There he goes again — “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
Charity begins at home.
There he goes again — “the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
Charity begins at home.
They’re cheering the Chimp. They’re cheering themselves. They’re cheering the State and its glories.
Ugh.
Sunnis will boycott drafting of constitution:
The Muslim Scholars Association, the most influential Sunni religious group in Iraq, refused Wednesday to participate in drafting the country’s permanent constitution, a prior task for the National Assembly (NA) elected last Sunday.
“We cannot participate in the formulating of a constitution under the occupation,” Mohammed Bashar Fadhi, the group’s spokesman told a press conference.
“The Americans try to establish sectarianism in the constitution, and the Association would not accept division
according to the sectarian shares,” he stressed.“We deeply believe that the constitution written under the occupation would be a reflection of the State Administration Law, which we had already totally rejected, and we would not participate in writing the constitution whatever it costs us,” he added.
There’s nothing amusing about this news itself:
Iraq oil pipeline suffers new sabotage
Three killed in Iraq insurgent attacks
But what is interesting is that the reporters seem at a loss, after months of leading every story about violence in Iraq with, “In an effort to derail the elections…” Now what is the violence supposed to be about?
In a commentary for Wall Street Journal yesterday (February 1, 2005; Page A12), pretentiously titled “Set Kosovo Free,” none other than the real Butcher of Belgrade, ex-General Wesley Clark, stumped for the latest outrage by his employer, the International Crisis Group.
(Like other content from the War Street Journal, Clark’s editorial isn’t online.) Continue reading “Wesley Clark and “Free Kosovo””
Before I have my hands crushed by the keyboard KGB, allow me to congratulate the Iraqi Communist Party and its fellow travelers in the West. Christopher Hitchens, one of those Marxist dinosaurs who really should be sent to Cuba while there’s still time to observe him in his proper habitat, must be happy to hear that the ICP appears to have won 10-15 seats in Iraq’s constitutional assembly. (That’s 10-15 out of 275, a ratio of no small consequence: can you imagine what 17-25 libertarians could do in the U.S. House of Representatives?) While "ex"-commie Stephen Schwartz has found a home among the FReeping red-staters, Hitchens has found his useful idiots among the dynamists, who will no doubt cheer on Iraq’s "progressives" as they do battle with the assorted fascists and fundamentalists who fill out this Bizarro World Constitutional Convention.
But as intrigued as you surely are by all the forthcoming drama, you’re probably wondering: When do we get to leave? I mean, first this war was about WMD, then we solved that problem (solved it in the sense that I solved the dragon problem in my house). Then it was about liberating the Iraqis, which we did when Saddam was, in Sean Hannity’s stirring words, "cornered like a rat, caught in a lizard’s den, in a spider hole." Then it was about establishing democracy, which we accomplished Sunday when the greatest election nay, greatest moment in history took place with 60% turnout (maybe just a wee bit coerced) and only ~40 dead. So we can leave and let all those Iraqi James Madisons and George Masons and Benjamin Franklins "chart their own course," right?
Are you kidding? Democracy, as every good progressive knows, isn’t just (or even mostly) about voting. You must have missed the understood modifier "social" in front of all this democracy jabber. We can’t leave until we establish social democracy:
Once Iraq has these things, then we can withdraw. Right? I’m just trying to get some sort of vague timetable here, say a thousand years. Or when we’ve given the Iraqis all these things, is Andrew Sullivan’s great-great grandclone going to demand benefits for the same-sex partners of all Iraqi employees? Is there any end in sight?