It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
- Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC (often incorrectly attributed to Charles M. Province) -- Author: - Father Dennis Edward O'Brian, USMC
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Jeff Jacoby comments on the passing of a villain
JEFF JACOBY
Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist November 11, 2004
YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.
In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."
God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.
Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.
Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.
Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.
Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:
"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)
And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?
How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?
It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.
Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.
Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?
So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command
Arafat the monster
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist November 11, 2004
YASSER ARAFAT died at age 75, lying in bed surrounded by familiar faces. He left this world peacefully, unlike the thousands of victims he sent to early graves.
In a better world, the PLO chief would have met his end on a gallows, hanged for mass murder much as the Nazi chiefs were hanged at Nuremberg. In a better world, the French president would not have paid a visit to the bedside of such a monster. In a better world, George Bush would not have said, on hearing the first reports that Arafat had died, "God bless his soul."
God bless his soul? What a grotesque idea! Bless the soul of the man who brought modern terrorism to the world? Who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity.
Arafat always inspired flights of nonsense from Western journalists, and his last two weeks were no exception.
Derek Brown wrote in The Guardian that Arafat's "undisputed courage as a guerrilla leader" was exceeded only "by his extraordinary courage" as a peace negotiator. But it is an odd kind of courage that expresses itself in shooting unarmed victims -- or in signing peace accords and then flagrantly violating their terms.
Another commentator, columnist Gwynne Dyer, asked, "So what did Arafat do right?" The answer: He drew worldwide attention to the Palestinian cause, "for the most part by successful acts of terror." In other words, butchering innocent human beings was "right," since it served an ulterior political motive. No doubt that thought brings daily comfort to all those who were forced to bury a child, parent, or spouse because of Arafat's "successful" terrorism.
Some journalists couldn't wait for Arafat's actual death to begin weeping for him. Take the BBC's Barbara Plett, who burst into tears on the day he was airlifted out of the West Bank. "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound," Plett reported from Ramallah, "I started to cry." Normal people don't weep for brutal murderers, but Plett made it clear that her empathy for Arafat -- whom she praised as "a symbol of Palestinian unity, steadfastness, and resistance" -- was heartfelt:
"I remember well when the Israelis re-conquered the West Bank more than two years ago, how they drove their tanks and bulldozers into Mr. Arafat's headquarters, trapping him in a few rooms, and throwing a military curtain around Ramallah. I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: `Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege.' And so was I." Such is the state of journalism at the BBC, whose reporters do not seem to have any trouble reporting, dry-eyed, on the plight of Arafat's victims. (That is, when they mention them -- which Plett's teary bon voyage to Arafat did not.)
And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?
How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?
It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.
Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.
Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?
So let us recall them: Ilana Turgeman. Rachel Aputa. Yocheved Mazoz. Sarah Ben-Shim'on. Yona Sabag. Yafa Cohen. Shoshana Cohen. Michal Sitrok. Malka Amrosy. Aviva Saada. Yocheved Diyi. Yaakov Levi. Yaakov Kabla. Rina Cohen. Ilana Ne'eman. Sarah Madar. Tamar Dahan. Sarah Soper. Lili Morad. David Madar. Yehudit Madar. The 21 dead children of Ma'alot -- 21 of the thousands of who died at Arafat's command
Saturday, November 06, 2004
I Can't Believe I am Loosing to this Idiot
NEW YORK, Nov. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- When President Bush's poll numbers surged in April after a press conference where his performance was derided by the press and the chattering classes, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry was baffled, writes Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in an exclusive report in Newsweek's special election issue. "He said with a sigh to one top staffer, 'I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.'"
Entire article here: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html
Entire article here: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/041104/nyth186_1.html
Will Arlen Specter sieze the Judiciary
By Charles HurtTHE WASHINGTON TIMES
From the Nation/Politics section
Senate Republicans are speculating behind the scenes on ways to prevent one of their own -- Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- from becoming the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Long a thorn in the side of conservatives, Mr. Specter further outraged many Republicans this week when he told reporters that President Bush should be "mindful" not to send pro-life judicial nominees to the Judiciary Committee for confirmation when he takes control of the committee in January. "We are looking at a variety of ways to keep the gavel from going to Arlen Specter," said one Republican Judiciary Committee staffer. Though they disagreed widely on the likelihood of success, numerous Republican Senate aides contacted by The Washington Times yesterday concurred that efforts are under way to bar Mr. Specter from becoming chairman when term limits force Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, to surrender the gavel at the end of the current Congress. One scenario that seems to be gaining momentum among Senate Republicans would be to give the chairmanship to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, who has seniority over Mr. Specter on the Judiciary Committee. But doing that would require Mr. Grassley to give up control of the Finance Committee, where he wields a great deal of power. "There is an enormous amount of pressure on Senator Grassley to do this for the base," said one Republican. "The idea would be for Senator Grassley to take one for the team for at least two years to send Specter a message that this is not what Americans voted for on Tuesday." Several Republicans said it was highly unlikely that Mr. Grassley would give up his committee for Judiciary. But others said the stakes are so high after Tuesday's election when conservatives -- who care passionately about judiciary matters -- voted in unexpected droves. Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said simply: "Senator Grassley will be serving four more years as chairman of Finance." In another scenario, committee Republicans would defy tradition and skip Mr. Specter in seniority.
ADVERTISEMENT
You can save articles using our Insider’s Newsclips service "Under the rules, the committee members could simply vote for someone else," said a third Republican aide familiar with the efforts. If that happened, the chairmanship likely would go to Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is next in line in seniority. Mr. Kyl could not be reached for comment yesterday. While senators and staffers refused to discuss the efforts publicly, Mr. Specter is aware of the speculation and has issued two statements denying press accounts that he had warned Mr. Bush not to send pro-life nominees. "Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything and was very respectful of his constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges," Mr. Specter said. "As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush's nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue." The latest imbroglio began during a press conference Wednesday when Mr. Specter said the pro-choice rights guaranteed with the Roe v. Wade decision are "inviolate." He also compared the judicial supremacy of Roe v. Wade to that of Brown v. Board of Education, a decision that rendered racial segregation illegal. Noting the Democratic-led filibusters against some of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, some who were opposed to abortion rights, Mr. Specter said, "The president is well aware of what happened when a number of his nominees were sent up.... I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned." Conservatives in the Senate resumed discussions about ways to block Mr. Specter from controlling the committee, according to aides. It didn't help Mr. Specter's case that incoming Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said yesterday that he agreed with his Republican colleague's comments. "I think Senator Specter is right and the fact that there was a negative reaction to his remarks is not a good omen," he told reporters yesterday. Several Republican Senate offices reported being inundated by phone calls and e-mail from outside groups enraged over Mr. Specter's comments. "We just got handed the opportunity of a lifetime and they don't want us to screw it up," said one Republican staffer. "Arlen Specter must be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee," said Mathew D. Staver, president of the conservative group Liberty Counsel. "We need an advocate who can weather the battle over the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. We certainly don't want a muted neutral party, and we won't accept an adversary." The controversy spawned an anti-Specter Web site, NotSpecter.com, which includes articles and Web postings criticizing Mr. Specter and arguing for his removal. Republicans are particularly upset that Mr. Specter's comments came the day after he was re-elected in a close race and on the very day Mr. Bush declared victory in his own re-election campaign. Republicans considered the remarks disloyal because Mr. Bush had worked to help Mr. Specter overcome a tough primary challenge. Also, they said, Mr. Specter did little to return the favor as Mr. Bush struggled -- and eventually lost -- the fight to win Pennsylvania. Several other comments Mr. Specter made during his press conference also rubbed some conservatives the wrong way, such as when he suggested that Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the conservative icon being treated for thyroid cancer, lied about his medical prognosis last week. "The chief justice is gravely ill," Mr. Specter told reporters. "I had known more about that than had appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on Monday." Mr. Specter also was accused of insulting the entire high court by saying there are no legal giants on the bench. "With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said. "Yeah, there's nobody of the caliber of, say, Robert Bork," scoffed one Republican Judiciary staffer in reference to the revered Reagan nominee who was rejected in the Senate with crucial help from Mr. Specter. "I mean, all we've got on there are people like [Bork replacement] Anthony Kennedy. Gee, I wonder how that happened." • Stephen Dinan and Cheryl Wetzstein contributed to this report.
From the Nation/Politics section
Senate Republicans are speculating behind the scenes on ways to prevent one of their own -- Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- from becoming the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Long a thorn in the side of conservatives, Mr. Specter further outraged many Republicans this week when he told reporters that President Bush should be "mindful" not to send pro-life judicial nominees to the Judiciary Committee for confirmation when he takes control of the committee in January. "We are looking at a variety of ways to keep the gavel from going to Arlen Specter," said one Republican Judiciary Committee staffer. Though they disagreed widely on the likelihood of success, numerous Republican Senate aides contacted by The Washington Times yesterday concurred that efforts are under way to bar Mr. Specter from becoming chairman when term limits force Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, to surrender the gavel at the end of the current Congress. One scenario that seems to be gaining momentum among Senate Republicans would be to give the chairmanship to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, who has seniority over Mr. Specter on the Judiciary Committee. But doing that would require Mr. Grassley to give up control of the Finance Committee, where he wields a great deal of power. "There is an enormous amount of pressure on Senator Grassley to do this for the base," said one Republican. "The idea would be for Senator Grassley to take one for the team for at least two years to send Specter a message that this is not what Americans voted for on Tuesday." Several Republicans said it was highly unlikely that Mr. Grassley would give up his committee for Judiciary. But others said the stakes are so high after Tuesday's election when conservatives -- who care passionately about judiciary matters -- voted in unexpected droves. Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said simply: "Senator Grassley will be serving four more years as chairman of Finance." In another scenario, committee Republicans would defy tradition and skip Mr. Specter in seniority.
ADVERTISEMENT
You can save articles using our Insider’s Newsclips service "Under the rules, the committee members could simply vote for someone else," said a third Republican aide familiar with the efforts. If that happened, the chairmanship likely would go to Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is next in line in seniority. Mr. Kyl could not be reached for comment yesterday. While senators and staffers refused to discuss the efforts publicly, Mr. Specter is aware of the speculation and has issued two statements denying press accounts that he had warned Mr. Bush not to send pro-life nominees. "Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the president about anything and was very respectful of his constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges," Mr. Specter said. "As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush's nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue." The latest imbroglio began during a press conference Wednesday when Mr. Specter said the pro-choice rights guaranteed with the Roe v. Wade decision are "inviolate." He also compared the judicial supremacy of Roe v. Wade to that of Brown v. Board of Education, a decision that rendered racial segregation illegal. Noting the Democratic-led filibusters against some of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, some who were opposed to abortion rights, Mr. Specter said, "The president is well aware of what happened when a number of his nominees were sent up.... I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned." Conservatives in the Senate resumed discussions about ways to block Mr. Specter from controlling the committee, according to aides. It didn't help Mr. Specter's case that incoming Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said yesterday that he agreed with his Republican colleague's comments. "I think Senator Specter is right and the fact that there was a negative reaction to his remarks is not a good omen," he told reporters yesterday. Several Republican Senate offices reported being inundated by phone calls and e-mail from outside groups enraged over Mr. Specter's comments. "We just got handed the opportunity of a lifetime and they don't want us to screw it up," said one Republican staffer. "Arlen Specter must be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee," said Mathew D. Staver, president of the conservative group Liberty Counsel. "We need an advocate who can weather the battle over the next appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. We certainly don't want a muted neutral party, and we won't accept an adversary." The controversy spawned an anti-Specter Web site, NotSpecter.com, which includes articles and Web postings criticizing Mr. Specter and arguing for his removal. Republicans are particularly upset that Mr. Specter's comments came the day after he was re-elected in a close race and on the very day Mr. Bush declared victory in his own re-election campaign. Republicans considered the remarks disloyal because Mr. Bush had worked to help Mr. Specter overcome a tough primary challenge. Also, they said, Mr. Specter did little to return the favor as Mr. Bush struggled -- and eventually lost -- the fight to win Pennsylvania. Several other comments Mr. Specter made during his press conference also rubbed some conservatives the wrong way, such as when he suggested that Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the conservative icon being treated for thyroid cancer, lied about his medical prognosis last week. "The chief justice is gravely ill," Mr. Specter told reporters. "I had known more about that than had appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on Monday." Mr. Specter also was accused of insulting the entire high court by saying there are no legal giants on the bench. "With all due respect to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said. "Yeah, there's nobody of the caliber of, say, Robert Bork," scoffed one Republican Judiciary staffer in reference to the revered Reagan nominee who was rejected in the Senate with crucial help from Mr. Specter. "I mean, all we've got on there are people like [Bork replacement] Anthony Kennedy. Gee, I wonder how that happened." • Stephen Dinan and Cheryl Wetzstein contributed to this report.
Friday, November 05, 2004
So Much to Savor
So Much to Savor (Peggy Noonan-Wall Street Journal)
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.
Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
God bless our country.
Hello, old friends. Let us savor.
Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.
George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)
It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!
The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.
The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.
George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.
The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.
As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.
To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.
Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.
And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."
"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.
Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.
Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.
Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore.
A big win for America, and a loss for the mainstream media.
Thursday, November 4, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
God bless our country.
Hello, old friends. Let us savor.
Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.
George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)
It will be hard for the mainstream media to continue, in the face of these facts, the mantra that we are a deeply and completely divided country. But they'll try!
The Democrats have lost their leader in the Senate, Tom Daschle. I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor.
The elites of Old Europe are depressed. Savor. The nonelites of Old Europe, and the normal folk of New Europe, especially our beloved friend Poland, will not be depressed, and many will be happy. Let's savor that too.
George Soros cannot buy a presidential election. Savor. "Volunteers" who are bought and paid for cannot beat volunteers who come from the neighborhood, church, workplace and reading group. Savor.
The leaders of the Bush effort see it this way: A ragtag band of more than a million Republican volunteers who fought like Washington's troops at Valley Forge beat the paid Hessians of King George III's army. Savor.
As I write, John Kerry is giving his speech. He looks hurt. Who wouldn't? He fought to the end, for every vote, untiring and ceaseless. I told some young people recently who were walking into a battle, "Here's how to fight: You fight until they kill you, until they kill you and stop your heart, and then you let them carry you out of the room. But you fight until they carry." I think that's how the Democrats fought. Good for them.
To admit defeat with attempted grace is a moving sight. Kerry did well. His talking about his "good conversation" with the president was gracious and helpful. He was honest about the facts of the vote in Ohio. When he thanked his people from the bottom of his heart it was a real thanks. "Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and Independents. . . . Thanks to everyone who voted." "Don't lose faith, what you did made a difference . . . and building on itself . . . the time will come when your votes, your ballots, will change the world. And it's worth fighting for." A lot of pundits and editorialists are going to say, "His best speech of the campaign was his last." But that's not the point.
Mr. Kerry graced democracy today. He showed his love for it. Savor.
And now the president is speaking. He looks tired and happy. He looks as if the lines on his forehead are deeper. Maybe it's the lighting. "We had a really good phone call," he said of Mr. Kerry. "He was very gracious . . . and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts." Good for them both. He announced his agenda: reform the tax code, privatize Social Security, help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. "And then our servicemen and -women will come home with the honor they have earned."
"Today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. . . . I need your support. . . . I will do all that I can do to earn your trust. . . . We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us." All good. Savor.
Who was the biggest loser of the 2004 election? It is easy to say Mr. Kerry: he was a poor candidate with a poor campaign. But I do think the biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down. It was to me a great historical development in the history of politics in America. It was Agincourt. It was the yeomen of King Harry taking down the French aristocracy with new technology and rough guts. God bless the pajama-clad yeomen of America. Some day, when America is hit again, and lines go down, and media are hard to get, these bloggers and site runners and independent Internetters of all sorts will find a way to file, and get their word out, and it will be part of the saving of our country.
Last note. As much as anyone, the POW wives of Vietnam, who stood against the Democratic nominee for president and for the Republican, can claim credit for the Bush victory. Everyone with a computer in America, and a lot of people with TVs, saw their testimony about the 1970s, and their husbands, and John Kerry. You could not come away from their white-haired, soft-faced, big-eyeglasses visages without thinking: He should not be commander in chief.
Oh, another last note. Tuesday I heard three radio talkers who refused to believe it was over when the ludicrous, and who knows but possibly quite mischievous, exit polls virtually declared a Kerry landslide yesterday afternoon. They are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. The last sent me an e-mail that dismissed the numbers as elitist nonsense and propaganda. She is one tough girl and they are two tough men. Savor them too.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), a collection of post-Sept. 11 columns, which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore.
Democratic blame loss on any one but themselves
This quote is from a Washington Times write up
"I'm convinced that our side is right on the issues," he said. "But maybe we're selling it the wrong way." Many other Democrats agreed that Democrats didn't flub the issues; they flubbed the marketing. "This election was not about issues," Democratic strategist Chris Cooper said. "If it were, clearly we would have won." Matt Farrauto of the New Mexico Democratic Party blamed the loss on deceptive Republicans.
Isn’t this just like the democrats. In 2000 they said the same thing. Our issues are ok; we didn’t get them across to the American people. The result was in 2004 the democrats ran one of the most expensive negative ad campaigns ever run. They pulled out all the strings; the stars and starlets said electing Bush was tantamount to supporting rape, CBS aired forged documents and the New York Times rehashed a dead story from 19 months ago all in an attempt to help Kerry win the election. They yelled and screamed thinking this is how to debate and get our message out. People like Move on dot org, and Michael Moore spewed hatred for nearly four years, because this was the way to convince Americans George W Bush was wrong for the country. Millions have been spent on marketing their ideas, George Sorus alone spent 23 million.
Now the 2004 election is over, the Democrats have lost yet another election and after less then two days of contemplation, they come to the conclusion they’re right on the issues and need to market more.
If we examine their issues we might see if this is true.
The democrats made an issue of late term abortion, they support this horrendous procedure, and Americans by a large majority do not. Americans by an almost as large majority do not support abortion rights, these have been forced upon us by a renegade supreme court in 1973. To quote Justice Harry Blackmun “in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Just what does penumbras mean and I ask you to find it anywhere in the constitution. What they really mean is Abortion rights are a kin to privacy rights, which are not mentioned in the constitution either. The right of the Government to regulate behavior has long been a power of the government especially when it comes to protecting the lives of Americans from foes inside and out. In fact safeguarding our lives is the primary responsibility of a government. Who needs more protection then the unborn.
The democrat party has been governed by the kook fringe for at least a decade now, and they have increasing lost control of the all branches of government. I suggest the longer they “market” their issues the further away from mainstream Americans they get, the longer they will be out of power. So by all means continue to market democratic ideas, continue to spew hatred and anger, continue the negativity that has served so well to inform the American populace of the true character of the Democratic Party. The money at least keeps Americans working.
"I'm convinced that our side is right on the issues," he said. "But maybe we're selling it the wrong way." Many other Democrats agreed that Democrats didn't flub the issues; they flubbed the marketing. "This election was not about issues," Democratic strategist Chris Cooper said. "If it were, clearly we would have won." Matt Farrauto of the New Mexico Democratic Party blamed the loss on deceptive Republicans.
Isn’t this just like the democrats. In 2000 they said the same thing. Our issues are ok; we didn’t get them across to the American people. The result was in 2004 the democrats ran one of the most expensive negative ad campaigns ever run. They pulled out all the strings; the stars and starlets said electing Bush was tantamount to supporting rape, CBS aired forged documents and the New York Times rehashed a dead story from 19 months ago all in an attempt to help Kerry win the election. They yelled and screamed thinking this is how to debate and get our message out. People like Move on dot org, and Michael Moore spewed hatred for nearly four years, because this was the way to convince Americans George W Bush was wrong for the country. Millions have been spent on marketing their ideas, George Sorus alone spent 23 million.
Now the 2004 election is over, the Democrats have lost yet another election and after less then two days of contemplation, they come to the conclusion they’re right on the issues and need to market more.
If we examine their issues we might see if this is true.
The democrats made an issue of late term abortion, they support this horrendous procedure, and Americans by a large majority do not. Americans by an almost as large majority do not support abortion rights, these have been forced upon us by a renegade supreme court in 1973. To quote Justice Harry Blackmun “in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights; in the Ninth Amendment; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Just what does penumbras mean and I ask you to find it anywhere in the constitution. What they really mean is Abortion rights are a kin to privacy rights, which are not mentioned in the constitution either. The right of the Government to regulate behavior has long been a power of the government especially when it comes to protecting the lives of Americans from foes inside and out. In fact safeguarding our lives is the primary responsibility of a government. Who needs more protection then the unborn.
The democrat party has been governed by the kook fringe for at least a decade now, and they have increasing lost control of the all branches of government. I suggest the longer they “market” their issues the further away from mainstream Americans they get, the longer they will be out of power. So by all means continue to market democratic ideas, continue to spew hatred and anger, continue the negativity that has served so well to inform the American populace of the true character of the Democratic Party. The money at least keeps Americans working.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Who says the war on terror is failing
From Jihad Watch
Leading al-Qaida operative seized in Yemen
From UPI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Sanaa, Yemen, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Yemeni intelligence captured a leading member of the al-Qaida network in Yemen after a manhunt and searches that lasted several months, reports indicate.
An intelligence source quoted in daily al-Ayam said the al-Qaida operative was identified as Y. Harazi and captured last September in a suburb of Sanaa following months of searches and monitoring.
Piece by piece al-Qaida is being dismantled. Charges that the Bush administration have forgotten the organization are patently false, with 3/4 of the organization gone I doubt they will ever threaten us again. The best they could do on our election day is send us a tape, that's got me quaking in my socks. Thank You President Bush for your steadfast resolve to end this threat.
Leading al-Qaida operative seized in Yemen
From UPI, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Sanaa, Yemen, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Yemeni intelligence captured a leading member of the al-Qaida network in Yemen after a manhunt and searches that lasted several months, reports indicate.
An intelligence source quoted in daily al-Ayam said the al-Qaida operative was identified as Y. Harazi and captured last September in a suburb of Sanaa following months of searches and monitoring.
Piece by piece al-Qaida is being dismantled. Charges that the Bush administration have forgotten the organization are patently false, with 3/4 of the organization gone I doubt they will ever threaten us again. The best they could do on our election day is send us a tape, that's got me quaking in my socks. Thank You President Bush for your steadfast resolve to end this threat.
Terrorist with some Humor
This is kind of funny since its coming from a terrorist in jail and on trial for the Bali bombing. I got this from Jihad Watch.
Indonesian cleric says Bush victory spells “disaster” for US
Abu Bakar Bashir is upset that the US did not play the dhimmi on Tuesday. From AFP, with thanks to Kemaste:
JAKARTA - An Islamic cleric on trial in Indonesia on terrorist charges including over the Bali bombings on Thursday warned President George W. Bush’s reelection victory spelled “disaster” for the United States.
Abu Bakar Bashir, who is accused of being a figurehead for the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah regional group accused Bush of meddling in Indonesian affairs and warned of retribution unless he stopped.
“Bush’s victory will bring another disaster for America unless he changes his actions,” Bashir told reporters as he arrived for a second day of his trial in which he faces a possible death penalty if convicted.
“America is intervening on many issues in Indonesia, they are the master in this country,” he said.
Bashir denies charges of inciting militants to carry out the October 2002 Bali attacks in which 202 people killed and of involvement in the bombing of the US-franchised Marriott hotel in Jakarta last year in which 12 died....
He said Bush feared the introduction of hardline Islamic sharia law in the world’s largest Muslim-populated country, which currently practises a moderate strain of the faith.
Although he made no specific threats, Bashir said he anticipated major problems for the United States during Bush’s next term.
“God willing, there will be a lot of disasters,” he said.
Indonesian cleric says Bush victory spells “disaster” for US
Abu Bakar Bashir is upset that the US did not play the dhimmi on Tuesday. From AFP, with thanks to Kemaste:
JAKARTA - An Islamic cleric on trial in Indonesia on terrorist charges including over the Bali bombings on Thursday warned President George W. Bush’s reelection victory spelled “disaster” for the United States.
Abu Bakar Bashir, who is accused of being a figurehead for the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah regional group accused Bush of meddling in Indonesian affairs and warned of retribution unless he stopped.
“Bush’s victory will bring another disaster for America unless he changes his actions,” Bashir told reporters as he arrived for a second day of his trial in which he faces a possible death penalty if convicted.
“America is intervening on many issues in Indonesia, they are the master in this country,” he said.
Bashir denies charges of inciting militants to carry out the October 2002 Bali attacks in which 202 people killed and of involvement in the bombing of the US-franchised Marriott hotel in Jakarta last year in which 12 died....
He said Bush feared the introduction of hardline Islamic sharia law in the world’s largest Muslim-populated country, which currently practises a moderate strain of the faith.
Although he made no specific threats, Bashir said he anticipated major problems for the United States during Bush’s next term.
“God willing, there will be a lot of disasters,” he said.
An Open Letter From The Maha Rushy
Dear John (and the rest)
November 4, 2004
Today, my friends, I’d like to read an open letter addressed to John Kerry and John Edwards, and in the spirit of unity, reconciliation, and inclusion, I want to expand the base, so to speak. So here goes: Dear Johns, Kerry and Edwards. There’s something many of us have been waiting to say to you. And also to you, Tom Daschle, the former minority leader of the U.S. Senate. And to distinguished members of the Hollywood elite, most notably Michael Moore, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Michael J. Fox, Julia Roberts — hope you’re feeling well, by the way — Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, Jeanne Garofalo, Meryl Streep, and assorted others. And to the elder stateswomen of the entertainment industry, Barbra Streisand and Madonna, and the youth, Sean Puff Daddy P. Diddy Combs. To our musical guests, Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, and, of course, the Dixie Chickettes. And to our civil rights delegation — the Revvvvvrend Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAALCP leaders Julian Bond and Kwesi Mfume. To our beloved media giants, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes, the New York Times, the AP, and to our media midgets, MTV’s Rock the Vote, Dead Air America, and Bill Maher. And let’s not forget our 527s funded by George Soros: MoveOn.org and America Coming Apart. And finally, to our esteemed foreign dignitaries, particularly Jacques Chirac and Herr Schroeder, Kofi Annan and Muhammad El Baradi. To all of you, from us: YOU LOSE. WE WIN. NOW EXCUSE US WHILE WE GO KICK SOME TERRORIST BUTT!!!
From Rush Limbaugh
November 4, 2004
Today, my friends, I’d like to read an open letter addressed to John Kerry and John Edwards, and in the spirit of unity, reconciliation, and inclusion, I want to expand the base, so to speak. So here goes: Dear Johns, Kerry and Edwards. There’s something many of us have been waiting to say to you. And also to you, Tom Daschle, the former minority leader of the U.S. Senate. And to distinguished members of the Hollywood elite, most notably Michael Moore, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Michael J. Fox, Julia Roberts — hope you’re feeling well, by the way — Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, Jeanne Garofalo, Meryl Streep, and assorted others. And to the elder stateswomen of the entertainment industry, Barbra Streisand and Madonna, and the youth, Sean Puff Daddy P. Diddy Combs. To our musical guests, Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen, and, of course, the Dixie Chickettes. And to our civil rights delegation — the Revvvvvrend Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NAALCP leaders Julian Bond and Kwesi Mfume. To our beloved media giants, Dan Rather, 60 Minutes, the New York Times, the AP, and to our media midgets, MTV’s Rock the Vote, Dead Air America, and Bill Maher. And let’s not forget our 527s funded by George Soros: MoveOn.org and America Coming Apart. And finally, to our esteemed foreign dignitaries, particularly Jacques Chirac and Herr Schroeder, Kofi Annan and Muhammad El Baradi. To all of you, from us: YOU LOSE. WE WIN. NOW EXCUSE US WHILE WE GO KICK SOME TERRORIST BUTT!!!
From Rush Limbaugh
Arafat's Dead, now it's Castro's Turn.
JERUSALEM (AFP) - Political leaders in Israel and the West Bank steeled themselves for the end of the Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) era as the vanguard of the Palestinian nationalist struggle for the past four decades lay brain dead in a Paris hospital.
AFP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Yasser Arafat
Palestinian officials fiercely denied that Arafat had passed away after Israeli media reported that the 75-year-old had died.
But while French medical sources said Arafat was technically still alive, they added that he was "brain dead" and only breathing with the help of life support machines while in an irreversible coma.
Technically, Arafat is "not dead," one source told AFP on condition of confidentiality. But there was no hope of him leaving his vegetative state and recovering basic bodily functions such as breathing without assistance.
Such artificial care can be "extended for several days or several weeks thanks to the machines," the source said.
Israel's private Channel 2 network and army radio had reported that Arafat had been declared dead at a military hospital in Clamart, southwest of Paris.
But Azzam al-Ahmed, communications minister in the Palestinian cabinet and one of Arafat's closest allies, insisted news of his death was premature.
"It is wrong. If the president was dead, the whole world would know," he told AFP. "But it is true that he is a very critical condition."
Arafat was flown to Paris last Friday for treatment of a blood disorder after being airlifted from the compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah where he had been under effective Israeli house arrest for nearly three years.
Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qorei had earlier tried to play down the seriousness of Arafat's condition, denying he was in a coma and insisting new test results had been positive.
Qorei had been attending emergency leadership meetings of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the dominant Fatah (news - web sites) party. Both have been led by Arafat for some four decades, but were chaired Thursday by former premier Mahmud Abbas.
Hundreds of Fatah supporters brandished portraits of Arafat as they took to the streets of Gaza City late Thursday while prayers were said for his welfare.
"We pray to Almighty God for the swift recovery of our president Yasser Arafat so that he can return to his people in good health," said the imam at Gaza's Sheikh Zayid mosque.
Residents in Ramallah were glued to their television sets for updates on the town's famous resident.
"I can't bear the thought he will die for good. He's our national leader, the one and only," said 33-year-old Mohammed Ribhi as his eyes filled with tears.
Amid widespread fears that Arafat's death could trigger chaos on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites), all members of the Palestinian security services were placed on a state of alert Thursday.
"The security forces have been put on a state of alert and all members ordered to be on standby," one senior officer said.
"We have been told to prepare for any activity which is beyond the law and to protect the legitimacy of all the Palestinian institutions."
Signs of nerves on the Israeli side were also evident as troops in the occupied territories were placed on alert after Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz called a meeting in Tel Aviv attended by the heads of the country's security services.
Israeli public television, meanwhile, reported that army commanders were to urge the government to capitalise on Arafat's demise by working more closely with the Palestinians.
The army has drawn up plans, codenamed "New Page", to deal with all possible eventualities should Arafat die. But officers would also urge the government to coordinate its withdrawal of settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), due to take place by the end of 2005, with Arafat's successors, the television said.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) has refused all dealings with Arafat since coming to power in 2001, instead confining him to his West Bank headquarters until his dramatic airlift to Paris last Friday.
Arafat's death or permanent incapacitation has the potential to galvanise the Middle East peace process.
Sharon met Abbas on a number of occasions last year before a massive suicide bomb prompted Israel to freeze top-level contacts with the Palestinians.
Arafat has also been snubbed by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites). Asked for his reaction to the reports of Arafat's death, Bush said "God bless his soul".
AFP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Yasser Arafat
Palestinian officials fiercely denied that Arafat had passed away after Israeli media reported that the 75-year-old had died.
But while French medical sources said Arafat was technically still alive, they added that he was "brain dead" and only breathing with the help of life support machines while in an irreversible coma.
Technically, Arafat is "not dead," one source told AFP on condition of confidentiality. But there was no hope of him leaving his vegetative state and recovering basic bodily functions such as breathing without assistance.
Such artificial care can be "extended for several days or several weeks thanks to the machines," the source said.
Israel's private Channel 2 network and army radio had reported that Arafat had been declared dead at a military hospital in Clamart, southwest of Paris.
But Azzam al-Ahmed, communications minister in the Palestinian cabinet and one of Arafat's closest allies, insisted news of his death was premature.
"It is wrong. If the president was dead, the whole world would know," he told AFP. "But it is true that he is a very critical condition."
Arafat was flown to Paris last Friday for treatment of a blood disorder after being airlifted from the compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah where he had been under effective Israeli house arrest for nearly three years.
Palestinian prime minister Ahmed Qorei had earlier tried to play down the seriousness of Arafat's condition, denying he was in a coma and insisting new test results had been positive.
Qorei had been attending emergency leadership meetings of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the dominant Fatah (news - web sites) party. Both have been led by Arafat for some four decades, but were chaired Thursday by former premier Mahmud Abbas.
Hundreds of Fatah supporters brandished portraits of Arafat as they took to the streets of Gaza City late Thursday while prayers were said for his welfare.
"We pray to Almighty God for the swift recovery of our president Yasser Arafat so that he can return to his people in good health," said the imam at Gaza's Sheikh Zayid mosque.
Residents in Ramallah were glued to their television sets for updates on the town's famous resident.
"I can't bear the thought he will die for good. He's our national leader, the one and only," said 33-year-old Mohammed Ribhi as his eyes filled with tears.
Amid widespread fears that Arafat's death could trigger chaos on the streets of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (news - web sites), all members of the Palestinian security services were placed on a state of alert Thursday.
"The security forces have been put on a state of alert and all members ordered to be on standby," one senior officer said.
"We have been told to prepare for any activity which is beyond the law and to protect the legitimacy of all the Palestinian institutions."
Signs of nerves on the Israeli side were also evident as troops in the occupied territories were placed on alert after Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz called a meeting in Tel Aviv attended by the heads of the country's security services.
Israeli public television, meanwhile, reported that army commanders were to urge the government to capitalise on Arafat's demise by working more closely with the Palestinians.
The army has drawn up plans, codenamed "New Page", to deal with all possible eventualities should Arafat die. But officers would also urge the government to coordinate its withdrawal of settlers and troops from the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), due to take place by the end of 2005, with Arafat's successors, the television said.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) has refused all dealings with Arafat since coming to power in 2001, instead confining him to his West Bank headquarters until his dramatic airlift to Paris last Friday.
Arafat's death or permanent incapacitation has the potential to galvanise the Middle East peace process.
Sharon met Abbas on a number of occasions last year before a massive suicide bomb prompted Israel to freeze top-level contacts with the Palestinians.
Arafat has also been snubbed by US President George W. Bush (news - web sites). Asked for his reaction to the reports of Arafat's death, Bush said "God bless his soul".
Arafat Dead
Why should it matter if this cockroach is dead. Arafat is responsible directly or indirectly for the murder of thousands, he has refused to make peace and has pilfered billions from the United States. If the world is lucky any money he might have is lost and the Palestinian Authority will fall apart, then with a little luck we can install a Prime Minister who will be able to actual help the Palestinians back into Jordan, their actual homeland and peace will finally descend upon the Israel. One can dream.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Kerry calls it Quits
Michelle Malkin said it really well, Check it out on her blog.
http://michellemalkin.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=788
http://michellemalkin.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=788
A note to Pagans who tend to vote left
From Jihad Watch
In Dubai, two prominent converts to Islam exhort Muslims: Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam says Muslims should follow the example of Muhammad as detailed in the Hadith, and Hamza Yousef praises jihad. From the Khaleej Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
DUBAI — The Muslim society has lost the ability of strategic thinking, which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) exemplified by compromising on several points with the enemy when he signed the Treaty of Hudaibia, said leading American Muslim, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf, at a lecture on Monday.
Interesting. This is a treaty that Muhammad broke nearly two years after he had signed it. In those two years the strength of the Muslims had grown rapidly, so he seized upon the pretext of a minor skirmish between Muslims and some allies of the pagan Quraysh, with whom he had concluded the treaty, to launch a full-scale attack on the Quraysh stronghold in Mecca. His victory sealed the success of his movement. So is Hamza Yousef recommending that Muslims conclude treaties in order to gather strength, and to fight again more effectively when it is opportune to do so? It would seem so:
Elaborating his point, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf said, “There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion.”
I wonder if he was referring in any way to the statements and positions of American Muslim advocacy groups.
Earlier in the event, Yousuf Islam exalted the virtues that identify the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and described him as the very personification of compassion and generosity....
Yousuf Islam pointed out that if more people were introduced to the true Islam, there would be peace, and this does not happen because the propaganda is strong.
That sounds like the Islamic peace of Sayyid Qutb: the peace that will result from the hegemony of the Sharia. Can the Cat envision any peace without people being introduced to Islam -- in other words, a peace that comes from mutual respect without agreement? A secularist, pluralist peace? Or can peace only come from the introduction of Islam?
Yousuf Islam pointed out that despite its spiritual waywardness, the one good thing the West really teaches its people is to keep an open mind....
The Traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or Hadith, is a unique account of the lifestyle and behaviour of a messenger of God ever, and offers the Muslims a ready and detailed reference to living their lives as its reflection.
“So many have come and gone, and their teachings have changed..., sometimes people wonder if they really ever existed. The hadith, with its minute detail, makes sure that there are no queries left unanswered,” he said.
Indeed. For one thing, it contains specific instructions from Muhammad on the offer Muslims are to give to non-Muslims: conversion, submission, or death.
Replying to a question on Jihad, Shaikh Yousuf Hamza said that irrespective of what many say, Jihad is the duty and responsibility of all Muslims.
“Jihad is actually considered a Rahma (mercy) in Islam. If there is an oppressor and there is Jihad to stop his oppression, it is a mercy on him (the oppressor),” he said, adding that Islam, however, does not allow Muslims to terrorise prisoners and innocent people.
Once again this statement contains less than meets the eye. If only the definitions of "terrorize" and "innocent" weren't so elastic. Islamic law allows for prisoners to be either killed, enslaved, ransomed, or freed outright, depending on what is deemed best for the Muslims. So doing any of these is not, from the standpoint of Islamic law, to "terrorize" prisoners.
Read the article here: http://jihadwatch.org//
In Dubai, two prominent converts to Islam exhort Muslims: Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam says Muslims should follow the example of Muhammad as detailed in the Hadith, and Hamza Yousef praises jihad. From the Khaleej Times, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
DUBAI — The Muslim society has lost the ability of strategic thinking, which Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) exemplified by compromising on several points with the enemy when he signed the Treaty of Hudaibia, said leading American Muslim, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf, at a lecture on Monday.
Interesting. This is a treaty that Muhammad broke nearly two years after he had signed it. In those two years the strength of the Muslims had grown rapidly, so he seized upon the pretext of a minor skirmish between Muslims and some allies of the pagan Quraysh, with whom he had concluded the treaty, to launch a full-scale attack on the Quraysh stronghold in Mecca. His victory sealed the success of his movement. So is Hamza Yousef recommending that Muslims conclude treaties in order to gather strength, and to fight again more effectively when it is opportune to do so? It would seem so:
Elaborating his point, Shaikh Hamza Yousuf said, “There are times when you have to live like a sheep in order to live in the future like a lion.”
I wonder if he was referring in any way to the statements and positions of American Muslim advocacy groups.
Earlier in the event, Yousuf Islam exalted the virtues that identify the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and described him as the very personification of compassion and generosity....
Yousuf Islam pointed out that if more people were introduced to the true Islam, there would be peace, and this does not happen because the propaganda is strong.
That sounds like the Islamic peace of Sayyid Qutb: the peace that will result from the hegemony of the Sharia. Can the Cat envision any peace without people being introduced to Islam -- in other words, a peace that comes from mutual respect without agreement? A secularist, pluralist peace? Or can peace only come from the introduction of Islam?
Yousuf Islam pointed out that despite its spiritual waywardness, the one good thing the West really teaches its people is to keep an open mind....
The Traditions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or Hadith, is a unique account of the lifestyle and behaviour of a messenger of God ever, and offers the Muslims a ready and detailed reference to living their lives as its reflection.
“So many have come and gone, and their teachings have changed..., sometimes people wonder if they really ever existed. The hadith, with its minute detail, makes sure that there are no queries left unanswered,” he said.
Indeed. For one thing, it contains specific instructions from Muhammad on the offer Muslims are to give to non-Muslims: conversion, submission, or death.
Replying to a question on Jihad, Shaikh Yousuf Hamza said that irrespective of what many say, Jihad is the duty and responsibility of all Muslims.
“Jihad is actually considered a Rahma (mercy) in Islam. If there is an oppressor and there is Jihad to stop his oppression, it is a mercy on him (the oppressor),” he said, adding that Islam, however, does not allow Muslims to terrorise prisoners and innocent people.
Once again this statement contains less than meets the eye. If only the definitions of "terrorize" and "innocent" weren't so elastic. Islamic law allows for prisoners to be either killed, enslaved, ransomed, or freed outright, depending on what is deemed best for the Muslims. So doing any of these is not, from the standpoint of Islamic law, to "terrorize" prisoners.
Read the article here: http://jihadwatch.org//
Looks like President Bush pulled off a victory
Four more years of the same, good for us, bad for them, the terrorists that is. The single most important issue is the war and now we can continue it, hopefully to victory within the next four years. I was hoping for a larger margin, but considering the vote in 2000, 3-4 percent margin in the popular vote is not bad. Moreover we had an extremely large turnout, good for democracy in America no matter who wins.
I must also mention John Thune won in South Dakota; I can't tell you how much this means to me. I don't think I have ever seen a more duplicitous politician in Tom Daschle in my lifetime. On the one hand he obstructed Bush’s energy and homeland security bills; on the other hand he campaigns with the President’s effigy next to him. His campaign ads might give the impression he was a closet conservative, at least in his home state.
Lets not forget Zell Miller; a Democrat who loves is country. If the democrat party is to become effective again they will need more people like him. Patriotism doesn’t mean you can’t support social programs and Zell Miller is proof of this. I hope Senator Miller doesn’t fade from the scene, I hope the Bush administration will put this intelligent and skillful man to good use, people like Zell are needed in our country. I’ve said it before, if Zell was running against Bush the democrats would have won last night, and it wouldn’t have mattered, at least on the foreign front because our nation would have still been in good hands. I look forward to the day when both parties put forth candidates who love their country, and a victory for the other side only means domestic policy may shift.
The single biggest blow has to be to the internationalists. The election victory for Bush tells the world community we do have the will to fight, and we will not outsource our defense the UN. It’s time Kofi begins looking for a new job, preferably one making license plates in some dark dank cell somewhere.
I am thankful to Libertas for Bush’s victory.
I must also mention John Thune won in South Dakota; I can't tell you how much this means to me. I don't think I have ever seen a more duplicitous politician in Tom Daschle in my lifetime. On the one hand he obstructed Bush’s energy and homeland security bills; on the other hand he campaigns with the President’s effigy next to him. His campaign ads might give the impression he was a closet conservative, at least in his home state.
Lets not forget Zell Miller; a Democrat who loves is country. If the democrat party is to become effective again they will need more people like him. Patriotism doesn’t mean you can’t support social programs and Zell Miller is proof of this. I hope Senator Miller doesn’t fade from the scene, I hope the Bush administration will put this intelligent and skillful man to good use, people like Zell are needed in our country. I’ve said it before, if Zell was running against Bush the democrats would have won last night, and it wouldn’t have mattered, at least on the foreign front because our nation would have still been in good hands. I look forward to the day when both parties put forth candidates who love their country, and a victory for the other side only means domestic policy may shift.
The single biggest blow has to be to the internationalists. The election victory for Bush tells the world community we do have the will to fight, and we will not outsource our defense the UN. It’s time Kofi begins looking for a new job, preferably one making license plates in some dark dank cell somewhere.
I am thankful to Libertas for Bush’s victory.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
I was attacked
I was attacked this afternoon by a tall black democrat who didn’t think I should vote for Bush.
While I was waiting for my media writing class to begin a black man, who I thought was rational and friendly up until this point, asked me who I was going to vote for. I deferred saying I didn’t want to debate. After repetitive requests I told him I was going to vote for President Bush.
He asked me how I could vote for a liar and a thief. He asked me how I could vote for a man who didn’t support affirmative action. I told him I didn’t support affirmative action either. Then he really got agitated, he said affirmative action was the only way black man could get ahead. (He really said this; I am not making this up) I pointed out that Condoleezza Rice was black and one of the most successful blacks I knew and she doesn’t support affirmative action, I pointed Clarence Thomas and he called them traitors. I wonder who they betrayed. I also mentioned that Colin Powell was successful and very powerful. He said he wasn’t a black man. Imagine that, I bet Colin Powell would be surprised to find out he wasn’t black.
The “debate” continued into the class. He said republicans weren’t ignorant but people voting for Bush are. So he called me ignorant. He claimed bush was a liar and a thief, and I told him he was wrong, Bush was neither of these things. He called me ignorant again and at least two other times. I suggested that he was the ignorant one; I then told he needed to stop using Michael Moore for his source material. He then yelled at me for calling him ignorant “you’re calling me ignorant,” apparently calling me ignorant four or five times is ok, but calling him ignorant once was a fighting word. He pressed me and then yelled at me that I didn’t know how much he had suffered and bled. I told him he didn’t suffer or bleed but 500,000 whites had bled and died to free his ancestors from slavery.
He then pushed me while I was seated; I had remained seated in hopes that he wouldn’t go ballistic, false hope. I rose to defend myself and he popped me one or twice in the face, I then took a him down with a single leg take down. (I need to thank my dad for teaching me how to wrestle.), and pinned his head to floor with my arm. Someone in the class then attempted to break us up, I let the man stand, big mistake, he then popped me twice more. It never fails I break one of my rules for fighting and I pay. In any case I backed away, by this time security came and took him away, screaming and yelling that I didn’t know him, that I was ignorant and a racist. Apparently, after eight weeks in class with him sitting across from me, I didn’t know him.
Now, as a result of his stupidity, I am in fear of being expelled from a class I need to graduate in December. I’ve worked for over ten years to get this degree and this putz has threatened it for a man (John Kerry) who wouldn’t even look twice at him without a bodyguard present.
Let’s sum up our debate, (the one I wished to avoid.)A democrat can be for affirmative action, a republican can’t be against it, a person can vote for Democrat, but I can’t vote for a Republican. Black men and women who don’t support affirmative action are either traitors, or not black. He then resorted to violence to push his issue.
While I was waiting for my media writing class to begin a black man, who I thought was rational and friendly up until this point, asked me who I was going to vote for. I deferred saying I didn’t want to debate. After repetitive requests I told him I was going to vote for President Bush.
He asked me how I could vote for a liar and a thief. He asked me how I could vote for a man who didn’t support affirmative action. I told him I didn’t support affirmative action either. Then he really got agitated, he said affirmative action was the only way black man could get ahead. (He really said this; I am not making this up) I pointed out that Condoleezza Rice was black and one of the most successful blacks I knew and she doesn’t support affirmative action, I pointed Clarence Thomas and he called them traitors. I wonder who they betrayed. I also mentioned that Colin Powell was successful and very powerful. He said he wasn’t a black man. Imagine that, I bet Colin Powell would be surprised to find out he wasn’t black.
The “debate” continued into the class. He said republicans weren’t ignorant but people voting for Bush are. So he called me ignorant. He claimed bush was a liar and a thief, and I told him he was wrong, Bush was neither of these things. He called me ignorant again and at least two other times. I suggested that he was the ignorant one; I then told he needed to stop using Michael Moore for his source material. He then yelled at me for calling him ignorant “you’re calling me ignorant,” apparently calling me ignorant four or five times is ok, but calling him ignorant once was a fighting word. He pressed me and then yelled at me that I didn’t know how much he had suffered and bled. I told him he didn’t suffer or bleed but 500,000 whites had bled and died to free his ancestors from slavery.
He then pushed me while I was seated; I had remained seated in hopes that he wouldn’t go ballistic, false hope. I rose to defend myself and he popped me one or twice in the face, I then took a him down with a single leg take down. (I need to thank my dad for teaching me how to wrestle.), and pinned his head to floor with my arm. Someone in the class then attempted to break us up, I let the man stand, big mistake, he then popped me twice more. It never fails I break one of my rules for fighting and I pay. In any case I backed away, by this time security came and took him away, screaming and yelling that I didn’t know him, that I was ignorant and a racist. Apparently, after eight weeks in class with him sitting across from me, I didn’t know him.
Now, as a result of his stupidity, I am in fear of being expelled from a class I need to graduate in December. I’ve worked for over ten years to get this degree and this putz has threatened it for a man (John Kerry) who wouldn’t even look twice at him without a bodyguard present.
Let’s sum up our debate, (the one I wished to avoid.)A democrat can be for affirmative action, a republican can’t be against it, a person can vote for Democrat, but I can’t vote for a Republican. Black men and women who don’t support affirmative action are either traitors, or not black. He then resorted to violence to push his issue.
Election Day Across the United States
OBL has again threatened the United States, this time with a tape. He apparently could not reach us by any other means. I am sure, as are my one or two readers, that if OBL could have reached out with something a little more forcefull he would have. Not to be repetitive, he didn't, nor do I think he can. The successful preemptive policy of President Bush has kept the barbarians at the gate, now we need to push them off our soil and into whatever hell such creatures go to upon death.
President Bush has fufilled his primary duty as leader of the United States, he has protected us, and continues to do so. This alone has earned him the right to be re-elected. Moreover; he pushed for policies that ended the 9-11 created recession and pushed for economic policies that benefit all citizens who pay taxes. He has shown more genuine compassion for his fellow Americans then any President since Ronald Reagan. If you doubt what I write simply look at the pictures of him holding a child after the Hurricanes that came through Florida, or when he was meeting children whose parents were lost on 9-11. Unlike his predecessor, President Bush doesn't shed a tear just when the cameras are looking, he has real emotions and readily shares them, as well as his strength with his fellow citizens. This is a man blessed by the Gods and he seeks to share those blessings with all those who would partake.
The Omaha Conservatives stand by President Bush and endorse him for President, he has much work yet to accomplish.
President Bush has fufilled his primary duty as leader of the United States, he has protected us, and continues to do so. This alone has earned him the right to be re-elected. Moreover; he pushed for policies that ended the 9-11 created recession and pushed for economic policies that benefit all citizens who pay taxes. He has shown more genuine compassion for his fellow Americans then any President since Ronald Reagan. If you doubt what I write simply look at the pictures of him holding a child after the Hurricanes that came through Florida, or when he was meeting children whose parents were lost on 9-11. Unlike his predecessor, President Bush doesn't shed a tear just when the cameras are looking, he has real emotions and readily shares them, as well as his strength with his fellow citizens. This is a man blessed by the Gods and he seeks to share those blessings with all those who would partake.
The Omaha Conservatives stand by President Bush and endorse him for President, he has much work yet to accomplish.
A brief history on Arafat
Strike four, you're out!-Arafat's departure for Paris fits the repeating pattern of his lifeJerusalem Post ^ 11-2-04 BARRY RUBIN
Posted on 11/02/2004 5:02:30 AM PST by SJackson
An Arab journalist asked a leading Arab liberal about Yasser Arafat's physical breakdown, adding, "I am sure you pray for Arafat to return to Ramallah in good health."
Replied the liberal: "I have a better idea. Why should we not all pray that God does in this respect what is good for the future of the Palestinian people?"
It was the perfect answer. Officially, publicly, and ideologically, all Arabs are supposed to love Arafat. But it's all nonsense, of course. When Arabs – including Palestinians – talk about Arafat in private, they do not seek to hide their contempt.
Truly fascinating, though, is the perfect symmetry of his career. For while Arafat's life is not yet over, the fourth and final cycle in his disastrous career has ended, identically to the earlier stages.
At each stage he arrived to a warm reception and was given a big chance to build his movement and help his people. Yet every time, he wore out his welcome by insulting his hosts, breaking his commitments, fomenting violence, and letting his own forces run wild. Eventually he got thrown out on his ear.
First, there was Jordan. King Hussein let Arafat build his own state-within-a-state, attack Israel, and have his own army. The king knew powerful Arab states, and his own considerable Palestinian population supported Arafat and he didn't want any trouble.
But Arafat forced the king to fight him. He and his men called for Hussein's overthrow, flouted his authority, threatened to drag him into war with Israel, and insulted his soldiers.
Having no choice, the king struck back, in September 1970. Arafat proclaimed he would fight to the end and be a martyr. Instead, the PLO was kicked out of the country.
Next came Lebanon. Some Lebanese welcomed Arafat; others bowed to Egyptian pressure. There were some clashes at first, but the Lebanese didn't want any trouble with Arafat, either.
You can attack Israel across the border, they said, but follow a few simple rules to ensure that Israel does not retaliate against Lebanon. Above all, don't interfere in Lebanese politics.
Once again, Arafat alienated his hosts. His men bullied the Lebanese and treated them like subjects, turning the south into a PLO fiefdom. Swaggering through the streets, the PLO forces acted as if they owned Beirut, too.
Arafat's maneuvers helped destabilize Lebanese politics and contributed to the civil war. In part, the Lebanese called in the Syrian army to save them from Arafat.
Then some of them made a deal with Israel in 1982. The PLO forces ran from the IDF. And Lebanon's leaders demanded that he leave the country.
Arafat proclaimed he would fight to the end and be a martyr. Instead, he sailed off to Tunisia.
True, he did not get into a direct confrontation with his Tunisian hosts. But he and his entourage became very unpopular there, too.
He violated a pledge that he would not run terrorist operations directly from Tunisian soil. The Tunisians were angry but too weak to do anything.
But this time the ones Arafat antagonized were the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. By supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Arafat directly threatened the sovereignty and survival of two countries that had bankrolled him over the years.
They cut off the money, driving the PLO toward bankruptcy. Because of Arafat, tens of thousands of Palestinians were expelled as traitors from Kuwait and other Persian Gulf monarchies.
THE PLO was at its lowest point. If Israel or the US had wanted – had they been evil, as Arafat and his supporters claimed – they would have destroyed him and his movement. But, seeking real peace, they thought Arafat's weakness would make him more moderate.
They took him at his word. OK, they said, you want a state; let's make a deal that can satisfy everyone's needs and aspirations.
Ironically, Arafat treated Israel much the same as he treated the Arabs. In 2000 he rejected a compromise peace and launched a war of terrorism. Once again, he fomented anarchy, violence, and extremism.
This time, though, he was confined rather than expelled. Israel said he could come and go from his besieged Ramallah headquarters if he stopped the terrorism he was inciting and financing.
Once again Arafat evaded his responsibilities.
His illness bought him a ticket to Paris, funded by French taxpayers, with an unconditional promise that he could return.
Now he is in Europe. No one in the Middle East will take him. He is welcome only where people don't understand his lifetime behavior pattern.
While ill-informed politicians, would-be humanitarians, and romantic voyeurs of revolution are always willing to give him another chance, Arafat has run out of places to befoul.
Strike four, you're out!
If the deity is cognizant of what is good for the future of the Palestinian people – and the Israelis and just about everyone else – he will never come back.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center; editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal; and editor of Turkish Studies.
Posted on 11/02/2004 5:02:30 AM PST by SJackson
An Arab journalist asked a leading Arab liberal about Yasser Arafat's physical breakdown, adding, "I am sure you pray for Arafat to return to Ramallah in good health."
Replied the liberal: "I have a better idea. Why should we not all pray that God does in this respect what is good for the future of the Palestinian people?"
It was the perfect answer. Officially, publicly, and ideologically, all Arabs are supposed to love Arafat. But it's all nonsense, of course. When Arabs – including Palestinians – talk about Arafat in private, they do not seek to hide their contempt.
Truly fascinating, though, is the perfect symmetry of his career. For while Arafat's life is not yet over, the fourth and final cycle in his disastrous career has ended, identically to the earlier stages.
At each stage he arrived to a warm reception and was given a big chance to build his movement and help his people. Yet every time, he wore out his welcome by insulting his hosts, breaking his commitments, fomenting violence, and letting his own forces run wild. Eventually he got thrown out on his ear.
First, there was Jordan. King Hussein let Arafat build his own state-within-a-state, attack Israel, and have his own army. The king knew powerful Arab states, and his own considerable Palestinian population supported Arafat and he didn't want any trouble.
But Arafat forced the king to fight him. He and his men called for Hussein's overthrow, flouted his authority, threatened to drag him into war with Israel, and insulted his soldiers.
Having no choice, the king struck back, in September 1970. Arafat proclaimed he would fight to the end and be a martyr. Instead, the PLO was kicked out of the country.
Next came Lebanon. Some Lebanese welcomed Arafat; others bowed to Egyptian pressure. There were some clashes at first, but the Lebanese didn't want any trouble with Arafat, either.
You can attack Israel across the border, they said, but follow a few simple rules to ensure that Israel does not retaliate against Lebanon. Above all, don't interfere in Lebanese politics.
Once again, Arafat alienated his hosts. His men bullied the Lebanese and treated them like subjects, turning the south into a PLO fiefdom. Swaggering through the streets, the PLO forces acted as if they owned Beirut, too.
Arafat's maneuvers helped destabilize Lebanese politics and contributed to the civil war. In part, the Lebanese called in the Syrian army to save them from Arafat.
Then some of them made a deal with Israel in 1982. The PLO forces ran from the IDF. And Lebanon's leaders demanded that he leave the country.
Arafat proclaimed he would fight to the end and be a martyr. Instead, he sailed off to Tunisia.
True, he did not get into a direct confrontation with his Tunisian hosts. But he and his entourage became very unpopular there, too.
He violated a pledge that he would not run terrorist operations directly from Tunisian soil. The Tunisians were angry but too weak to do anything.
But this time the ones Arafat antagonized were the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. By supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Arafat directly threatened the sovereignty and survival of two countries that had bankrolled him over the years.
They cut off the money, driving the PLO toward bankruptcy. Because of Arafat, tens of thousands of Palestinians were expelled as traitors from Kuwait and other Persian Gulf monarchies.
THE PLO was at its lowest point. If Israel or the US had wanted – had they been evil, as Arafat and his supporters claimed – they would have destroyed him and his movement. But, seeking real peace, they thought Arafat's weakness would make him more moderate.
They took him at his word. OK, they said, you want a state; let's make a deal that can satisfy everyone's needs and aspirations.
Ironically, Arafat treated Israel much the same as he treated the Arabs. In 2000 he rejected a compromise peace and launched a war of terrorism. Once again, he fomented anarchy, violence, and extremism.
This time, though, he was confined rather than expelled. Israel said he could come and go from his besieged Ramallah headquarters if he stopped the terrorism he was inciting and financing.
Once again Arafat evaded his responsibilities.
His illness bought him a ticket to Paris, funded by French taxpayers, with an unconditional promise that he could return.
Now he is in Europe. No one in the Middle East will take him. He is welcome only where people don't understand his lifetime behavior pattern.
While ill-informed politicians, would-be humanitarians, and romantic voyeurs of revolution are always willing to give him another chance, Arafat has run out of places to befoul.
Strike four, you're out!
If the deity is cognizant of what is good for the future of the Palestinian people – and the Israelis and just about everyone else – he will never come back.
The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center; editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal; and editor of Turkish Studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)