| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Saturday, September 14, 2002
Posted
9/14/2002 09:38:48 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/14/2002 06:00:53 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/14/2002 12:23:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/14/2002 11:44:07 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Friday, September 13, 2002
Posted
9/13/2002 10:38:51 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 06:44:27 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 06:30:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Before a packed National Press Club audience in Washington — including reporters and cameras from Al Jazeera — Burns addressed several issues that President Bush could not in his speech before the United Nations. While President Bush was rightly focusing on Iraq as the next step in the war against terror, Burns was outlining a vision for changing the dynamic of world energy markets.Most interesting was this paragraph in Schulz's article: Most significant were Sen. Burns's comments about America's ally in the war on terrorism, Saudi Arabia. One informed source tells me that the Bush administration vetted Sen. Burns's speech and was pleased with the thrust of his arguments, and that his speech reflects the administration's views and ultimate aims.Read the whole thing--especially if you missed Burns' speech (as I did myself).
Posted
9/13/2002 06:21:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 05:58:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 05:45:58 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 05:21:04 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 04:53:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 04:49:48 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 04:00:22 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 03:38:04 PM
by Edward Driscoll
AFP reports the arrest in the Netherlands of Mullah Krekar, an Iraqi Kurd leader suspected of being the go-between in the Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda relationship. He was travelling from Iran to Norway and was picked up at Amsterdam airport. All those critics who said that the US cannot legitimately take action against Iraq until a link to 9/11 is proven are in for a big surprise one day soon.Here's a Reuters article with more information.
Posted
9/13/2002 03:25:21 PM
by Edward Driscoll
It is entirely possible that George W. Bush will go down in history as the savior of the United Nations, and as much as I dislike the U.N., I salute him for it. The brilliance of Bush's speech, and of the maneuvering that led to it, is still sinking in around Washington. Somehow, Bush managed, once again, to do exactly what his critics wanted him to and defeat them entirely in the process. It's sort of like a Godzilla movie where the little Japanese scientists scream "Over here! Come here!" and when Godzilla finally does exactly what they want him to do, he squishes them between his toes and keeps moving. The "international community" banged their collective spoons on their U.N. highchairs, demanding that the United States work with and through them. Bush ignored their pleadings even as the din of their tantrums became near-deafening. Then, slowly, he turned to the U.N. and squished it. Kofi Annan's speech might as well have been the plaintive "Noooooooooooooo!" one hears right before Godzilla's foot muffles it out of existence.For the Godfather analogy, read the rest of Jonah's essay.
Posted
9/13/2002 03:11:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein "fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction." The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. (Found on American RealPolitik.)
Posted
9/13/2002 02:40:26 PM
by Edward Driscoll
![]()
Posted
9/13/2002 02:22:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 12:22:47 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 02:33:10 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 02:25:50 AM
by Edward Driscoll
I’ve been reading reactions to the President’s UN speech, and I’m amused at how people don’t seem to get it. Oh, now he’s being a multilateralist? Now he believes in the UN? No. That speech was the equivalent of that fabled kung-fu move that removes your opponent's heart and shows it to you, just before you crumple. It’s of a piece with the administration’s behavior since 9/11: Let all the carpers and obstructionists gather on the tip of the thinnest branch, then show up with a saw and announce they have five minutes to come hug the trunk, which incidentally is covered with sap and stinging ants. It was sheer malicious brilliance to cast the entire case in terms of UN resolutions, because it mean the UN had to chose: either those resolutions mean something, or the UN means nothing. Why, it's almost as if the UN painted itself into a corner - and woke up to find this rude simple cowboy holding the brush. How the hell did he do that?
Posted
9/13/2002 02:17:20 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/13/2002 12:52:59 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Thursday, September 12, 2002
Posted
9/12/2002 07:38:10 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 05:10:28 PM
by Edward Driscoll
About a year ago, he presented the Taliban with an ultimatum: Turn bin Laden over to us; shut down all al Qaeda facilities; eject all forces associated with al Qaeda from your country. Otherwise you'll face the consequences. Since bin Laden effectively was the ruler of Afghanistan at the time, and since al Qaeda forces represented the most trustworthy core of the Taliban field army fighting against the Northern Alliance, this was something that the Taliban couldn't do. So what appeared to be a reasonable offer was in fact couched in terms which could not be accepted. He did it again a few months ago, to the Palestinians. In the most significant change of American policy toward the Palestinians in decades, he declared that the US would no longer seriously negotiate with them until they implemented serious political reforms, including removing Arafat from power. (And he was roundly condemned for it. And it seems to be working.) Now he's doing it again, only this time with the UN.
Posted
9/12/2002 04:30:42 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 02:58:16 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 01:16:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 12:34:12 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 12:11:08 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 12:03:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 10:53:00 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/12/2002 10:50:34 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
Posted
9/11/2002 11:54:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 11:01:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 10:39:34 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 10:36:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 08:57:08 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 08:25:50 PM
by Edward Driscoll
And thus, the imperial period of our history starts. Great empires usually are not formed intentionally. From Russia to Rome, dangers at their borders compelled them to take the next bit of land. And so on they continued, until they collapsed. While we will not plant our flag on foreign lands, nor claim them for ourselves, we will insist on intruding and searching and managing. To do less would be criminal negligence on the part of our leaders. But in doing it we will be cursed, like the Flying Dutchman of legend, to wander the globe until the day of judgment.I disagree only slightly. What Blankley describes as our "Imperial Period" began as a result of World War II. And while we've done a good job in some areas, we've dropped the ball in others. Let's hope we don't fumble this time around.
Posted
9/11/2002 06:12:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 05:17:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 03:31:21 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 03:05:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 02:39:59 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 02:34:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
However, KSTP-TV in Minneapolis, where Northwest Airlines is based, quoted an unidentified source as saying the men were "shaving themselves clean." A source speaking on condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that people aboard the airplane gave investigators similar accounts. After last year's terror attacks, documents found in the luggage of attack leader Mohamed Atta gave what appeared to be instructions for the suicide hijackers: "The previous night, shave the extra hair from the body (and) pray."(Link spotted on Little Green Footballs.) UPDATE: The Las Vegas Sun has a few more details. MORE UPDATES, via the Houston Chronicle. Meanwhile, a scuffle broke out on another flight.
Posted
9/11/2002 01:41:22 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 01:25:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 01:01:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 12:51:26 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 12:44:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 11:59:24 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 11:56:10 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Even if [convicted terrorist Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, now serving a life sentence in a Scottish prison] is guilty, surely a middle-ranking Libyan intelligence officer would only act under orders? And those orders, presumably, would have to come from the top, from Khaddafi? Yet we see no desire to pursue this case any higher. By contrast, we see the urgent diplomatic desire for closure. In the same speech earlier this month in which he lined himself squarely beside George Bush on Iraq, Tony Blair talked of extending the "hand of friendship" to Libya, hoping it would come into "full community of international relations." A junior British minister was despatched to Tripoli in August. And what of the many other theories about who did it? Might the attack not have been ordered by Iran in revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian airbus by the USS Vincennes, and carried out, under Syria's guidance, by Assad's client terrorist group the PFLP-GC? Or might Atef Abu Bakr, once Abu Nidal's right-hand man, have told the truth to an Arabic newspaper recently when he recalled his master boasting that he was behind the attack?
Posted
9/11/2002 11:16:32 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 10:44:53 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 10:35:56 AM
by Edward Driscoll
David Gregory, NBC's White House Correspondent, was on Imus in the Morning today and he was asked about George W. Bush's U.N. appearance tomorrow. He revealed that--with half the nation and most of the world expecting the President, like a dutiful and chastened schoolboy to present a kind of book report about Saddam trying to develop nuclear weapons, and then grovel for a UN mandate to do something about it--Mr. Bush is instead going to confront the member nations and the institution itself and ask: What more do you need? He'll discuss the many UN resolutions that Saddam has violated and ask what the purpose of the body is if they're unwilling to enforce their own diktats. He'll demand, though one assumes politely, that either the UN act immediately in accordance with its own previous decisions, or we'll act for them.Good. Just like ol' Coop was, I like a man who's a straight talker and shooter.
Posted
9/11/2002 12:57:39 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 12:04:25 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 12:01:44 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/11/2002 12:01:43 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
Posted
9/10/2002 09:41:51 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 08:30:56 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 08:06:06 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 07:20:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 04:48:06 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 04:15:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 03:28:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
On my way back I looked more carefully, noticed that this bag was way too large for carry on, and yet was way beyond the point where luggage would be checked in. I also noticed for sure that no one was sitting in any of the nearby tables. Alarmed, I went to the security drone who looks to make sure that you have a ticket before you have the honor of having your laptop x-rayed. I told him about the unattended suitcase, and he informed me that basically, he couldn't care less and that "they" (apparently he spoke for all of the security checkers) were only interested in what went through the security checkpoint. Upon being told that I didn't think his supervisor would be very happy with that response, and that could he possibly call someone with a brain (I doubt those were my exact words, but I think it was close to that), a supervisor came over and immediately figured out that this was indeed one of those "unattended suitcases" that they really wanted to avoid. In response to being told that the little drone had basically said "not my job" she announced "Security is everyone's job now." The supervisor dashed over to the offending bag, shouted into the restaurant "does anyone own this bag" and was last seen interrogating the guy who was sitting at the far end of the TGIF bar who came forth to claim his unattended luggage. I guess this is basically the problem: you have people who know their jobs, do them well, respond to whatever is thrown their way, and don't worry about whether it's in front of, or behind the security checkpoint. And you have people who are paid not much more than minimum wage, who will never earn more because they just don't have a clue. I don't know how you teach common sense, mostly because I don't think you can. But perhaps you can buy it by not hiring from the very bottom of the barrel. I realize this is far from the worst offense at airports these days. (Of course, in the event it was a missed bomb that detonated, it would have been--Ed.) It's not as bad as letting guns get through the checkpoints. But it brought home to me just how dependant our security is on mindless drones.
Posted
9/10/2002 02:35:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 02:25:57 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 02:06:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 01:48:48 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Lawal was arrested by police earlier this year after she gave birth out of wedlock. She confessed to having had extramarital sex and an Islamic court sentenced her to be stoned to death. As with the earlier case of Safiya Husseini, who was later cleared on appeal, Lawal's conviction outraged rights campaigners and embarrassed Nigeria's federal government. But Lawal's appeal was thrown out last month, and President Olusegun Obasanjo's regime said that while it considers Sharia criminal law unconstitutional it would not intervene.UPDATE: And here's part 2,672,928.
Posted
9/10/2002 01:37:01 PM
by Edward Driscoll
In a recent appearance on the David Letterman show, the Canadian-born anchor said his mother "was pretty anti-American. And so I was, in some respects, raised with anti-Americanism in my blood or in my mother's milk at least." That attitude is not suppressed on the air. Jennings and his "Road to War?" series have provided a platform for war opponents, leaving out any of the policymakers outside the Bush team who favor American action -- including usual media favorites such as Joe Lieberman and John McCain. They find no public purpose in exploring the costs of U.S. inaction or the benefits of ousting Saddam Hussein. On August 20, Jennings wondered "whether or not the White House is losing control of the debate about war with Iraq." Network anchors like Jennings believe they should have rigid control over any political debate. Their tone suggests that foolish is the president who suggests to the all-powerful boob tube titans that they are not in command of indoctrinating the citizenry in what to believe.
Posted
9/10/2002 01:23:10 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 01:05:21 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 12:32:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 11:40:38 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 11:14:00 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 10:17:01 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 01:27:07 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
9/10/2002 01:24:14 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Home |