zenpundit.com » 2003 » March

Archive for March, 2003

Wednesday, March 12th, 2003

SHOWING THE TRUE COLORS OF THE ANTIWAR RIGHT’s HATRED:

Pat Buchanan, with his trademark bombastic style, has declared all-out war on his Neoconservative opponents – primarily those with Jewish surnames – but not exclusively. The key excerpt from Pat’s J’Accuse:

” We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity. “

Aside from Pat being wrong on nearly every substantive point – the Bush administration for example has been at great pains to indulge Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom’s continued tolerance for its subjects lavishing millions upon al Qaida – were he to prevail in his main goal of stopping the war against Iraq Buchanan would reap not security for America but this nation’s eventual ruin. The ruin would not be some far off day either but most likely within a generation at the outside.

Shortly after WWII there was a brief moment when it would have been theoretically possible to have put the nuclear genie back into the bottle. This was highly unlikely at best due to the nature of Stalin’s regime but when that moment passed, nuclear proliferation was the guaranteed result; first to the Soviets, then to our major allies the British and French. Possession of the bomb became a mark of great power status and it was vigorously pursued by Maoist China after Khrushchev refused to pass along nuclear secrets to Beijing. China, consumed in the ideological fury of the Cultural Revolution, brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust over a few worthless islands in the Ussuri river on their border with the Soviet Union. Now after ” India has stood up ” by testing nuclear weapons it is periodically on the brink of nuclear war with Pakistan over Kashmiri mountain peaks. North Korea, wracked by starvation and noteworthy only for the sheer size of its Gulags now has the bomb and is threatening to use it. Welcome to the future that Pat Buchanan would have for America – where every murderous, offal-pit dictatorial regime on earth can gain the ultimate weapon without risk and where a rogue state or terrorist thermonuclear detonation on American soil will come without a return address.

As in 1945 we are at a rare window of opportunity that will change the course of history. Either the United States deals with Iraq, Iran and North Korea by various means including war if need be to establish the principle that the Nuclear Club is now closed or we have resigned ourselves to a world of uncontrolled proliferation of the most terrible weapons to the planet’s worst regimes. Terrorist groups will not be far behind the dictatorships and all will have the American homeland in their sights either out of ideological hatred or as a shield to permit their own local wars of conquest. These weapons will be used and when after that post-Hiroshima taboo has been broken – used often.

Pat Buchanan should know better. In fact, he does know better having been in the Nixon Administration when Richard Nixon forced the Soviets to back down on their potential nuclear attack on Red China, a situation China itself recklessly provoked, Pat should realize how possession of nuclear weapons emboldens tyrannies to take risks they might have otherwise avoided. Overwhelmed by an obsession with Israel, Jewish conspiracies and personal slights received from presidential primary campaigns long since forgotten, Pat levels his fire not against radical Islamists who thirst to kill us all nor dictators who crush their people under an iron boot but against the editorial offices of the Weekly Standard.

And he calls this Conservatism ?

Tuesday, March 11th, 2003

SHOWING THE TRUE COLORS OF THE ANTIWAR HARD LEFT’s HATRED: This one takes the cake. If it was a non-Leftist group trespassing on private property, engaging in vandalism, setting things on fire would the police have stood around watching the destruction ? Courtesy of Drudge:

Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial

American flags burned and slashed

By Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell, Staff Writer

LA HABRA — Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.

However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were “exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,’ La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday.

“For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,’ he said.

Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.

Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that.

“Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,’ Collison said.

Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display.

Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction.

“They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, ‘America, land of the brave, home of the free,’ ‘ she said.

The Bob Dylan song she referred to is “With God on Our Side,’ an antiwar anthem of the 1960s.

“It’s unbelievable, because there were absolutely no political messages on this fence. It was all about supporting our troops, which could mean bringing them home, and about remembering 9-11.’

Les Howard, a sociology professor at Whittier College, said the incident might be an indication of some confusion among people trying to stop a possible war against Iraq but uncertain how to express their sentiments. However, he said he does not condone the destruction of symbols important to those who erect them.

“Some think (the best way to support the troops) is to not question their role. Some think the best way is to pursue all means possible to avoid putting them in danger,’ he said. “That still does not excuse any desecration of people’s symbolic participation.’

Chandler said she plans to rebuild the Sept. 11 memorial.

“We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,’ Chandler said

These protestors were not engaged in freedom of speech but in criminal actions designed to suppress the speech and expression rights of others. The totalitarian character is evident in their deeds and their alignment with Saddam is as as natural as lemmings heading to the sea. They’ll support the next monster who comes over the horizon too but in the meantime we can hope that a few of them end up doing the orange jumpsuit, comunity service shuffle along a trash-ridden California highway

Tuesday, March 11th, 2003

QUOTE OF THE DAY: Dedicated to France and the Antiwar Left

” The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as if they were reality ”

– Machiavelli

Tuesday, March 11th, 2003

OFF TO A SLOW START TODAY, MOST BLOGGING MAY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL TONIGHT:

Tuesday, March 11th, 2003

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO TOM SPENCER: I’m not sure what he would consider a ” material breach ” of 1441 by the Iraqis. Not refusing to give up 10,000 liters of anthrax. Not rocket bomblets for CB WMD. Not undeclared radio controlled drones with 7 meter wingspans and chemical tanks. Not possessing tactical ballistic missiles with illegal ranges. Not importing chemicals useful only for solid fuel ICBM programs. Not threating Iraqi nuclear scientists with lavish torture of their children if they cooperate with UNMOVIC inspectors. I fence with Tom all the time on his blog,usually good-naturedly and I’ve exchanged emails with him – I can attest that he’s a good guy but I can’t for the life of me figure out ( other than replacing W with a random Democrat ) what Tom would need to consider using force to disarm Saddam Hussein. If Tom has ever argued that Saddam having WMD is a good thing I’ve missed it but by default he appears to believe that the logical consequences that would flow from the U.S. not invading Iraq- the inspections/sanctions process crumbles, Saddam builds all the WMD he pleases – is tolerable.


Switch to our mobile site