Election Reflection


The BBC is running a page for US voters to explain to bemused and befuddled Europeans why they voted for GWB. All the entries I troubled to read were extraordinarily well put together and spelt- as though thoroughly edited- except one:

'There is a lot of Biblical teaching on how God judges nations. The story of Lot is one example on how corrupt societies corrupt good people and bring down a community. Gay marriage and abortion are a threat to our culture and security. I voted to preserve the morale values of this country.
Howard, Chicago, USA'

I can't help wondering why that might have been.

In other election reflection, it seems appropriate here to note the energetic study of Steve Sailer, who, despite often criticizing the Prez., doubts whether Kerry was acccurately portrayed as having the higher I.Q. of the two men. Not that I'm a fan of the intelligence quotient system, but since they mentioned it first...

Finally, last but not at all least, the olympian (I mean his talent and achievements) Hugh Hewitt has written a terrific article about the Democrat defeat and what, in completing a phase of history that began in the sixties, it means for the future. His opinions are conciliatory and visionary, I'd say.

So much to say.

I'll begin by saying that Mark Steyn was right (phew!) about the US Presidential election.

More importantly, his thoughts about the Bin Laden tape are vital and fascinating. I posted about this earlier, and there are points of agreement.

Also, I think Steyn is at his best when he knows his audience is hostile- several of his Irish Times articles have had a degree of clarity and originality which even surprised as avid a consumer (sorry Mark- I'll pay you later) of Steyn's lines as I am.

On Osama-

'he seems to be repositioning himself from holy warrior to torpid 1950s pan-Arab secular nationalist.'

On the Left-

'if I were a Democrat, I would be deeply ashamed at the way my favourite talking-points have been taken up so enthusiastically by my country’s enemies. Not just My Pet Goat, but the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing. In the heat of partisan politics, the left has failed to understand that these are arguments that diminish not just their target but an entire political culture.'

On Osama's use of the Left (with acknowledgement to 'Aussie wag' Tim Blair)-

'“It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers.”

Ha-ha. It’s the way he tells ‘em. But Blair pointed out that, unlike Michael Moore, who just used the book’s title as a cheap gag at the President’s expense, Osama went to the trouble of mastering the plot. In My Pet Goat, the eponymous hero prevents his little friend’s dad’s car being stolen by butting the thieves. If you go down to a polling station tomorrow and talk to the anti-Bush crowd, you’ll notice that, despite having been doing the “Shrub sat there reading My Pet Goat for seven whole minutes!” cracks to like-minded chums for six months, your average leftie windbag hasn’t been motivated to find out anything about the book beyond the title.'

All of this, and Steynian punning genius, reducing Osama to the mere 'bin man', the purveyor of garbage- much like his 'familiar' Moore.

OoooK, this post has turned into a Mark Steyn appreciation moment. I have a lot of thoughts about the BBC just now, too, but they'll have to wait. I should also say, while I'm here, a big thank you to Mark for all his wonderful columns. I'll have to revive my letter writing habits and tell him more directly.

I think that when you listen into French radio the day after the night before a US election result (as I did), and find the presenters' tones sombre, their subject 'stability' and their prognosis an uncomfortable time for M Chirac, you know it's been a good night for GWB.

Update:

Meanwhile...

An Indymedia guy reflects on the outcome:

'Personally, I played my bongos at many rallies to defeat Bush. I had some phat beats going sometimes for hours, I really gave it my all.

How could this happen?'

...And, by the way, I love the BBC's graphic dept.

Another Way:

After reading the Moore/Bin Laden tripe mentioned in the post below (which is unfortunately somewhat necessary reading) I was refreshed by reflecting on this analysis from Amir Taheri. Kind of a different way of seeing the Bush Admin., I think you'd have to say.

Here it is:

That Democratic election broadcast transcript in full- via LGF, who else?

I recommend that you read it all, for the light it casts on the Michael Moore, sorry, Bin Laden mentality, and especially how he seeks to understand America. It's vastly more informative than the excerpts we've received from the press, which leads me to think that though they can't formulate an original idea to save their lives they know dynamite when it's thrown at them.

It's interesting how much Bin Laden has an eye for economics. It's interesting how much he taps into the thinking of Western liberals to critique the allegedly blind leadership of the shrub- he even cites the Royal Institute of International Affairs as a source for the boast that Al Qaeda's wisdom surpasses that of the World's superpower. He seems to know all the 'right' people, including, infamously, the 'neutral' Robert Fisk.

In short, it's the best liberal critique of GWB that I've read, and it comes from one of the worst mass-murderers at large in the world today- and that, surely, shows the depths of depravity to which our Liberal intelligencia has sunk, when they can't outflank a jumped up murderer like Bin Laden, and instead become his helpmates.

And yes, I do pray that GWB succeeds in his re-election bid, big style.

As for Michael Moore, he's busy being himself, which has already proven more than helpful to Osama:

'There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)'

Right now, quickly, I endorse Bush, like Natalie, and for almost exactly the same reasons! And, like, neither of us can vote, anyway.

Yes, and I'm disgusted by Barabara Plett of the BBC- but then I'm disgusted by some of their audience, too.

So Mark Steyn was wrong and Osama is still alive: but why make a come back only to deliver such an easily ridiculed message? (hopefully it's the only surprise Al Qaeda will spring this election season).

UNscam: a true story

It's been a long time since I updated concerning the UN Oil for Fraud scandal, so this is not a bad point to take notice of, from a Wall Street Journal editorial:


'Saddam Hussein exploited the program to run the largest bribery scheme in the history of the world.

Yes, we mean that literally'

...

And for the doubters:

'It can't be stressed enough that both the Duelfer and Volcker investigations confirm that this global web of corruption is no mere allegation trumped up by Ahmed Chalabi and "neoconservatives," '

All of which contrasts rather starkly with the rather non-story about the missing explosives which our biased national broadcaster considered fit for their frontpage for several Kerry-pandering days.

Andrew Sullivan: Wrong about the War on Terror, wrong about Iraq, Bush, and gay marriage, and now... wrong about Hitchens endorsing Kerry. Actually, they still disagree, even about this, as Hitch makes clear in the Nation.

The Beatification of William:

Once again I am reminded of the BBC's boundless appetite for romanticising the Democratic challenge to President Bush. There's no doubt it takes two to tango, but the BBC is near contravening obscenity laws in the way it holds aloft the form of Clinton for the world to admire.

Adam Brookes writes that 'He makes good television and he generates copy.' as though that were a judgement beyond the BBC's control. I actually think that if there ever was an instance of an empty suit, Clinton might have been it.

Meanwhile they are running out of respectful terms for Kerry. This time they resort to 'lugubrious' to express the absence of personality in the stiff from Massachusetts.

Kerry, says Brookes, wants to show that he can bring the good times back:

'It was on Bill Clinton's watch, say the Democrats, that America was last in the black.'

Meanwhile Brookes has already coined his own view of the nineties- the 'roaring 90's'- which lends Kerry some extra credibility, and he doesn't take a moment to explain that what Clinton's 'watch' really meant was a passive if not prostrate (ahem) attitude to a growing terrorist threat. Oh well.

Oh well, all that remains is to insult the Repuglicans with some trademark BBC prejudice:

'The Republican Party - many of whose members retain a boundless loathing for Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary - put out a well-crafted sneer as Mr Clinton took to the stump.'

The BBC, you see, constructs articles, and indeed its whole coverage, with a scrupulous attention to fairness; while the Repugnicants spend all their time crafting their slime and sneer campaigns. I hope that's clear to all. Any questions?

Coming Through Loud and Clear

Charles Moore, often the dealer of ambiguous hands, comes up trumps in this article about the upcoming election:

'So who gains if Bush loses? The Labour Left, of course, and the political power of the European Union, the Guardian readers who have been writing magnificently counterproductive anti-Bush letters to the voters of Clark County, Ohio, and every twerp who says with a trembling lip that Mr Bush and Mr Blair have "blood on their hands"; not to mention every corrupt, undemocratic, "pragmatic" government in the Middle East that longs for a return to stasis. '

There's only one group he leaves out amidst some far more serious winners than those quoted above: the BBC. Marc at USS Neverdock has some words to say about them (some of them misspelt, but we all make mistakes- and mine are usually bigger than that!).

On the subject of Charles Moore and the BBC, I took this letter on Steyn's website as delivering a backswipe at the policies pursued by Moore during his time as Telegraph editor. Says George Warburton:

'RESTORE THE TELEGRAPH
My father read the Telegraph for most of his life. I started to read parts of it when I was about 13 years old, having been weened on The Childrens' Newspaper. Since the age of 20 I have read all of it every day (slight exaggeration).

I have enjoyed reading your column and was disgusted that your latest effort was censored. The DT was in the wrong hands for a number years, being at times an apologist for the paedophile tendency of the Roman church (and an enemy of the BBC for that reason, when there were so many other reasons). I had hoped that a change of ownership would bring a change of editorial control and a restoration of the values of the past but it has yet to happen. I live in hope.'


Interesting. I might even agree.

Meanwhile, Steyn himself, who has never been known for self-contradiction or pulling punches, is feeling the need to spell things out again:

'The war against the Islamists and the flu-shot business are really opposite sides of the same coin. I want Bush to win on Election Day because he's committed to this war and, as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon says, "the more committed we are to it, the shorter it will be.'' The longer it gets, the harder it will be, because it's a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By "demographic," I mean the Muslim world's high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By "economic," I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their shriveled post-Christian birth rates. By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.'

Belmont Club has a great post about the transnational dream that seems to motivate (does anything really motivate?) John Kerry. Choice quotation:

''One World' may be a goal, but a distant goal, comfortably arrived at in stages. Nothing will be missed. Nothing essential really. It will all happen so gradually as to be imperceptible, except to bigots, who are always noticing something.'

The Freedom of the Beeb

Imagine that these words, 'Turkey EU entry as big as 'D-Day'' had been highlighted from a speech by GWB. Imagine it reported on the BBC how 'some say' W betrays his insensitivity and historical ignorance. And then compare and contrast that imaginary scenario with this real case of BBC reportage, where Joska Fischer gets his free leftist pass and goes whistling on his way as a 'forthright' contributor might be expected to.

The world keeps on turning: BBC tries to de-halofy Bob Geldof because he's being all conservative nowadays. A painful media emasculation awaits, quote, 'Bob the gob'. Meanwhile, in a happier vein, Mark Steyn applauds the little bald guy who won the Aussie elections.

Surprises

I am in general a little absent from the internet, so I was under the impression that John Kerry was storming through on the inside track of the US Presidential race. Perhaps I should spend less time reading the BBC website when I do manage to check on the affairs of states. To my surprise, I learnt that Bush was still ahead according to poll averages .

Another surprise, but not an unexpected one if you follow my drift, was that John Howard had won the elections of Oz. Talking to an Aussie soldier who was on leave from Iraq, I found him well satisfied by that outcome. In fact, I have found several Iraq soldiers who have given better reasons for their actions in Iraq than you generally hear in the media.

This article from John O'Sullivan really illuminates the significance of victory down under.

As for Iraq, undoubtedly (contra BBC) a factor in the Aussie election, Michael Barone has an analysis of the Duelfer report and how it supported the action taken by the coalition. I always return to one word, 'composite', when I reflect on the case for the Iraq war. So far as I could tell people who were anti the war had only one word, 'immoral', which spawned the one refrain, 'wrong, wrong, wrong', whereas I had a word which meant composed of many parts- which Duelfer's report and Barone's argument illustrate.

For extra analysis of one component for that argument, the UN, Con Coughlin is on hand at the DT.

Finally, what little scan of the useful media would be complete without Mark Steyn. I just love the, er, chutzpah in his address to Irish readers:

'readers of this column may have gained the impression that George W Bush will win the Presidential election on November 2nd. If he doesn’t, I shall trouble readers of this newspaper no further.'

BBC laid back about the French

I just loved the introduction to this BBC article intended to cover French corruption over oil for food. Has a voice of accusation ever been more passive? :

'Allegations that French officials were offered bribes by Saddam Hussein are unverified, France has said.'

I note that even despite this passive tone, we do not get as far as hearing that French officials may have received bribes from Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, we are stumped by the question of who is going to do the verifying. The UN perhaps, as the only international forum with the legitimacy gained by having the likes of Sudan on board?

At the risk of being a little pedantic, I should point out that the part of the purpose of a passive sentence is to avoid describing the agent who is going to perform the verb. So, on the one hand we are informed that the French were allegedly propositioned by Saddam (not that they had any relationship that might have scrubbed two backs rather than one), while on the other the agency that is to verfiy those allegations is unclear. Why unclear? Well, the assumption will be, and is, that the US is the agency that is required to verify these allegations- yet the whole thrust of BBC coverage for months, years and God knows how long is that you can't trust the yanks (in recent terms just think of the 'debate raging' about 'intelligence failures' which the BBC has happily stoked).

Ok, this is just the opening salvo of an article which does its best to relieve the French of the need to answer any serious questions. It's enough to know where the BBC stands though, which is frightening.

In this context, this article by Glenn Reynolds, and this by Mark Steyn, are both relevant. Some details here- thanks to A Tangled Web.

Getting Smarter- that seems to be the case in the US Iraq operations when you read this excellent article by Austin Bay (It's about time I posted here, and this is one of those articles that are so well-framed it'd almost be rude not to).

The media-mandarin-monster complex

Weird title, huh? Well, perhaps you've come across the phrase 'military-industrial complex', a fairly old-hat saying, but nonetheless revived by anti-war types for the purpose of bashing the Halliburton-Cheney relationship.

I have a new phrase to talk about. It is the media-mandarin-monster complex, and I will explain it with the aid of a couple of links.

Powerline has a couple of fascinating posts on US foreign policy; focussing on the President and his attitude to the Jewish people, in one, and in the other focussing on the CIA's attempts to undermine the President.

Melanie Phillips meanwhile delivers magnificently in this piece entitled 'The Media War against the West.' She begins by dealing with the atitude of a mandarin at the Foreign office, who in the particular instance she cites comes across as unbelievably crude and almost, well, sleazy, in his rubbishing of Bush as 'conditioned' by the Jews.

She then goes on to lambast Justin Webb of the BBC (much as I have done) for his stupid and venal caricature that Bush 'would be displaying the appeal of the cowboy down the ages and a cowboy philosophy; that what he did well was stand his ground outside the saloon bar, but he didn’t react well when the shooting started'

How to make sense of all these strands? We have the CIA, the FCO, the BBC, and a thousand and one freelancers, all talking the language of parody and mockery to make points that are simply too obvious to command anyone's attention.

We often say that people have lost faith in democracy, that they no longer care who wins elections. Why is that? Isn't it more likely that the institutions by which we live have let us down than that the figures at the top of the pyramid of power have betrayed our trust? Everyone 'knows' GWB to some extent, and he is openly judged by self-proclaimed people. Who judges Mr Mandarin, Mr Media, or come to that, the monsters outside the 'West' who have been kept at arms length by the luck and sophistry of our media-mandarin complex?

Doom, gloom and the facts of the matter

I didn't mention Iyad Allawi's speech the other day. I already knew he was a very effective speaker so the impact he made wasn't a surprise.

Paul Reynolds' response is interesting. Unlike the US media, he had something to say about Allawi:

'There have been those who predicted that out of the chaos in Iraq, a strongman would emerge. History demonstrates that as well. Edmund Burke predicted the rise of a Napoleon Bonaparte when the French Revolution descended into anarchy.

In Iraq, it is not supposed to happen.'

Yeah, so Allawi makes an inspiring speech, an optimistic speech, and the next thing you know the BBC is mentioning him in the same breath as Napoleon (not a compliment- I'm just surprised they didn't mention Hitler).

Meanwhile Mark Steyn brilliantly castigated the US media for having nothing to say to Allawi- basically a complete lack of curiousity about the man who more than any perhaps holds the future of Iraq in the success of his Ministry.

Kerry, meanwhile, merely questioned Allawi's judgement as though he were the next big thing in Iraqi blogging.

Is a theme emerging here? Lack of curiosity, absurd analyses that seem wildly generalised, and a US presidential candidate happy to lecture his ally from the great height of his liberal judgement. Sounds like the liberal establishment right enough to me.

Thinking Through Iraq

I suppose I´ve been waiting for people to think seriously through what´s going on in Iraq, and what should be done about it (I prefer that to 'muddling through'). I would have done more myself but I have neither the experiences or the training to make that natural, so it´s great to find others doing it.

Ever since it became apparent the Sunni resistance wasn´t fading away it it seemed likely that someone, somewhere, had a real strategy, and that person or those persons, or that culture, wasn´t on our side.

Healing Iraq has a great post on the strategy of the terrorist-Sunni-Baathist alliance.

Arthur Chrenkoff, meanwhile, fills in another part of the equation- the reluctance of the Iraqi populace to make the effort to cooperate sufficiently with the reconstruction process to end the foolish and dangerous resistance.

I particularly like what he has to say about the effects of totalitarianism on the people subjugated:

'Nothing, however, in our generally safe and comfortable existence would helps us understand just how pervasively difficult, destructive and dispiriting the experience of life under a totalitarian regime is. For most of us, life in Saddam's Iraq would have been no more real than the Middle Earth of the colonial New England'