDTERM ELECTIONS.

NUMBER 2


THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
...
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.
...
Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-01 1:34:26 PM


Johnny Rotten:

1) Why is my analysis 'pseudo-economic'? Why is knowledge about peasant economies a problem with you? Why should I refer to Spengler?

2) Why do you define people who post on Shotgun 'nitwits'? I am presuming it isn't self-referential.

3) What historical cycle? Why do you reject any knowledge of history, of economic theory, of political theory?

4)Don't dictatorships repress the majority? They don't? Why is my reasoning 'retarded'? You still haven't answered me - what is your analysis for the emergence of Islamic terrorism?

5) By the way - never, ever, insult another person. Don't attempt a discussion on this or any blog, if your methods include personal insults. Stick to the issues.

6) No. They didn't lie; Hussein had WMD. Yes, poison gas is a WMD. Furthermore, you haven't analyzed the basic reasons for the war - to change the ME from tribal dictatorships to democratic self-governed regimes. Such a change would end the rationale for Islamic terrorism.

7)What does regionalist voting have to do with the infrastructure of the Canadian parliamentary system - which, as I said, is primarily an appointed rather than electoral system.

8) One study (you haven't supplied the reference) by one professor is, as I'm sure you know, inadequate as proof. How can I say the study is biased/not biased when you haven't supplied the reference?

9) Your pasted quotes - again, you provide no reference as to their source - are insufficient as proof of anything. Surely you know that a quotation can be found that validates/invalidates ANYTHING. I could find a quote, now, that validates the reality of witches, of the earth as flat, that informs me that Elvis is living, that proves that Bush and the USA blew up the WTC on 9/11 by themselves. And so on.

10) You need hard evidence, referenced sources, logic - oh- and don't insult people. Ever. Stick to the issues.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-01 2:02:09 PM


I only restorted to insults because it seems the MO around here. Anyone who doesn't abscribe to this stite's brand of conservativsm is a moron, apparently.

Why don't you lecture O'Neill? Or any of the other nit-wits who seem to delight in the put-downs.

You want to have authority, you've got earn it. Try fairness. I think Kant called it the Catagorical Imperative.

The IRA
Timothy McViey
ETA
The Red Brigades
The Black Panthers
The Japanese Red Army
Indonesian el Queda
The Turkish Wolves
The FLQ
Tamil Tigers

Want more ...

Democracies have produced more than their share of terrorists. I'm sure you'll find some non-sensicle thing to quibble about. Like ethnically based groups don't count. Or ones based on political ideologies. (What couold be left?) Keep refining the definition.

In fact I would say it's almost a democratic specialty. Though maybe the modern phenomena is a bit more complicated than a simple reduction to one or another political system. A refusal to acknowlegde complexity seems to inhibit much writing here.

Mustard Gas is not a WMD in the normal sense of the word. WMD is a recent linguistic construction, originally designed to capture weapons with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads. It has been expanded for political purposes. It was a horrible event, but Saddam did not use a WMD to gas the Kurds. To insist otherwise is to be historially ignorant.

The memos:

The Times of London obtained the first memo. C is believed to be Jack Straw. The memo is based on a report he gave Tony Blair after visiting Washington. The second memo quotes Tommy Franks. Who was he again? He hasn't taken back his words.

Tony Blair has not disputed the memo. As much as confirming its veracity.

I am surprised you haven't read it before. it clearly shows that the Bush Administration was searching for rationales to go to war. Then decided how policy and what facts they could manipulate to 'prove' those rationales.

I agree democracy is a great thing. The Middle East could use more of it. The record clearly demonstrates that the Bush Administration didn't think this provided sufficient reason for the invasion. They didn't care. i don't think Bush even mentioned it until right before the election.

Why did they keep changing the rationale.

You must be appalled with how the invasion has proceeded. The Pentagon has started preparing for Iraqi insurgents to start spreading around the globe. Just like the Afgani vetrans did. That scares me. Iwant the US to suceed and refuse to be blind to the problems that are going to come from that mangled invasion.

But believe what you want. You can have whatever opinions you want, though you'll find you're own facts harder to justify.

The Globe and the National Post reported on the memo. Of course, the response from the conservative journals has been silence. See no Evil Hear No Evil eh.

Again: What penalty should leaders who lie pay?

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-01 5:03:01 PM


Johhny Rotten

Because someone else uses insults is no reason for you to do so, unless you yourself have no principles and simply copy others. That is, don't excuse yourself of your behaviour by saying 'someone else does it'. Are you just a follower?

What does 'authority' have to do with these issues? And Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' is not about fairness (what does that mean?); it's about the primacy of law, understood as universal and necessary, over particular desires. That is, you are not supposed to set up a different standard of values for yourself and insist that you have the right to that value. That's relativism...which is very 'big' in Canada.

Timothy McVeigh was not a member of a terrorist group; he was a single individual in a criminal action. The others were indeed terrorist groups, acting internally, and usually advocating a group-based ideology (communism, ethnic solidarity) and attempting to obtain the insertion of their mode of gov't by non-democratic means. Such attempts will always fail, if the majority of the population rejects it. The population will fight back.

Don't sneer at someone else's argument. Don't insult me. I don't dabble in 'nonsensical things to quibble about'.

What do you mean by saying that 'a refusal to acknowledge complexity seems to inhibit much writing here'. Don't sneer at people. What do you mean by complexity? It happens to be an area of my own expertise. So- what do YOU mean by it and that statement?

The terrorism I was referring to in all my previous posts, with the Americans and the ME, was Islamic terrorism, which is an externalized rebellion against their totalitarian gov'ts and moves into anti-Western ideology. That will diminish and end, with the development of democracy in those regions.

I didn't say that democracy will end dissent and a desire for different modes of life. I said, and will continue to say, that democracy in the ME will end Islamic terrorism that is externalized against the West. The basic nature of democracy is that it permits dissent, it permits differences of opinion. However, democracy must also operate by the rule of law, and therefore, dissenting views cannot be imposed by violence. That is criminal; they have to be 'imposed' by persuading the majority of the population that such views are right and beneficial. That's what democracy is about - the right to dissent, to debate and decide, for oneself.

The gas used, to my understanding, was not mustard gas by a cyanide based gas. The definition is not relevant; what is relevant is when a leader uses force against civilians.

The Iraq War, in my view, was and remains, the correct action. The whole ME HAD to be moved out of tribalism. They could not do it on their own, for the tribalism had become enforced by military dictatorships. Without that force, the people could have risen on their own in a civil war and overthrown the hierarchical tribe. With it - never. The regime change had to come from the outside. And it had to be done, because the 'civil war' had transformed into Islamic terrorism directed against the West. That had to be stopped; I'm sure you would agree on that?

I disagree with you. Bush has made his policy of freedom quite clear, again and again. Read his speeches.

Thank you for allowing me to have my own opinions; very noble of you. But, why are my facts hard to justify? Remember, I'm dealing with facts and facts are just that; one doesn't justify them.

I'm not appalled at the current situation at Iraq. I'm appalled at the ignorance of so many who are appalled at 'the current situation'. I'm appalled at the ignorance of what happens during deep structural changes. What has gone on in Iraq is, in my view, tremendous. They've had an election - their election. They are setting up their own gov't, a constitution, establishing themselves as owners of their economy...not just as peasants receiving rations from Hussein.
Yes, there are the 'insurgents' - outright criminals. You cannot change a mindset in a month or a year. It will take at least a decade - and I always used to tell students that it takes at least THREE generations to change the deep structure of a society. I'm saying, in our modern world - give Iraq 5-10 years, and it will be splendid.
The current insurgencies - are based around tribalism. When your primary loyalty for thousands of years has been to your kingroup, you don't drop that in a week. And, there is also a criminal element, which has realized that taking hostages can be financially lucrative. That's happened in Central America..where the Marxist rebels, after the Soviet Union abandoned them, moved into drugs and hostage-taking as their economy.

Again - Blair and Bush believed that Hussein had WMD. What puzzles me is why some people, not all, but some, are so infuriated at believing that they 'lied', and go on and on and on about that - but are indifferent, are silent, to the Iraqi people. You'll hear the usual nod of righteousness: 'Of course Saddam was evil..and then, comes the BUT, BUT...Bush lied. Or Bush had no right to go in without the UN. (Since when is the UN, corrupt or not, the ultimate authority?) Or Bush had no right to go in unilaterally. (which in one gasp sweeps off Britain, Australia, Japan, Poland, Spain, Italy, etc, etc...). Oh..you mean only Germany and France count? Why?

The bottom line is: Was the Iraqi War 'just' or not'? I obviously am strongly in favour of it. I simply don't understand how the world can stand by and watch tyranny. It is simply imcomprehensible to me.

What penalty should leaders of states, and their populations, who observe tyranny, who observe mass killings, who observe leaders who torture their own citizens, who imprison them without due cause, who enable famine, who engage in tribal wars - what penalty should these leaders and people pay? Is it ethical to stand by and watch?

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-01 6:08:29 PM


A nice summary ET. A couple of points to add – even Chirac thought the WMDs were there. Probably Saddam thought they were there too, he certainly wanted the rest of us to think so.
France and the UN were about to lift the no-fly zones, the sanctions etc. Saddam was about to get all his oil back to sell to France and others. But as even David Kay reported (who was not exactly supportive of Bush)
“"In a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made
it a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated."

On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported-and the David Kay report had established-that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Finally, simply look at the history of Saddam’s treacherous actions- he personally was a WMD. His crazed sons, deemed to be successors, had learned the tyranny trade and would have been as bad if not worse then dear old Dad. Plus thanks to France and the UN lifting sanctions the kids would have had more money to buy WMD with.

I’m miffed that anyone would not be thankful that these nut cases are finally removed. As for the insurgents, they are what David Warren calls flys to fly-paper. Better to take the war to them. We’ll have to hang the fly-paper for a while.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-01 7:06:10 PM


Nice work on ignoring the Times memo and Tommy Frank's admission.

Not important I guess. Go on about tribalism and how to affect grand socio-historical change and I'll deal with what actually happened.

That's what we've come to expect of right-wing thought.

Fly-paper theory? Good one. As if there is a finite supply of terrorists in the world, and we just have to attract them to one place. Tell that to the vacationers in Bali. Or the working class communters in Madrid. Or in Istanbul.

Here's a commentary by someone who knows what they are talking about. Unlike the posters here. Don't worry I don't expect you to read it. It's probably too long.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603

I posted it anyway.

Steve Biddle of the Army War College. His point is that lofty rhetoric might get bloggers excited but it isn't doing us any good in Iraq. We've got to decide what we (the US) are really doing or we're in deep trouble. The US is at a crossroads and which way they turn will have deep results.

As befits someone who has been dealing with military and issues of grand strategy his entire career he deals in complexities. You say you deal in complexities ET. I don't believe you. At least not from your posts. It's not evident.

What tyrannalical dictator is the Bush administration currently supporting? What country is that again? Where they just shot those people?

So I take it you two are in favour of the Mullahs in Iran. Who are about to get nukes. You don't seem to care that the Iranian foriegn minister just visited Iran. Not important? Not worry-some?

What is this remember don't insult anybody? Who are you my mom? Who died and made you the internet princess?


-- Rotten out!

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-01 9:51:32 PM


Dear "Johnny Rotten"

I know Johnny Rotten.

I worked with Johnny Rotten.

And you, sir, are no Johnny Rotten.

Do you need some help in coming up with an original moniker?

In the event of another failure of the imagination, I'd like to suggest you use "Joe Strummer."

As Johnny Rotten said, "Joe Strummer is the kind of class war socialist who was always just about the slogans."

Might I suggest also that if you're going to go the ranting route, you should,

a) Only put down the views of those who are less intelligent than you are.

b) Refrain from insulting people who always post thoughtful, well-written, well-researched, informed and respectful comments here.

c) Try your best not to reveal your insecurities, your childhood disappointments and traumas, or your deep neuroses (e.g. "Who are you my mom? Who died and made you the internet princess?")

d) Endless rambling and ravings like "Rumsfeld was in Iraq killed Kurds not war crime NOT WMD Bush is killing he is they are dictator -- The Liberal Democrats got this off the web - no where are they? You are a pig - I hate and then why don't you boj jbcuui&TU&gu7t87&*&T^yuidinb agytraaaaarrggghh!!!!!!!" just don't cut it.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 10:31:13 PM


In the words of the one and only real Johnny Rotten:

Now, now pay no heed.
Don’t care for you.
These things in ease.

You can generalize,
Vvery easily.
These things in ease.

Walk and talk.
Dysentery.
These things in ease.

What makes you happy-
Your misery.
These things in ease.

You're so normal

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 10:32:03 PM


Some more words of wisdom from the real Johnny Rotten:

Senseless reasoning.
You believe what you want to believe.

On you no one can depend.
Bad times, now they must end.

Whatever you want it to be,
For you that’s what it will be.

Honesty to you is arbitrary.
Logic is lost in your cranial abattoir.

Shallow, empty inside.
Sly-witted and full of snide.
Bad times, now they must end.

The shutter-speed of your thinking process is small, too small.
Too full of pride.
Bad times, now they must end.

Lost in a storm.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 10:35:43 PM


Would the real Johnny Rotten please stand up.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 10:47:19 PM


Some more pearls from the real Johnny Rotten on the fake one:

Closed mouth catches no flies.
Burning bridges as you're crossing is not very wise.

When analysed, be tongue-tied,
Play snakes and ladders, but not suicide.

Like casting pearl before swine,
Talking to you is a waste of time.

You burned the bridges you've been crossing.
Go crawl back into your dustbin.

From you expect this lack of respect.
To be sly. Not one of a kind.
Pretty picture, bad frame of mind.

I've learned caution.
This comes from wisdom.
These altitudes,
These dizzying heights,
These bottomless pits,
These sweet delights.

Under surveillance,
Sweet subservience,
I think you're stupid.

Go crawl back into your dustbin.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 10:48:42 PM


How shameful it must be to not even have one's own name; to have to steal someone else's discarded alias...

http://www.thefilthandthefury.co.uk/pistols/interviews/sp_john03.html

Is anyone else enjoying hearing from the real Johnny Rotten, instead of the sadsack wannabe?

Here are some more gems:

"This kind of left wing absurdists' point of view: they don't care if they lie through their teeth they just want to destroy what gets in the way of their vision. Their vision of the world is a corrupt one.

"They misunderstand principle one of any Gaelic person. Humour. Humour, you'll tell the best truth and honesty in humour, and you'll catch the point and purpose of life in humour, but you won't in self indulgent misery and intellectual mind twaddling.

"These people don't seem to have a life, they judge things in such a superficial, childish, self-absorbed, coffee shop, wine bar way, you know.

"And they have this need to hurt people verbally, well, I can do that very well but it's always in retaliation. My weapons are well fucking armed."

Posted by: Your Irish Scourge, Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-01 11:05:22 PM


Wow, somoebody's got their knickers in a twist.

I see no engagment with the issue. Typical.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603

Please comment.

How do you know I'm not Irish?

So you're in charge of who gets what alias? Sorry buddy.

-- Rotten

Posted by: Denise Rotten | 2005-06-02 7:54:10 AM


Brian and ET,

The bottom line is not whether the war was 'just' or not, the bottom line was did the leadership lie to get their people into it.

(Though you might like to review just war theory, as it has been articulated over the last 500 years. It doesn't matter if you think the war was just, it matters whether the war meets certain criteria. It didn't.)

Here, again, is a summery:

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way for a full year before the invasion had officially begun.

Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets.

The full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war.

As for Iraqi's present state. Please refer to this like:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603

That's what the US Army War College is debating.

Again, to clarify. You are entitled to your own opinions, just not your own facts. I am listing evidence above. Deal with it. Unless, of course, you are some kind of wacky, reality is illusionary, postmodernist. Which I doubt. That stuff would be too hard for you guys to read.

-- Your Rotten Irish Spoiler

Posted by: Jackie Rotten | 2005-06-02 9:22:32 AM


Now, now pay no heed.
Don’t care for you.
These things in ease.

You can generalize,
Vvery easily.
These things in ease.

Walk and talk.
Dysentery.
These things in ease.

What makes you happy-
Your misery.
These things in ease.

You're so normal.

Senseless reasoning.
You believe what you want to believe.

On you no one can depend.
Bad times, now they must end.

Whatever you want it to be,
For you that’s what it will be.

Honesty to you is arbitrary.
Logic is lost in your cranial abattoir.

Shallow, empty inside.
Sly-witted and full of snide.
Bad times, now they must end.

The shutter-speed of your thinking process is small, too small.
Too full of pride.
Bad times, now they must end.

Lost in a storm.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-02 9:39:18 AM


I'll take that as a capitualtion.

What, out of your depth? Don't know how to respond? That happens when confronted with facts. Especially when they contradict cherished illusions.

"Not all conservatives are stupid, but all stupid people are conservative."

Rotten wins. O'Neill loses.

So you agree the Bush Administration lied. You obviously then don't care if Martin does so.

Thanks for coming out

-- Little Tiny Baby Rotten

Posted by: Johnny Rotten | 2005-06-02 10:14:26 AM


You are weird.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-02 10:19:31 AM


Thanks for posting the link to the Biddle paper, Johnny. Very interesting.

Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-06-02 10:50:43 AM


The Biddle Paper provides a lot to think about. At least you get a window into what those who actually have to deal with Islamic terrorism and the threat it poses are thinking. The options they feel they face. Very disappointed with the Bush Administration.

Brian,

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: The Rotten Family | 2005-06-02 11:41:04 AM


On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force."

The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way for a full year before the invasion had officially begun.

Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets.

The full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive"--in other words, a war.

Posted by: ET - Comment Please | 2005-06-02 12:28:28 PM


Just in case readers make the natural error, obviously intended by the writer, of assuming that ET-Comment Please was written by me, ET, it wasn't. I am guessing that the post was written by 'Jackie Rotten' because the verbiage and agenda are the same (strongly and mindlessly anti-American).

First- I don't presume or imply to be any other person than myself. Those are my initials and if someone else on this blog had the same initials, I would change mine so as not to deliberately confuse readers. I think that such a tactic is unethical.

Second- I was and remain strongly pro-American and pro the Iraq War. I've given my reasons before. For those of you who reject out of intent or ignorance - the theories of economics, demographic and population analysis, and sociopolitical organization - you will reject my conclusions. But, using those theories, I think they 'hold their own'.

And - I think that ethics matters. I don't use any tactics to confuse readers of this blog.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-02 1:52:04 PM


The joys - and evils - of democracies is that leaders who lie will pay at the polls. That Bush and Blair were re-elected speaks for itself.

The "punishment" is when the people force their leader to resign, and the Iraq issue is more complex than being about only one issue - wmd (whatever they are, are we too dumb to understand the actual names of these weapons?). This was about a horrible, horrible man, who treated "his" people abmomiably, and would have treated the rest of the world's people this way as well, given the chance. And he wanted the chance.

Posted by: ld | 2005-06-02 2:10:31 PM


What is the problem you have engaging with reality?

The above post. Then move on to the Downing Street memo. Posted further above.

Starting a war before war had been declared, or admitted it was being fought, while simultaneously telling the American electorate that war was the last of all options being sought sounds like a lie to me.

Rear Admiral David Gove, Gen Tommy Franks and British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon are mindlessly anti-American?

Why don't you do a population analyis?

Posted by: Getting Mouldy | 2005-06-02 2:14:40 PM


Rotten - speaking of reality, why don't you stick to your 'real' blog name? Why are you denying reality? Your blog name, is versions of -'rotten', which is also your email name.

Why are you lying to the readers of this blog? Why are you misleading them and changing your name? Why did you deliberately attempt to mislead readers by posting a comment using my initials (ET) and adding only a 'please comment' to use in case of challenge? And now - you are posting under 'Getting Mouldy'. Why don't you show some consistency? Or are you deliberately lying and trying to deceive viewers into thinking that more people have those views than you? Hmmm?

Do you know what population analysis means? Or is your tactic of dealing with ignorance merely a response of sneering and contempt.

You don't understand the Iraq War. You are profoundly ignorant of history, economics, social structures. You have NO concept of what was going on in that country and how it was affecting the rest of the world. You are, however, mindlessly anti-American.

Post under your name and don't try to mislead other people. After all - isn't that what you claim Bush was doing?

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-02 2:24:43 PM


I expect, then, the readership of the Western Standard will accept Paul Martin as PM, despite all his dirty tricks, if he gets re-elected.

Since he won't have been punished as would be proper.

Just as this magazines readership has accepted, no applauded, the lies that led the US into Iraq.

Democracy is a great thing. Hopefully it will stick in the Middle East. I applaud George W Bush wanting to encourage it there.

But, in a democracy process and law, the rules are important. That is what the fuss was about, wasn't it, about Paul Martin, Belinda and the non-confidence vote that wasn't?

Wasn't the hoopla because process and the rules hadn't be followed?

Those things being important to a democracy. In fact they are crucial.

So I guess the readership here are a bunch of hypocrites. They get more excited over a point of parlimentary procedure than world leaders lying to take their countries to war.

As is now indisputable clear.

Hypocrites.

Here's the depressing news from today.

"Carol J. Williams of the LA Times argues that the suicide bombings in Iraq are on a scale unprecedented in world history.

She writes, "U.S. officials and Iraqi analysts say the insurgents' resources are increasing on several fronts:

money to buy cars and explosives, expertise in wiring car and human bombs, and intelligence leaks that help the insurgents target U.S. and Iraqi forces."

'There is no shortage of volunteers for the fatal missions. There is some evidence of Iraqis undertaking suicide missions, as well as the foreign jihadis, and she cites such an anecdote.'

Equally disturbing for anyone interested in a positive outcome.

'The British military in southern Iraq is making plans to withdraw to bases and ultimately to depart the country. They hope to turn security over to Iraqi police and other security forces.

For all practical purposes most security in southern Iraq has for some time been provided by the Badr Corps, the Dawa Party paramilitary, and the Sadrists of various stripes--i.e. by religious party militias.

The British have long since acquiesced to this situation, and their just-announced plans simply underline that acquiescence. Given that they have had on the order of 10,000 troops in southern Iraq, and that the southern port city of Basra alone has a population of 1.3 million.'

Maybe liars don't make good leaders?

Posted by: Starting to Smell | 2005-06-02 2:30:39 PM


Why would I be honest when nobody else is?

Malleable standards got the US into the mess in Iraq.

And I don't mean the invasion itself. I mean the sloppy and slapdackle means with which the post-invasion was carried out. Against the advice of several US government agencies. Including the State Department, which wrote a multi-volumm study on the what post-invasion Iraq might look like. It was ignored. Just like the evidence that Bush lied. Congrats!

The US military bureacracy was working, and the Bush Administration derailed it.

Read the Bindle paper about the choices facing us now. Hopefully these won't be ignored.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603

Posted by: Peeuuuee! | 2005-06-02 3:31:09 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.