Saturday, January 08, 2005

How Long Will We Tolerate The Lies?

Today, Strategy Page shines its spotlight on the mess that is Syria:
January 7, 2005: Iraqi government officials, including the head of intelligence, are making a lot of noise about Syrian support for the anti-government forces. It's never been a secret that most of the anti-government activity was organized and funded by Iraqi Baath Party members. But the two main branches of the Baath Party have controlled both Iraq and Syria for nearly forty years. The Arabic word baath means “resurrection” or “renaissance.” The party had its origins in the desire of Syrian secular Arab nationalists to break with the medieval past and create a new form of government for Arab countries. The Baath Party was officially founded in 1947 and sought to create a secular and socialist culture in Arab countries. The Baath Party only caught on in Syria and, in 1954, Iraq. The Baath Party platform caught on, and in February, 1963, Baath took control in Iraq, and a month later in Syria. In Syria, Hafez al-Assad originally led the party. His son runs it, and Syria, today. In Iraq, Baath had trouble holding on to power. But by the late 1960s, Baath was in full control, and Saddam Hussein was running the party. That created a problem, however, as both Assad and Hussein insisted that their branch of the party was running the Baath movement. The two men could not agree on who was in charge, and became bitter enemies. For example, Syria sent troops to join the coalition assembled to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, and has long supported any Iraqis that opposed Saddam (and Hussein returned the favor.)

But when Saddam was deposed in 2003, many senior Iraqi Baath Party members fled to Syria, and made peace with the Syrian branch of the party. This put the Syrian Baath Party in a tough position. Bashir Assad took over in Syria when his father died in 2000. Bashir was not groomed to run the country, but instead trained as a doctor. However, his older brother died in an accident, and it was up to Bashir to keep things together. This is not an easy job. Syria does not have Iraq's oil wealth, and the Syrian Baath Party is run by an even smaller minority (Alawite Moslems, 12 percent of the population) than was the case in Iraq (where Baath was run by Sunni Moslems, who were 20 percent of the population.) Worse yet, Al Qaeda considers Alawites just as heretical, and worthy of death, as the Shiites. To further complicate this situation, Syria has long been an ally of Shia Iran, mainly because Iran was a longtime enemy of Iraq.

The Syrian Baath party is in a very difficult situation. They became corrupt, as did the Iraqi Baath party, and turned into a police state. While not as brutal as Saddam's Baath, the Syrians were more effective. The elder Assad was not as eager to invade his neighbors (except for several failed attempts against Israel.) The Syrian Baath Party is thus less hated by Syrians than the Iraqi Baath Party was by Iraqis. But Syria is also full of unhappy citizens who would welcome a more honest and effective government. But like Arabs everywhere, most Syrians are either unwilling or unable to do the deed. And now the Syrian Baath Party sees, as its deadliest enemy, a democratic government in Iraq. Such an development could inspire Syrians to get rid of the Baath Party. Face it, being a dictator is like having a tiger-by-the-tail. It's tough to hold on, but letting go is fatal. So the Syrian Baath Party supports the remaining Iraqi Baath Party in their struggle to regain power in Iraq. But this is a dangerous game, especially as it becomes more and more difficult to deny Syrian support for Iraqi Baath violence inside Iraq. The Syrians try to have it both ways, by insisting that there is no support for Iraqi Baath, while having Syrian police and border guards look the other way as the Iraqis move money and people through Syrian into Iraq.

The Syrian Baath party also has things like loyalty (to fellow Baath members in Iraq) and greed (all that Iraqi oil money they are now getting) to worry about. They can't just tell the Iraqi Baath Party members to go away, despite American demands that they do just that. And then there is fear. A democratic Iraq will be an anti-Baath Iraq. Syria's only friend in the neighborhood is Iran. But even there, it is the minority of Islamic conservatives that dominate Iran, that supports Syria. The majority of Iranians see Syria as another oppressive police state, and an Arab one of that. Most Iranians have an ancient disdain for Arabs in general.

Syria, under the Baath Party, has no friends and few prospects. It cannot, or will not, turn on the Iraqi Baath Party, and, as a police state, certainly doesn't want an democracy next door. But Syria gains nothing by admitting any of this. It comes down to how long Iraq, and the coalition forces, will tolerate the lies.
Of the original axis of evil, now only Iran and North Korea remain. The problem is that it's become clear now that we can't get enough momentum in Iraq without dealing with some combination of Iran, Syria and the Saudis.

They have to make enough blood in Iraq to keep us distracted so that we don't move on to them. Of course the answer is that because they are doing this we MUST move on to them. The war never was about Iraq alone for heavens sake -- the war is entirely about solving the four color map problem in jarring the Muslim Middle East through an enlightenment. It may be near impossible without inflicting on them the level of damage we did on the Japanese -- the last relatively successful case of this sort of alien magnitude. But as with the Japanese, we wait for the sucker punch and then try to defeat them in a reasonable fashion. Don't forget that the Japanese were viewed as a freakishly alien culture prone to suicide death cults.

Of course, now the Japanese -- unlike France for instance -- really are one of our best allies.

But eventually, if we feel like we are headed toward losing or unable to gain a complete win then we will finally decide to do what it takes. Even if it takes the biggest intelligence failure of all time.

So who gets the next target on their back?

LGF has an update on Syria:
This is not just a story about Syria behaving as a rogue state; it is also a glaring example of the UN system failing. For UN Security Council membership from early 2002 through 2003 did not lead to more moderate Syrian behavior but rather to the exact opposite: a more defiant posture than was even witnessed during the years in which Hafiz al-Assad ruled Syria. And in December 2004, General George W. Casey, Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq, has disclosed that the Iraqi insurgency was being run by former Iraqi Baath Party officials from Syria, itself. The current Iraqi leadership in Baghdad has suggested the involvement of the Syrian security services in the insurgency, as well. Indeed, US troops uncovered photographs of senior Syrian officials when they stormed insurgent strongholds in Falujah last November. A captured insurgent in Najaf told the Iraqi security authorities that he had gone through training camps in Syria. In short, Syrian fingerprints are all over the insurgency.

This latest deterioration in Syrian international behavior should not come as a complete surprise. For during those critical years in 2002 and 2003, Syria was promoted to sit on the UN Security Council without any pre-conditions. True Syria had been on the U.S. Department of State’s terrorism list since its inception in the late 1970s. But from the standpoint of the UN, Syria could sit on its most august body without having to modify its behavior in the least. What message did the Syrians internalize from this promotion in their international status? If the UN, from the Syrian standpoint, was the “source of international legitimacy,” then Syrian behavior was viewed in the morally-skewed universe of the UN as legitimate.

Amidst all the talk about UN reform, including the expansion of the UN Security Council from fifteen to twenty-four members, the story of Syria and terrorism is a sharp reminder that for the UN to have any positive influence in the future, its changes cannot be structural alone. The UN must demand minimal standards of behavior of its member states; if not, it risks becoming an entirely bankrupt idea. The original UN of President Roosevelt was born in 1945 in a moment of moral clarity, at which time new members had to declare war on one of the Axis powers. Unless that clarity is restored, the UN will not promote world order, but will inevitably turn into an instrument for global chaos instead.
The U.N. risks becoming an entirely bankrupt idea??? If it's possible to be more than bankrupt then the U.N. has managed it!

Anyway, the most interesting gating question about making Syria next is whether they actually do have any of Saddam's WMD. And while it's all over the headlines that Iran is going after nukes, there are also rumblings and hints about nuclear Saudis and Egyptians.

So what is it? Syria? Iran? Saudis? Egypt? Pakistan? Unfortunately, the answer is simply "yes".

Friday, January 07, 2005

What's A Little Rehab?

among "liberals":

< time_out_declared >
Yes, of course. Communists have hijacked the word "Liberal" in its modern incarnation in U.S. politics. If "classical liberals" hadn't allowed it to be hijacked then I would be a liberal of course. Sheesh.
< /time_out_declared >


among "liberals":
If simulated drowning is torture, wouldn't real drowning be torture? Doesn't this make Senator Kennedy a torturer? Is there any statute of limitation on torture? Couldn't Attorney General Gonzalez have Teddy arrested and prosecuted on this charge? If not, why not?
Posted by: Jabba the Tutt on January 7, 2005 10:01 AM

Some may find Kennedy's objections to waterboarding grotesque, but to exploit the death of a young woman to score cheap political points--to even make jokes about it--is despicable.
Posted by: Dave Laurel on January 7, 2005 10:23 AM

Dave,

I think the way Kennedy behaved before, during and after abandoning the woman is far more despicable.

Somehow I don't think Mary Jo would mind any ridicule of Kennedy seeing as his grossly negligent actions and choices led to her demise.
He hasn't paid much of a price for this crime otherwise, has he?
Posted by: jag on January 7, 2005 10:30 AM

ted kennedy has never accepted responsibility nor been called to account for his role in Mary Jo Kopechne's death.

he is, therefore, fair game. and where, apparently, you see a joke i see a serious question of credibility and competence.
Posted by: steve on January 7, 2005 10:36 AM
Now what was I saying again?

Oh, yeah. That was from the Balloon Juice comments I linked to earlier.

Now in here somewhere is a clue why libs are always forever and constantly in favor of claiming that even Saddam Hussein -- or Teddy Kennedy [even Teddy Kennedy? ed.- I always get my evens mixed up with libs; somehow they always seem to be odd?] -- can be rehabilitated.

I seem to be too distracted to remember why but I'm sure you can figure it out... or not... the libs will try to distract you from even thinking about it you know...

UPDATE: Did I mention that "liberals" somehow always seem to be in "rehab clinics"?
Here's about all you need to know about how loony the left really is -- that you realize you may know even one of them who could mistake this for a serious news report. And speaking of Teddy Kennedy, here's all you need to know about HIS credibility. (Hat tip Glenn)

It Turns Out That Clinton Was Right After All

about rendition. What a sad state of affairs...
God and a perfect world...
A misogyny duh-oh in Dhimmi-land...

Thursday, January 06, 2005

There Are No Secrets: An Insider's View On The MSM

Well here's a comment from Senator Cornyn at the Gonzalez confirmation hearing that you won't hear highlighted by the MSM:
CORNYN: Well, Judge Gonzales, thank you very much for your response to those questions and your appearance here today. My experience, just in the brief time I've been in Washington, is that there are very few secrets, because this place leaks prolifically.

And if you want to find out what's going on in Washington or at the highest levels of government, all you have to do is pick up the daily newspaper or watch cable news and you will find out almost as much as you do by sitting in on classified briefings.

That's been my experience; it may not be typical.
After all, they want you to think that it's what makes them worth the big bucks.

But let's think about this.

If it is part of the value the MSM is trying to charge us for then it's nothing but a true fifth column instead of a useful fourth estate. They're whistling all the way to the bank selling us the rope to hang ourselves with.

You're nuttier than a Cuckoo-Clock if you think that we should applaud people who work hard to get all our secrets exposed in the middle of a war! By all means, if we've got the equivalent of a new Manhattan Project under way then let's be sure to publish anything we hear about it! I can hear Washington, Lincoln and all the Roosevelt's clamoring to leap out of their graves and shout "Danger Will Robinson!" right now.

But if it isn't part of the value that the MSM provides, if they're really running a "false flag" operation to cover up and distract us from the fact that we've got a government that is ITSELF the fifth column then at best they're getting paid for no value at all and at worst they are part and parcel of a fifth column even larger than we imagined.

Of course, Cornyn may also be lying.

But I don't think so.

UPDATE: Ummmm... The MSM probably won't highlight this either...

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

Abe and Old Jew Deja Vu

Remember this from "Could There Be A Reason?":
When someone is 55% right, that's very good and there's no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it's wonderful, it's great luck, and let him thank God. But what's to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever says he's 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal. --AN OLD JEW OF GALACIA
Well of course you don't because ... hey! Why are you reading this blog anyway? But I digress. Now, what was I going to say...

Ah, yes. There are a couple of elections coming up and one big and one smaller one just under our belts.

W won the big one with 51%. The Old Jew would understand.

Yuschenko won with 52%. The Old Jew would understand.

In the death-cult havens of the West Bank and Gaza, Abbas will win with something far in excess of 75%, my guess is over 90%. Think about it. Have you seen a single press report on the opposition? The only ones I have seen were about Bargouti coming in and out of the race from his jail cell. The Old Jew has something not very complimentary to say about this if it materializes.

The Iraqi election is a little harder to figure. It depends on how the "slate" system turns out and whether the Sunnis actually try to vote or not. If the Sunnis don't vote then we may be 75% territory -- but given what the Old Jew knows about Saddam's thugs he may declare an exception...

And Abe would second it.

UPDATE: Not to pat myself on the back too early but more evidence of the 90's for Abbas just was seen on Fox. Turns out there is a challenger other than Bargouti but he is campaigning for the Hamas/Islamic Jihad, etc vote -- and the rest of the report was about how they're all now planning to boycott the election!
Today we learn that neither shame nor embarrassment imposes any limits on their conduct.
You don't want to miss Brother Ledeen on "Values and Interests". Really.
Utter garbage gets the financial ripost it deserves.

Honoured By A Vessel ... And More

My recent "MSM-porer Watch: More Thoughts On "Open Source" Media..." is posted in this week's Carnival of the Vanities hosted by Vessel of Honour. Thanks Vessel! (And to Glenn as usual.)

And reinforcing the derision of my reference in "MSM-porer Watch" to Cory Pein of the (so-called) Columbia Journalism Review, Power Line devastates what remains of the stinky carcass thrown aside by Charles:
I could go on, but there is little point in doing so. CBS ostensibly "worked" on the National Guard story for years. They took fake documents from a notoriously unstable source who had no first-hand knowledge of President Bush's National Guard career, and who could not account for where he got them. On their face, the documents looked nothing like authentic National Guard memos of the 1970s that were in CBS's possession, but CBS asked no questions. CBS carried out no investigation to determine whether the memos were genuine, and made a point of not talking to people who were ostensibly quoted in the memos to determine whether the documents were accurate. They put the documents before the American public in the heat of an election campaign, and closely coordinated their story with a Democratic National Committee advertising campaign which dovetailed perfectly with the fake documents, and which began the morning after their broadcast. When questioned about the documents' apparent fraudulence, they stonewalled, and Dan Rather guaranteed the American people that the documents were authentic, because they came from an unimpeachable source.

The bloggers, on the other hand, began questioning the documents within hours after they appeared; raised many logical questions about their authenticity, the vast majority of which turned out to be valid; pointed out anachronisms within the documents that proved that their contents were false; and were ultimately proved correct in their suspicion that the documents were fakes. Nearly all of which occurred, not over a period of years, which CBS had to pursue its "story," but over the space of twelve hours.

And the Columbia Journalism Review thinks it's the bloggers who are blameworthy in this story. Sad. Very sad. But I guess we know whose side the "journalists" are on.
Yes -- and I know what side I'm on also.

And my side doesn't stink of suicidal lunacy infested by hero-worship of barbaric thugs.

(More on Melanie's latest soon. Your assignment is to RTWT for now -- that means downloading the whole PDF! But start with Power Line if you only have a few minutes now.)
Michael exposes the other Green Communism. (HINT: Submission is a common thread.)

Drugged Dhimmi Dogged Daze

Roger notices Dhimmi Britain on screen -- and sets the proper tone of depression for those with still functioning grey matter. Here's enough to make you realize that you need to go read it ASAP:
And even more alarmingly, this:

'According to experts, the vile campaign of the Zionist lobby in Britain against the July visit of prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has backfired and cemented the position of British Muslims in society. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) concluded that there was no legal ground to prosecute Sheikh Qaradawi as requested by Henry Grunwald QC, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The mayor of London has further apologized on behalf of the people of London for the fuss that overshadowed Qaradawi’s visit and invited the prominent Muslim scholar back to the United Kingdom in October 2005'.

Let us remind ourselves that Sheikh Qaradawi supports human bomb terrorism against Jews, the execution of homosexuals and domestic violence against women.

No doubt IslamOnline would also have claimed, had their deadline permitted, the following additional British cultural scalp, reported in the Sunday Times on Boxing Day:

'THE Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine "family friendly" representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran. Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. The Revenue has been asked to relax this so that a husband’s estate can be divided tax-free between several wives.The move is bound to create controversy if it leads to a change in the rules. It is seen as a breakthrough by Muslim leaders who have been campaigning to incorporate sharia into British domestic law.'
Hoo-haw! Those without grey matter somehow smugly advocate that we must be tolllllllerant of polygamists, wife beaters, pedarasts and people who throw gays off of roofs for entertainment.

But don't you worry, it's me that's the intolerant one for suggesting that Einstein's kinfolk might not deserve to be slaughtered by the millions.

Whatever drugs these leftist idiotarians are on they sure must be wicked.

And poor Tony Blair -- the only one in the crowd that has occasional days of lucidity...

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Today's arrogance update.
Did Hillary miss her best chance?

The New "Moderate" Senate Victocrat Leader Projects Racism

... and is in way, way over his head already as Eugene vivisects with the help of James. He's either a dimbulb or seethes subconscious racist hate to the point where it overpowers his rational faculties. My guess is both are true.

You're always going to be making nutty mistakes like this when your whole life is a lie. You become one big parable of projection.

Monday, January 03, 2005

MSM-porer Watch: More Thoughts On "Open Source" Media...

Check this out from Powerline:
Listening to Austin Bay on Hugh's show tonight, I was struck by the thought that it's no wonder that many journalists feel threatened by the new media. The fact is that very few of the smartest people around are journalists. And today, people aren't forced to get their news and commentary from journalists. It's a good thing.
Sadly, the 4th estate is not only the Emporer with no clothes, but on balance not swift enough to realize it. The subtext that journalists love to propagandize is that their ranks are filled with the sharpest tacks in the whole world's box.

Simple evaluation buttressed by the law of averages illuminates that not only isn't the MSM uniquely endowed with wattage, but that blogs are becoming to the MSM what (in my profession) open source software has become to companies that attempt to purvey shoddy and/or over-priced software: A brutal and well-deserved ripost.

And once you strip away the curtain from the little MSMan, the only really key advantages he has are 1) generally above average writing (and propaganda!) skills, 2) momentum and capital (including advertising revenue) in controlling the traditional channels of distribution, 3) the ability to use that capital to distribute reporters to where "it's happening", and 4) connections and access to newsmakers (which are also often obscured on purpose as in "highly placed sources within the administration..." ).

The analogies with software are 1) change "writing skills" to "software writing skills", 2) lift as is except perhaps delete the ad revenue, 3) the infrastructure to extract "domain knowledge" from key customers and markets and 4) probably not applicable except perhaps a weak relationship in situations where there are key "lead customers" in developing a new market that may be financially "locked up" through discount plans.

While open source software hasn't exactly destroyed traditional software yet, it's clearly made some serious inroads as follows:

1) While professional software firms by definition have strong software design and writing skills, there are plenty of talented software writers that aren't necessarily employed by the mainstream firms -- many who do it as a passionate hobby. Sound familiar? In fact, many of them are encouraged by their employers (often computer hardware-focused companies) to make life difficult for the mainstream software firms in order to compete on a "substitution" basis and try to maintain a grip on a larger chunk of the total system revenue stream.

2) The internet has emerged as an effective alternative distribution source. Sound familiar?

3) The internet has enabled software folks from all over to collaborate easily and find insiders to work with to extract "domain knowledge". Often this may be the writers themselves! Sound familiar?

4) Bottom line is that the "lead customers" no longer need to wait for big software firms to come to them -- they can even initiate new projects themselves! Sound familiar?

So, how to dismember the MSM? Well, some in the MSM have already examined this subject and concluded that blogs can't win because "blogs bear little resemblance to a glossy publication".

Hmmmm... Yes, in the same way that a personal computer bears little resemblance to ENIAC I suppose. And as I recall, Ken Olsen, the founder of the now gobbled up Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) couldn't for the life of him think of a reason why anyone would want a personal computer!

But in the end it's all about value and respect. The "folks" are realizing that they're not getting good value from their daily MSM brainwashings even when it's tolerably well written or produced. The folks look around and -- gosh! -- everyone they know DOESN'T seem to be stealing from Tiny Tim or eating Arab children's brains for breakfast! It turns out that that kind of stuff only happens in the imaginations of big city MSM-emporer-type poorly-behaved smart-asses after a night of poor-quality drugs. (As I've pointed out before, you gotta love projection...)

And when folks get REALLY tired of their letters to the editor not being printed, they discover the "Publish Post" button.

And huge numbers of the folks are WAY smarter than ANY MSM-porer when it comes to their "domains of expertise". Columbia Journalism Review has just put out a perfect example that has been nicely dissected by Charles here.

Did I mention that I have a Master's in Computer Science and I know rather a lot more of whence I speak than the apparently vacuous Corey Pein about Dr. Newcomer's analysis?

Did I mention that the MSM-porer has no clothes and that ad revenue is the last prop that can possibly steady him?

Hmmm... Buggy whip time anyone? Time to steal some blogging time and start collaborating on a new advertising software idea methinks. And there may be serious money in them-thar hills -- but I might even give it away for the MSMajor satisfaction of it all...
This would be all you need to know about the smugly daft left for today... UPDATED ALREADY: Never say I don't admit my mistakes!

Sunday, January 02, 2005

Did I mention that "nuttier than a cuckoo clock" isn't even in the right universe to describe these fruitcakes?

It's Not Cool To Be Smart (Part 34267)

I knew there was some sort of a problem with Al-Jazeera but just couldn't put my finger on it. Could it be stuff like this? Nah. Everybody knows that he's just a home-grown Arab hero. In fact, Ramsey Clark will be defending him so he's just got to be innocent.

Oh, well. I'm just not smart enough to figure out the problem...