Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2003_11_23.php on line 23

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/week_2003_11_23.php on line 23
November 24, 2003
Opinion Journal threatens Red Cross!

Okay, not exactly, but the column is the usual masterpiece of illogic and misdirection.

Apparently the Red Cross isn't allowed to protest USofA treatment of prisoners today because the Opinion Journal doesn't like how they didn't protest Nazi atrocities over fifty years ago. (As though the consequences of publicly condemning Nazi treatment of concentration camp victims and of publicly chastising the Bush Administration for the illegal and limitless detention of uncharged prisoners in Guantanamo were the same thing. The mind boggles. Or does the Opinion Journal know something we don't?)

Contrary to the claims of the ICRC, other activist groups and even some U.S. allies, the detainees are not being held "indefinitely."

That's just a lie. The Bush Administration has already announced that these people are subject to being held until the "end" of the "war on terror" and if that doesn't translate into "indefinitely," then I don't know what does.

The "war on terror" is not some perpetual struggle against international evil, comparable to the endless wars against crime and poverty. It is a conflict between the U.S. and al Qaeda, its associated groups and those states that choose to give it assistance. The war will end when al Qaeda is smashed and no longer capable of launching attacks against American targets. This may take years; wars often do. In previous conflicts, captured Americans have been held for years. Sen. John McCain, Adm. James Stockdale and their fellows spent much of their youth in the Hanoi Hilton.

There's so much wrong with that I'm not sure where to start, so let me start with the fact that in invading Iraq, we were not, in any way, shape, or form, attacking al Qaeda.

Also let me point out that excusing the Bush Administration's actions because they're just doing what the Viet Cong did is not only appalling, it's not likely to win you any friends among whatever intelligent, thinking people inhabit the current Administration.

The column goes on to say that we're treating prisoners better than they were treated in the 16th century and gets stupider form there.

Via James over at Outside the Beltway, a link to a Slate article that not only makes me increasingly grateful that I don't read "women's magazines" but that makes me even more embarrassed for those who do.

It's not that I think it's wrong to be interested in people and, after all, it's as sensible or more sensible than men devouring Sports Illustrated. It's just that it's all so...dumb.

Over at OxBlog, Patrick Belton once again tries to evoke the aura of JFK to cloak Bush's Administration in an air of reflected glory. Why do they keep trying that?

Okay, I lied. I blogged. It was my lunch break, okay? Now I really am gone until next week.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:41 PM | Comments (1)
Well, drat

I had not one, but two book reviews I wanted to get transcribed this weekend, but it didn't happen.

Blogging around, I see that there's a minor kerfuffle going on over something obnoxious (big surprise) Lileks said about Salam Pax and that a few conservatives have joined the party.

No, I'm not linking to any of the Right's posts on the subject, but let me suggest that those involved keep their over-fed, over-privileged yaps shut and allow someone whose country has been invaded and whose neighbors and friends have been terrorized or even killed the privilege of being just a little annoyed at demonstrable instances of mismanagement of said invasion.

(I can't believe those guys are arrogant enough to try and dictate how someone living in a war zone is allowed to "speak" to the man responsible for the invasion of his country Well, I mean, I do believe it, because that kind of "Conservative" is nothing if not dictatorial, illogical, and arrogant, but still.)

Elsewhere, intelligent liberals are laughing at the WaPo, which deserves it for its na´ve pretense that there's no right-wing parallel for Soros' offer of money to the Left to defeat Bush. The name "Scaife's" appears frequently, as it should.

Others are repeating stories that Bush&Co and their security team pretty much trashed Buckingham and let me say right out that I don't believe it. Seriously, folks. You need to understand that The Mirror is a tabloid. You can't trust its coverage, okay?

Aarrgghh! I have more to say, but since my boss is well-aware that my work-related tasks for today involve making numerous phone calls, I figure he's about fifteen seconds away from asking me what I'm sitting here typing and why I'm typing instead of dialing.

By the way, I'm going to be out of the office, out of town, actually, from tomorrow through Saturday. I'll have no on-line access, so I won't be blogging or, indeed, seeing any decent news at all. The last time this happened, I suffered severe withdrawal symptoms, but the stress of a Familial Visit should be sufficient to distract me.

For those of you in the USofA, have a good Turkey Day celebration and try not to eat everything you see.

For the rest of you, I wish a peaceful and serene week, if possible.

Posted by AnneZook at 09:06 AM | Comments (1)