Obsidian Wings

Caption Contest Cancelled

Clearly my love of goofy photos (of folks in either party) is an acquired taste. Forget the caption contest...

If you're curious what the image was though, it's available here.

Frickin' French Idjit

Via Sullivan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so I'm stopping short of endorsing Freedom Fries, but Chirac (like many other world leaders I can think of) could use a good swift kick in the pants (you choose from which side). And, get me a chair, I actually agree with Bush:

In remarks prepared for delivery at a Istanbul university, Bush refused to back down in the face of Chirac's criticism on Monday that Bush had no business urging the EU to set a date for Turkey to start entry talks into the union.

"America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union," Bush said.

Normally, I'd jump all over an American President (of either party) who had the cajones to tell Europe how to conduct their business, but in this instance I feel Bush is simply being a good ally.

Turkey needs and most definitely deserves to be accepted into the EU. It will not be an easy task for either the EU or Ankara, but definitely talks should progress quickly, and Chirac's resistance looks like petty bigotry or selfishness in light of other EU countries' stance.

Turkey is keen to use the NATO to showcase its credentials as a westward-looking democracy before December, when EU leaders decide if it has met the political criteria to be put on the formal road to EU membership.

Countries such as Germany, Italy and Britain strongly back Ankara's bid, but Chirac's government has expressed wariness about kicking off a formal process to admit the relatively poor country of 70 million people.

Portugal and Spain and Ireland were all in economic ruins when they were brought in, and all have benefitted greatly. CW from those in Turkey is that they're at least a decade away from joining, but everywhere you go in Turkey you see sincere efforts to earn the chance. Yes, there are very clear indications of fundamentalism rising in the country as well, but no more so than here in the US. For all his problems (and don't fear, I'll leave time for those too), Bush is dead on here:

Bush held up Turkey as an example of a Muslim democracy and said its entry to the EU would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim world and the West, because you are part of both."

Get with the program Jacques.

Don't ask, don't tell.

By popular (if Canadian) demand, here's an open thread to discuss last night's Canadian elections. Or perhaps Canalections. Or maybe Electians. Who really knows? It's really cold up there, and some of 'em speak French.

Like all good citizens of the United States, I make it my practice to know absolutely nothing about Canadian politics -- with the possible exception of the Ottawa Senators, who went on a bit of a slide this year. But when have petty things like "knowledge" or "understanding" or "longstanding treaty obligations" ever gotten in the way of good-old-fashioned American opinin'? So, let me be the first to say: Whoever or whatever you may have elected, it was not George Bush and therefore it almost certainly handed our foes a terrible victory against us in the war on terror. So thank you, perfidious Canadians, for giving Osama warm snuggles and hot chocolate. We're making a list, I'll have you know.

Have at it.

It looks like I was wrong...

...and in this particular case I won't mind a bit: Three Turkish hostages 'released'

THE extremist group responsible for beheading two foreign hostages was releasing three Turkish captives "for the sake of their Muslim brothers", Al-Jazeera television said today.

The Arab satellite station broadcast a videotape showing the three hostages kneeling in front of three members of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad movement, as one of the militants read a statement.

"For the sake of you, our brothers, and Muslims of the people of Turkey ... we will release these hostages and send them safely home," the statement said.

If this checks out, this is excellent news, and I am happy for the hostages and their families. It should not be forgotten, however, that SPC Keith Maupin has almost certainly been murdered. We're seeing a bit of improvisation going on here, I think - which is itself a positive sign (I prefer my country's enemies to react to what we do, not vice versa) but not a tranquil one.

(Via The Command Post)

Moe

Godwin's law in Action.

What to say about the Bush campaign's latest ad, "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed"? Silly? Sure. Least-effective campaign ad ever? Probably. So bad that it's destined to be screened at midnight on college campuses around the world? Very likely.

The first shot in the ad is a statement that Kerry disagrees with every statement that follows in the ad. Promising start. The ad then gives its title: "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Of course, that can't be true because, as the ad itself advised us mere seconds before, Kerry has denounced each and every member of his puported "coalition."

It occurs to me here that perhaps Bush defines "coalition" differently from the rest of us. But I digress. Back to the ad.

Next comes a parade of enraged speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry. Wait. Read that again. Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry. Hitler being, of course, a well-known lover of France (you always hurt the ones you love, you know) and therefore, by extension, a Kerry supporter. Or something like that.

Actually, the Hitler footage is attributed to "wild-eyed" supporter Move-on.org, which had received a couple Bush=Hitler videos during its competition. Maybe you read something about it somewhere in the blogosphere. Say, if you were alive and online.

While I agree Move-on.org is "wild-eyed," it might be worth noting here that Move-on didn't create the Bush=Hitler ads and, in fact, expressly denounced them. So it's hard to attribute the ads to Move-on -- much less Kerry, who (as the ad dutifully notes) denounced Move-on and the ads as Move-on was denouncing the ads. But maybe a denouncement of a denouncing party is in fact an acceptance. Or something like that. This is heady rubber-glue-magic-force-field logic, you see, and I don't pretend to be an expert.

Or better yet, just go read Jacob Weisburg in Slate:

What moron came up with this idea? What are they smoking in Karl Rove's office? C'mon, Will. This ad is the campaign equivalent of The Producers—an idea so egregiously tasteless and stupid that it might just succeed as camp.

Yes, indeed.

I'm not sure if it would be possible for the Bush folks to try harder to drive me away from them. I should be naturally sympathetic: mostly pro-life, pro-defense, lean Scalia on Constitutional issues, dedicated free trader, fan of smallish government, etc. But, every time I begin to consider Bush again either he or someone associated with him does something so outrageously stupid that I feel ashamed that I ever harbored the thought. Bush is utterly unbelievable. He is probably the worst President since Coolidge -- after all, Nixon was a bona fide foreign policy hit.

But you know the sad thing? On some days -- increasingly rare days, yes -- I still think that Bush is better for the job than Kerry.

Fahrenheit 911

I've normally found Michael Moore too bombastic and reckless. His in-your-face style of filmmaking embarrasses me normally, and his speech at the Academy Awards struck me as in poor taste.

After I saw the film last night, though, I attended a moveon.org house party where Michael Moore spoke to thousands of Americans via a national conference call. He was polite and actually quite patriotic. He had helpful advice about getting the disenfranchised back into the political system, and his response to anecdotes of reactions to his film seemed gracious and genuininely grateful.

I had gone into the film expecting to see all kinds of outrageous juxtapositions and innuendoes (and surely it's not a respectful portrait of the president), but I came out thinking there's nothing in there that's any less flimsy than the constant "technically true" propaganda we get daily from the White House, so he's essentially just fighting fire with fire.

European Approach to Nuclear Proliferation

Via Pejmanesque I find this article on the Iranian nuclear program:

NINE MONTHS AGO, as a confrontation loomed between Iran and the United Nations over Iran's illicit nuclear programs, three European governments staged a preemptive operation. Flying to Tehran, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany struck a deal with Iran's Islamic regime: The Europeans would block a referral of Iran's violations to the U.N. Security Council and provide technical cooperation, and in exchange Iran would stop its work on uranium enrichment, fully disclose its nuclear programs and accept a new U.N. protocol giving inspectors greater access. The Bush administration was upstaged; some in Paris and Berlin smugly suggested that it had been given an object lesson by the Europeans in how "soft power" could be used to manage the rogue states in President Bush's "axis of evil."

This week, with the world's attention focused on the troubled situation in Iraq, the European version of preemption is yielding its own bitter -- if less bloody -- result. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have reported that Iran never honored its agreement; it has stalled and stonewalled the inspectors while continuing to work on elements of a nuclear program that could soon allow it to produce weapons. The Europeans have responded by drafting for approval by the 35-member IAEA board a stern statement demanding Iranian cooperation; Tehran has replied with threats to restart uranium enrichment and suspend negotiations with the West.

Probably there will be no such rupture, and IAEA inspectors and European officials will resume their efforts to obtain Iranian cooperation. But there can be no disguising the fact that the European strategy for handling one of the world's most dangerous proliferation problems is proving feckless. It has not produced the daily casualties and chaos now seen in Iraq. But it could, within a year or two, lead to an outcome as bad as or worse than any now foreseen in Baghdad: possession of nuclear weapons or the means to quickly make them by a hard-line Islamic regime that sponsors several anti-Western terrorist organizations. Both the United States and Israel have said they will not tolerate such an outcome.

For now, military action is not an option in Iran, at least for Western countries. But if a crisis is to be avoided, a better strategy is needed. The Bush administration, which once advocated referral of the Iranian matter to the Security Council for consideration of sanctions, now is merely pressing for a deadline for Iranian compliance. The Europeans reject even that as too aggressive. Yet it should now be clear that if Iranian nuclear ambitions are to be checked, Europe -- and Russia -- will have to forcefully employ the leverage of their diplomatic and economic relations with Tehran. So far, only carrots have been offered -- and they have produced no results.

Copyright held by the washingtonpost

Now, anyone with any knowledge of recent history could have told you this would happen, but when Europe intervened nine months ago the 'promises' secured was greeted thusly : "Europe demonstrated yesterday that there is a different, more effective way. And it is not the American way. "

But anyone who has watched the Iran-UN nuclear dance for any period of time could have told you that the most likely outcome of that negotiation would be to allow more time for the Iranian government to continue its advance toward nuclear capacity. America already tried the European way with North Korea in 1994. You may notice now that it has nuclear weapons.

I believe that the closing comment of the editorial which I cited is exactly what many people feel. They believe that negotiation is the way to deal with nuclear proliferation. The EU ministeriat failed to acknowledge that even their pathetic 'success' was tied to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Without a threat of force, they had been laughed at by Iran for years. But now that the US has slowed down in Iraq, and especially now that it has become clear that Europe will do little or nothing to improve the situation in Iraq (or indeed anywhere in the Middle East) Iran feels that it can more publically resist European diplomatic 'pressure'.

The European approach to nuclear proliferation was tried by the U.S. in 1994. It failed utterly against a country with far fewer resources than Iran.

It's Tuesday, and I already wish that it was Friday.

Just thought that I'd share.

Moe

PS: Open thread on, I don't know, music. We haven't had one of those in a while.

Not so Fast There, Mr. President

Stop the Music, stop the music. Turn down that spotlight a bit, would ya?

I'm willing to give the Bush team credit for a very clever early transfer of "sovereignty" as a means to deflate any plans the insurgency may have had for June 30, but I'm not about to let this stand without comment:

Bush said: "We have kept our word" to deliver freedom and a new government to the Iraqi people.

"We pledged to end a dangerous regime, to free the oppressed and to restore sovereignty," he said.

What you said, Mr. President, was

we will ensure that all Iraqis have a voice in the new government and all citizens have their rights protected.

Until there is an elected government in place that represents ALL Iraqi voices, the pledge is not fulfilled. Talk of martial law and loop holes in the interim constitution that may allow more restrictive Islamic law into the final constitution, as well as the added complication of "ensuring" that anything happens in a fully "sovereign" nation make this just another in the long line of premature Mission Accomplished speeches by the President.

Don't do this, please.

At least not here. From Sullivan:

A BLOGOSPHERE CHALLENGE: It's been extremely difficult to get a full transcript of the Michael Moore movie. So here's a thought: why doesn't some enterprising blogger take a tape recorder to a screening, transcribe the narrative, and post it? Then it's a fiskathon. On your marks, get set ...

As your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer, let me suggest against recording Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11."* We call them copyright laws, and we do not call "tape recording the whole damn thing" fair use.

* It being well-established, of course, that Fahrenheit 9-11 is "the temperature at which freedom burns." (Note to Moore: Maybe you could mix one more metaphor into that title?)