Arguing on the Internet is a lot like...

A little background to this post is required. A few days ago, Ace of Spades posted a characteristically sarcastic comment regarding Andrew Sullivan's opinion of the 21,500-troop "plus-up" in Iraq, to the effect that the only consistency in Sullivan's position was "automatic gainsaying of whatever Bush might be doing this week", and that his opposition to the surge was purely a result of Bush having proposed it. Then, in what can only be described - at least, politely - as an exercise in extreme lateral thinking, he suggested that the subtext of Sullivan's entire Iraq commentary was his opposition to the FMA (which, sad to say, is not unprecedented among the latter's more playground-oriented critics).

Now, these statements are in such stark contrariety to the truth that they could only have come from someone with a long-formed view of Andrew Sullivan; someone who doesn't, therefore, need to actually read his site in order to divine his opinion on whatever situation we're facing. Either that, or an illiterate; I'm giving Ace the dubious benefit of some minimal doubt here. Regardless, this kind of cavalier attitude towards fact is something of a pet peeve of mine, and so I left a comment under the name 'Dudefella' (long story) pointing out that Sullivan, whether you agree with him or not, had been consistent in his view that at least 50,000 troops would be needed, and had been saying so for some time before the actual deployment figures were announced.

Mistake.

After comments calling me a sock-puppet, correcting my incredulity at the FMA crack (apparently evidence of Ace's perceptiveness), and some crude "humour" involving Sullivan's likely "position" on a "surge", I left another comment observing that Ace's statement was "demonstrably false". At this point I had started to regret breaking my self-imposed moratorium on comment-posting, cursing myself for failing to heed the cruel-yet-wise advice of old chain-email jokes - when suddenly a clarion call sounded from "Toby928":

"Feel free to demonstrate it."

Mistake.

Ordinarily it's the person making the allegation who's supposed to demonstrate the accuracy of the charge, but so be it. I would warn you, Ace and Toby, before I start, to prepare yourself for just how thoroughly you're about to be Fisked. I'm not being facetious. This might actually break some bones.

November 30th, a week before the ISG report was released:
"My preference is for a draw-down of troops in Shiite and Sunni Arab areas of Iraq, a redeployment to Kurdistan where they like us and whence we can keep an eye on any egregious terrorist activities in Anbar, and a much bigger force presence in Baghdad to prevent the capital from imploding. If the Shiite militias want to fight it out for control of Southern Iraq, fine."

He quantifies what he means by "a much bigger force presence" on December 2nd:

"How much higher would make a difference? At this point, close to 50,000 to 100,000 extra troops to halt the centrifugal force of societal disintegration in Iraq."

You'll also note that in this post - far from changing his tune as soon as Bush announced the actual deployment figures - he comments upon a hypothetical (at the time) commitment of 20,000 extra troops:

"Would, say, another 20,000 troops work in a pitched battle with Sadrite forces to retake parts of Baghdad? Unlikely - and with massive casualties probably prompting an uprising in the South. Anbar is all but gone. The South is a battleground for various Shiite militias and sending U.S. troops in to police the conflict is madness. But even if you reduced troops in the South and West, and focused on 20,000 more troops just for Baghdad, it's a stretch. As even Fred Kagan acknowledges."

... and reinforces his position as follows:

"We need at least 50,000 NOW."

Now, I would assume the fact that Sullivan called for 50,000+ troops in any potential surge - and explicitly opposed a token commitment of 20,000 troops - before the administration even began publicly promoting the idea of a surge and almost six weeks before the numbers were released, is enough to quash the notion that his position changed as soon as Bush stepped onto the podium. I'm still working on the relevance of the FMA to any of this, but I suspect Ace might be the only one who can enlighten us on that front. Just in case this isn't enough to satisfy you, here's a few further examples; I've only included cases where he specifically cites numbers, but all his posts regarding Iraq troops levels and policy operate under these established figures.

December 4th, in response to a vague proposal from Rich Lowry regarding troop levels:
"From where? How many? 50,000 now? I could go on. Actually, I have gone on and on and on."

December 7th, just after the ISG report was released:
"So we have two awful options, it seems to me. First: throw everything we've got at this thing, do all the Baker-Hamilton commission wants (including the Iran and Syria gambits) except withdraw troops... the acid test will be [Bush's] troop commitment. He needs to embrace much of Baker-Hamilton and add more than 50,000 and probably closer to 75,000 new troops into the theater - in the next three or four months... If we don't do that, we should leave - rapidly, and let the real war begin."

and again on December 7th:

"Double-down or get out. Those remain the only real options, in my view. Increasingly, I lean toward getting out completely, and finally giving the region the civil and religious war it so obviously and deeply wants... If Bush finds 50,000 to 75,000 troops, we'll know he's serious."

December 13th, as the administration started discussing the possibility of an upcoming surge:
"Trying to find a new governing coalition sans Sadr strikes me as Sysyphean at this point, but I suppose one more push can't hurt. A troop surge might help such an effort, but, again, it's just one last gambit, not a real strategy. But all this looks as if it's in the works. I see, of course, no sign that we are going to seriously reboot the occupation, so all of this is simply a way to minimize the short-term costs of leaving. It's face-saving, which only a huge amount of luck might turn into something better. So try it - but no illusions, please. McCain may do a photo-op with Bush in january, but wihout 50,000 more troops, it's pure theater."

December 13th again:
"My point is that we have every reason not to be in the very middle of this with 130,000 troops."

December 15th:
"Somehow, however, I don't think rearranging the troops with a temporary surge will ever amount to "all that America's might can muster." And there's no evidence that the president is attempting anything much more ambitious. As I said before: if he adds 50,000 more troops, we'll know he's serious."

December 16th, on a strategy proposed by Fred Kagan:
"This proposal looks like it may emerge as the Bush-McCain strategy in Iraq: the double-down strategy aimed at restoring order, critically in Baghdad, before any political solution can be tried. It looks to me in the serious range - 50,000 more troops. If this is presented, and appears to be a real plan for one last attempt to salvage Iraq, I'd be inclined to support it, while remaining still doubtful of its chances for success."

At this point, Sullivan went on holiday for Christmas. This is probably fortunate for you, since - judging by the frequency and consistency with which he was expressing his view of the surge - I'd probably have had an extra half-dozen or so quotes to add right about here. Anyway - let's continue, shall we?

January 2nd, in a post considering the relative costs and benefits of each option:
"One option is to plow forward with this president, a new defense secretary and a "surge". By a surge, I mean a serious commitment of 50,000 combat troops to try and pacify a raging civil war - in Baghdad for starters."

January 4th, in a post entitled "50,000":
"That's the magic number of extra troops needed for a "surge" in Iraq to be credible, according to John Keegan."

January 5th:
"The idea that a surge of 20,000 American troops can or will rectify this situation is unhinged."

January 7th:
"The worst that can be said of David's proposal is that it's far more realistic than the leaked plans of the president. If the "surge" we are contemplating is indeed a mere 20,000 troops and if it is dependent on the pesh merga, and if it is accompanied by a puny $1 billion for reconstruction, then we know one thing: this is not a serious military proposal."

January 8th:
"Even those who favor doubling down are nonetheless skeptical of whether it is feasible, and whether an escalation of a mere 20,000 can do anything but compound the problem. Among those who believe that a minimum of 50,000 more troops are needed are such luminaries as John Keegan, a conservative military scholar. Others suggest up to 100,000."

January 9th:
"But I also believe that a real surge means a minimum of 50,000 more competent, professional soldiers deployed for the indefinite future... McCain, alas, commits himself to a mere minimum of 25,000. Sorry, but no deal. Anything less than 50,000 means more of the same."

January 9th, quoting John McIntyre:
"[A] well-managed retreat would be preferable to a continuation of the status-quo policy of the last 18 months, dressed up under new commanders and 20,000 more troops," - John McIntyre, RealClearPolitics at Time. The president's toughest critics Wednesday night may be pro-war conservatives."

January 9th, regarding an explosive "debate" (complete with death threats) between a Saddam loyalist and a Shia journalist on al Jazeera:
"We are supposed to bring these people together with 20,000 more troops? Who are we kidding?"

January 9th:
"He's saying a minimum of seven more brigades are needed for an indefinite period of time. That translates to roughly 18,000 up to 35,000 more troops as a minimum. I think he's being too modest and we need more. But at least we have a bar to judge the president's speech by."

January 10th, as news of the actual deployment figures was leaked, in a post entitled "21,500":
"That's it, apparently. Phased in slowly, with a mere 10,000 or so Iraqi government soldiers. To retake Baghdad block by block. I'll be fascinated to know if even Fred Kagan thinks this is sufficient... It makes Baker-Hamilton look realistic."

January 10th, just after Bush's speech, in a shocking change of heart:
"If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose."

So, to summarise: Andrew Sullivan, over the course of the six-odd weeks before the president's announcement, beginning even before the administration had committed themselves to a surge policy, expressed his view that 50,000 troops would be needed to change the current course of the Iraq conflict at least seventeen times. This does not count posts relating to the topic which did not mention precise numbers. Not only that, but on several occasions before the president's announcement, he addressed the possibility of adding 20,000 more troops and declared the figure, in his opinion, insufficient.

Ace's retraction is, I believe, scheduled for five minutes after Hell freezes over.

UPDATE: HIRED GOON - WEDNESDAY JANUARY 31st 2007

More discussion in the comments thread of Ace's I-charitably-use-the-phrase "rebuttal" post here, with me again posting as Dudefella. It's worth reading for some exchanges with Ace's commenters, notably Geoff and JackStraw. The latter somehow seems to mistakenly believe that my argument was that Sullivan thought a surge of 50,000 troops would guarantee success. It was not. I argued that Ace's accusations regarding Sullivan's consistency on troops levels were wrong; I did not argue that Sullivan was of the view that 50,000 troops would immediately ensure a positive outcome, for the simple-but-compelling reason that he was clearly not of that view. From the start, he professed an increasing unease that the situation might already be irrevocable; and that a credibly substantial force commitment - a minimum of 50,000 troops as what he called a "game changer" - would be required to allay his fears sufficiently to support any potential surge. Or, as he himself put it when assessing a proposed plan by Fred Kagan:

"It looks to me in the serious range - 50,000 more troops. If this is presented, and appears to be a real plan for one last attempt to salvage Iraq, I'd be inclined to support it, while remaining still doubtful of its chances for success."

This summation of Sullivan's position should have been evident to anyone reading the links I supplied, or even the excerpts I reproduced; the above was quoted directly in my original post. As I noted, for someone who felt comfortable issuing such strongly-worded denunciations of Sullivan's views, JackStraw did seem to be learning them in real-time as the comment thread progressed.

Anyway, since everyone now appears to agree that Sullivan was consistent on troop figures (including Ace, if his anvil-like dropping of the subject is any indication), I assume we can lay that issue to rest. JackStraw's two other main lines of reasoning are that:

• the real topic of Ace's original post was that Sullivan's opposition to Bush is driven by the FMA
  
• Sullivan intentionally proposed an infeasible plan so as to ensure that he could ultimately oppose Bush

As I noted in response, even if we assume that Ace's accusations of inconsistency were designed purely to demonstrate Sullivan's reflexive FMA-motivated opposition to Bush, it makes not the slightest difference to the fact that those accusations were wrong; and that consequently, one might theorise that it was a faulty premise from which to begin. As for the notion that Sullivan deliberately backed an unworkable strategy so that he could oppose whatever Bush delivered, I would suggest that proponents of this view need to answer the questions posed in my comment of 11:01pm on 01/29; namely -

1. How could Sullivan have been deliberately setting himself up to disagree with Bush - or at the very least, how could he have known he was doing so - when the position he adopted was the consensus of many prominent commentators at the time? This view of the situation would require Sullivan to be evil, and everyone else insane.



2. If Sullivan wanted to pick an implausible number of troops, why did he choose a figure that other people had already proposed (and, moreover, which they had defended as plausible and realistic)? Indeed, why did he pick a number lower than some others suggested?



3. If Sullivan's comments regarding his skepticism that the current policy can succeed are unreasonable, why are many others expressing skepticism of precisely the same kind, and for the same reasons?

Answers on a postcard. Respondents should ideally avoid explanations which credit Sullivan with clairvoyance and/or omniscience.

The Times: Weekend Edition

In what is basically a rehash of their previous articles,Fintan O' Toole and Lara Marlowe were awarded the front page of the Weekender. I have recently shown my contempt for Lara, and have previously questioned Fintan's sanity. These articles are degenerating to coincide with the "growing outrage" over Saddam's execution. Leftists are emboldened by glimmers of popular public support and often make their biggest slips. Its a good and bad thing. We get to see their true illogical, ridiculous natures, and were we to quote them at a later date their very own words, they could and would easily deny they had said such outrageous things.

Lara is still infuriated that the dashing Saddam was executed by his own people and even goes as far as to patronise any Shia who wished for such punishment with:

"There were celebrations in many poor Shia neighbourhoods,such as Sadr City,the vast slum in east Baghdad that is ruled by the Mahdi army. But educated Shia, such as Adil al-Zubeidi, an architect whose brother was jailed in Abu Ghraib prison for 10 years by Saddam, said the spectacle made them ill at ease. It felt like vengeance,not justice" al Zubeidi said."

Basically;Ignorant hicks. I will reiterate that I did not support his execution. I would rather him rot into anonymity than die at the hands of the families of his victims. Yet,that is easy for me to say. What if I were Shia,Kurd or Marsh Arab? What if my own blood had been taken by this monster? Would I be so forgiving? I cannot say with any great conviction that I would.

There has been more outrage over Saddam's execution than his crimes. Lefties are a selectively emotional lot and Fintan is positively aghast at the horrific nature of his execution. He is amazed at the viral proliferation of the hanging and makes the usual preposterous statements that Saddam is now a Muslim Martyr etc. Journalism has been slanted since Vietnam. All of these articles use the same tired cliches.You could take any piece from the 70's,80s or 90s and just insert different names for the dictators. Massively overstating the historical implications, despite his partner in crime stating four days ago, that Bush had committed an act of unforseeable implications.

If Saddam is indeed a Martyr, he is only a martyr with the very people these two reprehenisble "journalists" care for. The Sunni. The very people who are guilty for this entire shambles. Socialists didn't seem to have much problem with the entire concentration of wealth and power amongst 20% of the Iraqi populace. Now they cry for these people. They photograph,video and quote these people. Yet most of these people are essentially the Nazi faithful. The only Sunnis that deserve any sympathy are the ones that are either dead or maimed from fighting against Saddam's brutal rule. Certainly not the wealthy and "educated". Because all of their success was paid for by their neighbours blood.

Aesthetics

I will be dealing with some very interesting costs incurred by all of our dashing TDs last year sometime soon. The main man Bertie has cost the state nearly 7 million Euros. Thats right: 7 MILLION Euros. For makeup etc. Crack whore aka Paris Hilton would not spend that much on Mac foundation. Do they think that if they put enough slap on our ole Taoiseach he'll start to look like George Clooney?

Saddam's Fallout

I am not quite sure why I thought that the progression of the calendar would usher in a new era of reasonable debate. Saddam's execution has been a veritable minefield of misinformation and nonsensical ramblings.I will alert you to one in particular; Lara Marlowe's piece in today's Irish Times.

This is the same writer who has avowedly misrepresented facts before and sees nothing wrong with being paid to cheerlead a female Socialist for the last few months whilst she runs for the presidency of the notoriously backward thinking France. I was guided to Lara's work by my sister.
She is a lawyer,a lefty and a bold,kind woman who possesses a fine mind. We were joking about going to see the Santa Claus 3 movie. This continued somewhat alarmingly towards a debate about current Hollywood. From there it moved to "You show your intolerance by being intolerant about their work". Upon clarifying that it was infact the left that is showing their intolerance by pathetically attempting to silence their critics by accusing us of the very thing that they are guilty of...
Stay with me,Ill talk about Hollywood at a later date.
Anyhoo,I felt sucked in and became fatigued that after I expressed my opinions in a polite,respectful fashion, I am then subject to wandering tirades that lead back to Bush.

My sister was furious about Saddam's execution.She does not believe in the death penalty and thinks that this reflects poorly on us. She praised the European Union for its stance and heavily criticised the barbarity of the US and reserved particular venom for Tony Blair. She was strangely on point,targetting key leftist memes all in one rant. I sensed that this was not entirely the product of her mind, and quickly scanned the Irish Times editorial pages. Low and behold,there was Marlowe in all her glory.

The piece entitled " US has again blithely commited an act of unforseeable consequences" is really rather disgusting. It is usually the position of HG to pick arguments apart piece by piece but this time I will make an exception.

She starts with :
"What do you do when death squads roam the streets of Baghdad,when the security forces you've armed and trained systematically torture and murder detainees, when you've squandered 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in an ill-concieved military venture that sparked a civil war? Kill the dictator"

Firstly,Lara was sent over to Iraq as a supposedly neutral journalist that would report with some semblance of balance. Read her lines again. Do you believe, at any point, that Ms Marlowe was capable of neutral,fact based reportage?Tell me how this is journalism. Tell me why reporters are allowed to op-ed hard news these days. Baghdad is in complete turmoil.There is a lot of inter-ethnic violence but death squads is a dubious analysis. The disgraceful behaviour of a small number of newly trained soldiers with payback on their minds cannot be helped by Sunni's constantly bombing markets and restaurants full of people either. Over 3,000 soldiers have died. Compare that with Vietnam,Korea or even World War II. Specious reasoning you may assert. No, not really. If America goes to war with another nation and cannot handle the deaths of 3,000 brave,honourable people, then it should not enter any war. They cannot use extensive air power either, innocent people may be killed.The very same day boots on the ground are rpg'd at some school and its the same people complaining. Hundreds of Thousands. The Lancet report is an absolute joke. You cannot seriously cite it. Just because you say something often enough Lara, does not make it true(despite what Lenin always said). Civil war is an exaggerration of the internecine violence.

She continues
"The execution of Saddam Hussein on December 30th betrayed the impotence that underlies US power.It took George Bush neraly four years to overthrow,apprehend and execute the " butcher of Baghdad"

Clearly shes all worked up and raring to go. US power is however, total. The statement is mere wish fulfillment. Be thankful that the US is a sane superpower that utilises its current dominance relatively rationally. Unlike certain other European powers that raped and pillaged Africa and Asia at will,leaving them impoverished,and ripe for Parisian educated Communist tyrants, to wreak further havoc? Regarding the second line:is she saying that Saddam should just have been shot in his little hovel and did not deserve any sort of trial?

"But what an empty victory; nearly a month after the Hamilton-Baker report provided a rational basis for making the best of a bad job,Bush shows no sign of comprehending the catastrophe he has created.His comment on the execution of Saddam was a partial admission of the futility of the act which Bush admitted,"will not end the violence in Iraq", and an exercise in the same empty rhetoric that has characterised his conduct of the war"

Rumsfeld has done a poor job. HG has already writen extensively and precisely about his failures. However, I will criticise my friend by inquiring how the US can "win this war". Without massive indiscriminate violence,completely deviod of any compassion, the US cannot defeat these scumbags.
I cannot see any way outside of partition. There is far too much violent history old and new. This will not happen for variety of reasons. No Arab will agree. Oil interests. Kurdistan would technically have to encompass a quite significant amount of neighbouring nations. The Shia's may decide they like Iran enough to join them,leaving Baghdad worse off than Jerusalem of Berlin. Saddams execution was never going to end the violence. Marlowe knows this and contradicts herself by claiming Bush's rhetoric is empty when she knows fully well what the reality is.

"Saddam's death was "and important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern,sustain and defend itself and be an ally on the war on terror", Bush said.
Really? How? Why does the US president get away with such meaningless palaver? Yet again, the US has blithely commited an act of unforseeable,far reaching consequences"

If the Iraqi people choose like most Islamic countries to hold onto the death penalty,does that make them undemocratic? The US has states that continue to execute certain criminals.Why? Because the electorate wants them to be killed.
Lara's argument is typical of all parental style-socialist governance .

You do not do whats best for us unenlightened peasants. You present your case. The opposition presents theirs. The people decide. That is democracy. The Iraqi's wanted their Hitler executed. Personally, I would prefer to see him rot in jail but it is their call.
Second line is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER moment, so I hope you all clapped in your pj's this morning.

" When I called friends in California,to wish them a happy new year,they told me Americans were far more interested in the death of 93-year-old former president Gerald Ford than Saddam's execution.US media took the line that pardoning the felonious Richard Nixon.the dim -witted Ford" healed the nation"

Personalised story=proof. The US media is rampantly left-wing but not quite communist ala Europe. They should probably do something to silence Fox News etc. Ford was stupid in the way Bush is stupid. All Republicans are down home idiot hicks and Nixon is the exception because he got caught doing something illegal? As for the US concentrating on Ford; again the reasons are plentiful: It allows the Vietnam correlation with today to continue.It reminds Americans that the Republicans are corrupt. Americans personalise their own like any nation. And nobody gives a flying continental about a guy that murdered half a million people.

"Saddam was executed at the beginning of the Muslim Eid al-Adha,the feast of sacrifice, a time of forgiveness,when even the tyrant Saddam used to forgive prisoners.For the Shia,who were Saddam's main victims, and whom the US has now brought to power, the execution was a cause for celebration"

Saddam freed a lucky few and didnt throw them in some meat blenders. Well this changes everything...
The Iraqi people chose to execute him.And I think the Jews were happy to see Nazi war criminals punished for their horrendous acts.

"But for the Sunnis,who comprise the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims,the choice of the day was yet another provocation.In the West,the coincidence with New Years eve added a grotesque,Roman circus feel to an already barbaric act.One couldnt help wondering whether the execution was meant to distract attention from the real milestone of the weekend- the 3,000th US soldier to die in Iraq"

Its remarkable how she manages to incorporate all of these memes. She has to be given credit. After all,the Americans are the Romans of the day. They too had the facade of democracy, forever attempting to disguise its disgusting depravity through grand expansion. And as the 3000 number has been reported at will for the last month, I will not even bother repudiating the latter statement.

You will love this
"Saddam's last words, as recounted by the judge Munir Haddad, one of the official eyewitnesses, were: " I hope that you will remain united and I warn you: do not trust the Iranian coalition; these people are dangerous".The former dictator's words sound like a harbinger of the break-up of Iraq,the "solution" which some US commentators have long advocated.Iraqi Sunnis with some reason,consider the Sciri and Dawa parties now nominally in power to be tools of Iran. Saddam's words point towards the danger of a region-wide-Sunni Shia conflagration"

Firstly,let us not bother questioning Munir political affiliations or whether Saddam said any of this. Iraq was not united under Saddam. The Sunnis had everything,the rest were imprisoned,impoverished or killed. The British take a pen to the map, and we rightfully criticise them for doing so. Should we not struggle to assure self-determination where possible today?

Sunnis can expect a difficult time and to be treated with the same contempt they showed their Islamic brethren when they were dining on Larry Goodman's prime beef whilst Kurdish villages were being gassed. A region wide conflagration?? Like the one Saddam initiated in 1980, or is it a different type?

"Last month an advisor to the Saudi ambassador in Washington caused alarm by saying that Riyadh could not stand idly by while Iran extends its influence"

Are the Iranians stopping them from setting up Wahhabi Dar-el Islam,Al-Qaeda training shops? What are they going to do with no army?. People did not go to war to protect Kuwait in 1990.

" Until his hands were bound behind his back,Saddam held the Koran,which accoring the Agence France Presse " he wanted sent to a person". To whom? To his widow,Sajida, or his daughters, Raghad and Rana? To a Sunni cleric for safe-keeping? Such is the stuff of holy relics; my neighbour in Ireland,who attended the Jesuit school of at Stonyhurst,told me how 400 years after the execution of Mary Stuart, the school treasures the prayer book she held through the night preceeding her decapitation"

Breathtakingly ridiculous stuff. Saddam did not even believe in God. He became Muslim as it suited him to do so,as it made political sense. Excuse the French but Fuck his widow. She lived in his palaces with him. She knew what was going on. The daughters are less to blame but for all we know could have have been similar to Uday and Quesay. Holy Relic? Preposterous. And watch how it gets worse.
She actually directly contradicts herself in the next paragraph.

"I've often thought of the US magazine editor who told me how impressed he'd been by Saddam's Iraq.Compared to other Arab countries,it was modern,secular and progressive, especially of women,he said.

Thats like comparing Pol Pot with Stalin. Secular? But just above... His Koran becoming a holy Relic?.. Im lost. The only thing modern was the manner in which he slaughtered innocents with Gunships and Anthrax. Progressive obviously means that Sunnis had free healthcare and free education so that absolves everything.

Millions of Arabs not feel that "the US has done one of ours". Resentment of the US is stregthened,and I suspect that when Arab history books are wirtten, Saddam's torture chambers and crimes against humanity will be forgotten; the memory of an enlightened leader who dared to stand up to the US will prevail.

Forgive me but who actually takes the millions of Arabs seriously at this point. If they lived in Ireland, they would get upset if it rained. And history is the attempt to accurately consider as many facts as possible and present a vivid description of previous events. Lara's friend mixes up modern journalism, ala the interpretation of definite facts through a Marxist prism which results in the exact opposite of said facts, as history. The Magazine editor is thinking about Sociology.

"Did erstwhile friends in Europe and America, the Jacques Chiracs and Donald Rumsfelds of this world,feel a tinge of remorse,or relief,to learn that he was dead? It is scandalous that the US boasted of organising a " public" trial of Saddam,when the procedure was carefully devised to prevent the former dictator from dragging down his former Allies with him"

True, they should have criticised and sanctioned Saddam far earlier but he seemed like a decent Socialist that they could do business with.Rumsfeld is probably incapable of procuring a newspaper and even then probably wouldnt trust what it says. And by dragging down former allies, does Ms Marlowe include the Soviet Union? Because they supplied 63% of his arms. America? 1%. Im sure Putin would cry if he possessed tear ducts.

"Judges in the US- built courtroom disposed of two buttons,one to cut the sound when Saddam spoke, and another to draw a curtain across the dock when he misbehaved. Journalists and observers in the gallery heard and saw only what they were permitted to"

Nice try Lara, but no dice. US built but Iraqi run. They silenced him repeatedly as he had a tendency to go off on on crazy rants,incredulous that after all his slaughter that even now, he the great almight demi-god Saddam, may be held accountable. The only difference with Nuremberg is that nobody cared what the Nazis thought because we all agreed they were bastards. But Hussein isnt white,he is Arab,therefore somehow his crimes are different.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran praised the execution.One might have expected Iran to demand a full account of the weapons and intelligence that the US and European powers provided for his illegal invasion of Iran in 1980. When Saddam used chemical weapons,- again,provided by the West- to massacre thousands of Kurds at Halabja, the US State Department instructed diplomats to blame the atrocity on Tehran."

A fascinating paragragh. Does she agree that Iran is in the hands of lunatics now for the sake of her argument? There are already accounts of weapons given by many powers to both sides during the war. Her President gave him a nuclear reactor for christs sake. She desperately wants to blame America for all of this. This unnerving racism continues unabated. He gave the orders. We should not have given him the weapons but the same could be said of Kalashnikovs.
I disagree,like most, with Bush Senior about not finishing the job. Yet how would the situation be any different from today?

"The statement by the British foreign secretary,Margaret Beckett,to which British prime minister Tony Blair subscribed,at the same time welcomed Saddam's execution and condemned the death penalty. Could anything be more absurd? If capital punishment is immoral,it is in all cases, " even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes", the vatican noted."

Anything more absurd? Why yes Ms Marlowe, I have. The pretence that you are a serious, thoughtful correspondent strikes me as fairly absurd. And yes Tony is having his cake and eating it. He does not agree with it but respects the Iraqi's right to execute him.

"It was chilling to see Saddam's executioners in their medieval black hoods"

They should have worn nice suits with name tags that clearly stated their addresses and both home and mobile phone numbers on them.

Lara closes with
" But television networks stopped short of showing us the snapped neck and the twisting corpse. Time and again, we are spared the worst images of war in Iraq, Lebannon and the Israeli occupied territories on the grounds of "taste". If we had to watch it all- dead children,mangled bodies, and yes, Saddam's execution- perhaps citizens of western democracies might hold their leaders to account"

A fitting close to one of worst pieces I have ever read. She mentions those nasty,tricky jewbags with their land they stole when all of their neighbours attempted to initiate a second holocaust.
And as for Saddam's execution, Ive watched it. It gave me no great pleasure. I thought he looked pathetic, which probably was cathartic for his victims families. But dont just stop with those images Lara, make sure that late abortions are shown too.

The state of Russia

An absolutely fascinating,in depth analysis of modern Russia.
There is a tendency for new threats to emerge whilst we deal with current ones. This certainly has an old feel about it.

Luxury Items

In one of the first acts of his extended presidency, Chavez has bravely introduced a new fascinating source of income for his "government". He is taxing toilet seats. For far too long the bourgeosie have been casually using them and this reprehensible facade of luxury is a slap in the face of the poor.

In other news,food prices in Chavistaland have inexplicably risen.

American Roundup

Ahhh,split governance can be a bitch. Especially when a bunch of people with the maturity of 13yr olds are involved. The Democrats have decided that John Bolton is not to their liking. Too divisive apparently. Stuff like this happens when you tell the truth at the United Nations. Dictators and the French have a tenous relationship with such concepts.Without the support of their Senate, he has resigned. Another good guy gone. Best to send a better liar to the worlds most amoral collection of tolerant incompetents.Jimmy Carter is still knocking around.

Depression.

I have always believed will is the most powerful human force. When it is present anything can be achieved,when it is not, humanity can fall asunder. These last eight years have been trying times for advocates of human rights and democracy. Often I wonder whether we are approaching another cataclysmic downturn akin to that of the early twentieth century. Surely and exagerration, a tabloidesque plea for attention you protest. Im afraid not. The world as we know it,or how greater people have shaped it, does not exist ad infinitum. It requires desire and determination to protect it. It requires will.

I am as guilty as any for this turn of events. Bad people prosper when we allow them to. I stated a month ago that we would resume regular blogging. We have not and I know exactly why. We are outraged out. Fatigued with the daily degeneration of our modern world. Tired of the rage and stress we feel upon reading about the violation of mankind in lesser places. Astonished at the modern media's inability to even consider the rights of those that stand in the way of their ideology.Yes,their ideology. Communism is back. It never really went away.

One would assume the death of over a hundred million people would end an ideology. Not so.
It has never been defeated. They are masters of medium manipulation. They control the way we think without us knowing it,but more importantly they control our feelings. Essentially they dominate who we are. The world is a poluted,bloated,selfish,amoral hell and they have the answers. I feel almost helpless against this tide. I can barely convince anyone I care about of this onslaught. They continue to read,listen,watch and therefore feel the nonsense they have always felt, and I stand in the corner wondering if I am losing my mind. But more importantly than anything else, I have given up trying to reason with them. They are all intelligent people, the thought has crossed my mind on numerous occassions, of the probability of my own inferior reasoning on worldly matters.Yet deep within me,I know that I have to be right.

Hence this meandering,tentative piece. Who is actually going to read it?. And should they bother, then can I expect some type of pathetic insult that upsets me even more.

Chavez has won in Venezuela. It is not the fact that he has cheated that essentially matters. To the people of the region,it is of course crucial, but to us,it is the fact that nobody even knows about it. If they did,I doubt they would consider it beyond Britney's latest vaginal demonstration. This does not mean that Communism is back you can argue. Im sorry but it does. Only this time there are no Reagans around to deal with it. There is no clear decisive advocate for democracy and the rule of law. The Bush Administration is tied up in Iraq, obsessed with the miniscule numbers of a primitive system of beliefs, with no definitive powerful state to back them,utilising methods that are viewed as that of a freedom fighter.
Blowing up innocent citizens and using children as shields to deliver such death, are the acts of freedom fighters. Think about that.

They should be looking closer to home. They have mishandled the war.Made numerous errors and often failed to rectify them.Yet,it is not what has made them unpopular.The media has. And the media is Communist. The universities are Communist. Even the pre-schools are Communist.

They expend copious amounts of effort in vain,expecting a reasonable response,when they have to start from the beginning. You cannot win any war or improve anyone's lives before you conclusively defeat these people on every level. You must start in schools. Perhaps begin with actual subjects being taught. That may lead to more intelligent university students. Which could contribute to the reintroduction of free speech and logic on campuses. The situation at third level is a mixture of militant Marxism meets timid rationality,with a healthy dollop of anti-semitism as they are at fault for pretty much everything,including the flood,the plague and both world wars. If you manage to succeed there,the modern media will prosper. Imagine the flowering of ideas and the healthy debate that could follow. Imagine a world where 90% of the "free" press does not favour the abolishment of private property and the indictment of Bush to the Hague. Where we discuss the best ways to alleviate poverty without enslaving people. Where we concieve solutions instead of bloviating rage and disharmony.

When I think about that world, I beam. When I think about this world, I am depressed.
Ultimately the main question is: Are there enough of us out there who can turn this hopelessness into something more significant?. Or are we going to wait till two million Venezuelans are executed. And will we even hear about their deaths this time around?